Talk:Mixtape

Rapidly getting out of date

Much of this article seems anachronistic, and sometimes even trying to push certain topics.

"The CD-R disc is currently the most common medium for homemade mixes" - really? Still? Most computers are sold without optical drives these days. Surely the USB stick is more dominant now.

I'm also suspicious of the entire "ctape" section. There's no wiki article for it and Googling for that term doesn't turn up anything about mixtapes.

--David G (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• I am also suspicious of the "ctape" section; the grammar and syntax was off, and Google couldn't provide any information about what a ctape even is. Should this section possibly be removed? BandW2011 (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mixtape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061210001213/http://www.events-in-music.com:80/burnlist-mix-tapes.html to http://www.events-in-music.com/burnlist-mix-tapes.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Dubious

The statement in the article, that copyright owners have no recourse if infringing material is given away without profit, is simply not true (at least, not in the United States). Under US copyright law, the copyright owner can argue that their financial interests have been diminished by the very existence of the unauthorized copies. The law also recognizes that the infringer can receive non-financial benefit simply by using the material to advertise himself. Thus, copyright owners most certainly can take legal action against the infringer, and that action can result in the payment of damages to the copyright owner. The statement needs to be removed. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The statement in the article is definitely untrue. I'm removing it. Wendy Day and Deborah Mannis-Gardner discuss the issue in the following video for a couple of minutes : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GtC6z7dRjE&t=4m33s . Wirty Inc. (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

beginnings of mix tapes

Mix tapes were popular in the 1970s. The article indicates that they didn't become popular until the 1980s, but that just isn't so. The earliest I remember mix tapes being all-over-the-place popular was 1978, but I grew up in a small town in North Carolina. I imagine the mix tape phenomena happened even earlier in places more attuned to music than my small town in NC was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B0B5:57E6:7C8B:97E:C7AD:BA (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Two Concepts in One Article

I see this article as trying to combine two rather distinct concepts that share only a name. Mixtapes in the original sense have been replaced by playlists, and I would honestly argue that that conception could be merged into that page, because that's really what people were trying to do for each other previously but when everything was on one format. Perhaps a note at the top with a redirect if one comes to the "Mixtape" entry looking for this former conception.

Personally, I would like significantly more information about the current and future uses of the concept of a mixtape, which mostly seems to be an album that an artist wants to classify differently for whatever reason. I'm very curious why no one seems to talk about mixtapes when they can sometimes represent more of the artist's output than traditional albums, like 12 mixtapes to 5 albums or something. Thanks. 130.45.43.153 (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I have long meant to split this article because of this. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I have tried a few times to find out just what artists mean now when they call one thing an "album" and another thing a "mixtape" and I can't find anything that explains it. It does seem to me to be that a mixtape is a mixtape just because the artist decided to call it that and not because of any other criteria. Also, Kendrick Lamar put out something he called an "EP" despite it having 14 tracks and being over an hour long. It seems like what something is and what artists decide to call it might not be the same thing at all anymore. 159.2.34.252 (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

SELF ESTEEM 102.88.36.96 (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

"Mixrecord" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mixrecord has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 3 § Mixrecord until a consensus is reached. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 21:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Complete overhaul of the page

I've added lots new information to this wikipedia article about mixtapes. However, I still need help verifying the information during the mixtape era. Almost all of the article's stuff in the 1980s has no proper citation. Help would be great in verifying the information of some of these! BlondArkhangel (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mixtape/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: BlondArkhangel (talk · contribs) 06:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Leafy46 (talk · contribs) 19:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to quick-fail this nomination under criteria #1: "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria". A quick look through the article reveals a lot of uncited material, some of which I've gone ahead and marked with a template. The article also suffers from a lot of choppy wording (such as "By the early 2000s, mixtapes started changing by definition through hip-hop."), has a touch of synthesis (e.g. "mixtapes have evolved to allow artists to present music that could be considered eclectic or genre-blending" is not supported by a citation, but by an example), and seems to be incredibly US-centric without giving much view to non-American (or, indeed, non-Western) adoption of mixtapes: the only artist mentioned who is not American is Drake.

I'd suggest fleshing out some sections a bit more (specifically adding more details to the "History" section and expanding the "Release and marketing" section to mention physical release of mixtapes), re-structuring the article using one like Bootleg recording as an example (e.g. possibly merging "Current trends" into the History section), making sure that everything is cited properly, and giving the article a good copyedit (or sending it through peer review). Given that you're a newer editor, I'd also suggest reaching out to a more-experienced one on broader music topics like this one, and to keep practicing writing. Good luck with the article, and feel free to re-nominate once you feel everything is up to snuff! And do let me know if I've been too harsh, as this is my first GA review, after all.

Mixtapes being inconsistently referred to as albums by reputable media outlets

"Mixtapes also have been inconsistently referred to as albums by reputable media outlets such as Pitchfork, Rolling Stone and Complex. This has caused notable confusion on the differences between an album and a mixtape."

Hi I am going to edit this part of the article out for now. The reason is that the citations are not to articles about reputable media outlets inconsistently referring to albums but to perhaps instances of this happening. This is different. I think we'd need to have an article about this happening as a source, not it happening as a source. The subsequent line "This has caused notable confusion on the differences between an album and a mixtape." does not refer to how "reputable media outlets" being inconsistent lead to the confusion. Instead they are articles about how there is confusion between the two and they are attempts to describe their differences.

From my cursory look at examples, dictionary.com in an article on the difference between album and mixtape that "That being said, the line between an album and a mixtape can be blurry" The definition in Merriam Webster says "an album that is usually recorded and distributed without the involvement of a record label"

It makes sense that Merriam-Webster is lagging behind a bit, but in my mind the usage and the intention matter but we should have a definition from somewhere to explain the two. Some sources want to distinguish that album and mixtape are different, whereas some are saying mixtape is a type of album. https://www.dictionary.com/e/mixtape-vs-album/ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mixtape Hockeydogpizzapup (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Mixtapes also have been inconsistently referred to as albums by reputable media outlets such as Pitchfork, Rolling Stone and Complex. This has caused notable confusion on the differences between an album and a mixtape.

References

unwarranted hiphop emphasis

people with various musical tastes, interests recorded their own musical compilations for themselves - and shared with friends - when affordable cassette decks and blank cassette tapes became widely available, music fans could record favorite parts of albums, as well as radio programs; role of hip hop seems grossly exaggerated Doug Grinbergs (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

P.S. one form of mixtape could also include elements of live concert recordings, like DeadHeads' Grateful Dead show tapes Doug Grinbergs (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

You should definitely add these elements to the article if you can! The reason why there seems to be so much emphasis with hip-hop is because mixtapes originated from hip-hop culture and are mostly prevalent (and relevant) in hip-hop culture today. And because of that there are way more sources about mixtapes, but through the lens of hip-hop. If you can find abundant sources about mixtapes that aren't hip-hop related definitely add them! BlondArkhangel (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

That's total BS. My white butt and my white friends in 80s white suburban America made mixtapes all the time. Black people did not invent the act of recording various different tracks from various cassettes and off the radio to another blank cassette to make a mix. ~2025-35017-68 (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

A huge issue of why there is not much information for mixtapes as what you define them as is because much of that information is hard to verify as a source. And Wikipedia's guideline is that there has to be sources and no original research, so unless you have books talking about mixtapes, it is very hard to find sources online about mixtapes besides hiphop-hop ones.

Also, I had put a lot more information about mixtapes in the 80's/90's but it seems like over time people deleted that information for either clarity or because the source was questionable.

If you come across any non hip-hop related mixtape research, please edit the page to include it. BlondArkhangel (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I second this, in the 80s and 90s my friends and I made mixtapes for each other all the time. It had nothing to do with hip hop. I don't know what was happening in the cities with the hip hop communities at this time, but I know people around the world that had no connection to hip hop were making mixtapes. Even when I started to incorporate the occasional hip hop track into my mixes in the late 90s and the early 00s cd-r era, these mixes spanned genres and would have never been considered centered around hip hop. All of this is completely disregarded by this page.

While I understand the modern use of the term by hip hop artists has replaced the older use of the term which was basically something that no longer happened. A modern mixtape is its own thing and it is hip hop centric. But to even frame the HISTORY of mixtapes around hip hop too? That's just myopic and blackwashing the majority of people who have made mixtapes in their teenage years.

With the death of physical media came the death of the original mixtape. Digital playlists were just called playlists, or just a "mix" or a DJ set. But the origin of the mixtape is definitely not exclusive to hip hop artists. Teens and kids throughout the suburbs made mixtapes. You would make a mixtape to impress a friend or a girl you liked. You would make one for your boyfriend or for your sister who went off to college.

This article completely ignores that history and supplants it with hip hop. As I read this, I felt like part of my teenage years were wiped away as a false memory. ~2025-35017-68 (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

AI

Flagged one section for AI user as the editor has made several such edits around this time, primarily needs fact-check and source-to-text verification fixes Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Restored the tag after it was removed by the same user. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I verify all my edits for accuracy as it takes a lot of time and energy to make these edits. AI was not used to conduct any research on scene group releases. All releases are publicly released and mirrored by various pre release databases and have been since the 90s. Many groups contributed to the scene since the 90s and adding a tag suggesting "AI" may be hallucinating the verified releases is nonsensical and diminishes their contributions. Honestly, it is also very demoralizing for Wikipedia contributors who are editing pages with care. Catalogers (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't matter, it is prohibited by the WP:NOLLM guideline and there is no carveout for "verifying for accuracy" or anything. The language in the tag is the same anywhere it is used. The purpose of the tag is reader disclosure and, to some extent, to make them aware of the problems with LLM-generated text in general. It doesn't specifically say that this article (or your edits) contains hallucinations, but that such text "may include" those problems.

As long as there is AI-generated text in the article/section, the tag should remain. If you don't like the tag, you should not add AI-generated text. You should also know that this is a fairly common reason for people to get blocked from the English Wikipedia, and I am worried that you might be blocked if you continue. Please just stop using LLMs on Wikipedia. ‑‑gurkubondinn 00:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually it does matter as I am human. And the rule you cited also says:

"Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest . basic copyedits to their own writing, and to incorporate some of them after human review, provided the LLM does not introduce content of its own."

and

"The writing style of some editors may appear similar to the output of LLMs, meaning that the imposition of sanctions requires evidence beyond basic stylistic or linguistic indications. When evaluating possible LLM use, it is best to consider the full pattern of the editor's recent edits and whether the edits comply with core content policies."

So what’s the evidence? You just threatened to block me without presenting the required evidence of rule breaking which is alarming. Also, I didn’t dispute the unwarranted “mass reverts" on Newcomer tasks either. But now, I can’t even fix the nonsensical flag placed because of “suspected AI use.” This is only hurting the community without extending any good faith to new users, again, very, demoralizing. A pattern of this can lead to users ceasing to make edits out of fear. I guess we have to wait for a user who behaves "normal" and does the basic 2 minutes of research to fix the flag. A flag essentially suggesting 'piracy does not exist'. Catalogers (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad that you're human, I am one too. I didn't think that you weren't, I'm just telling you that you aren't allowed to use LLMs on the English Wikipedia. The operative word in the current phrasing of the guideline is "suggest", and the rule of thumb is that if can tell that you used an LLM then it isn't "basic copyediting". There is an open RfC for that specific phrasing going on right now (you are welcome to participate), and it is very likely to change in a few days to make it less confusing. The examples that are given are basically punctuation and spelling, which a regular spell checker does a better job with anyway. Newbies must also follow the guidelines, but we don't want to demoralise anyone, hence why I am doing my best to constructively explain this guideline to you. The best thing that you can is to simply stop using LLMs, it will make you a better writer anyway. ‑‑gurkubondinn 01:48, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

And I have not "threatened to block" you. This is also self evident because I don't have the permissions to enact blocks. I am warning you that if you continue using LLMs then you may be blocked (by someone else), because this happens frequently and I don't want to happen to you. If you don't believe me, just check the latest threads on the WP:AIN noticeboard. There's also abundant examples on WP:ANI every single day, and quite a few have even spilled over onto my own talk page lately. Because I don't want this to happen with you (or anyone), I am taking the time to explain this and giving you the friendly advice to stop, so that it doesn't happen happen to you. ‑‑gurkubondinn 01:53, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Mixtapes were traditionally self-made NOT commercial

Mix tapes were widely, historically a means of people sharing curated, "free" music amongst themselves. If it's produced by an artist or label, they can call it a mixtape, but that is not the historical context. That's just a cassette tape of their music. Live recordings are also NOT mixtapes, they are live recordings. There is a long history of cassette tapes of live recordings, anything from hip-hop to the Grateful Dead, which can be traded & coveted, but they are not mixtapes. ~2026-41945-38 (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)