Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:03, 5 November 2017

Alternative music Stub‑class Mid‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Michael Stipe hates this song?

• I remember when I was much younger reading in a magazine somewhere that Michael Stipe loved this song, and called it a "stunning rock song" and that it was only released as a single because the label thought it would be a success. Unfortunately, "somewhere" is not a reliable source, so I want to see if I'm remembering correctly or not. JuJube 07:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't confirm it myself, but I've heard this is mentioned in the liner notes of the In Time greatest hits album. Can someone verify this and, if so, add it to the article? 75.91.48.243 (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rems.jpg

Image:Rems.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Genre

If you would like to say the sky is blue, knock yourself out. If you would like to say that every song by an alternative rock band is alternative rock, I've got a new wave album for you.

The standard for genres is to prefer reliable sources, accepting a consensus when the sources don't come right out and say "Blackened symphonic Viking death metal" and you absolutely must add it to the article to restore balance to the universe.

For this song, I'll start:

Yes, R.E.M. was an alternative rock band. If, however, they performed a straight ahead traditional performance of "The Star Spangled Banner" it would not be alternative rock. Heck, if they had wanted to, they could have broken out a calypso song like, apparently, "Hava Nagila". No, I do not consider "Stand" to obviously be an alternative rock song. I'd say, in fact, that it is obviously not alternative rock.

That's my opinion. I could be wrong. A reliable source or consensus won't convince me, but they'll shut me up. - SummerPhD 00:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I must have missed the fact that you're a musicologist. Oh yea, that's right, you're not! For now, "alt rock" is the best we have. Maybe the song technically isn't alt rock, but you are not a musicologist, and we can't go by your own personal definition. MTV, for example, refers to it as alt rock. Rolling Stone refers to it as alt rock. Type in "REM - Stand - Alternative Rock" on Google, you might be surprised what comes up. And btw, pop rock and jangle pop were also added as genres For now, until we can find a better more reliable source, "alt rock" is the best we have. Dpm12 (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't deny the song is poppy in nature. REM themselves intended for it to sound like 60s pop rock, reminiscent to The Archies and The Monkees. Which is why "pop rock" and "jangle pop" were among the genres I restored. And I never said "technically not alt rock", I said "maybe it is, maybe it isn't". Dpm12 (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the song technically isn't alt rock. Maybe it's poppy in nature. Great. Now that we've established a few things it might or might not be, let's get back to the article.

I propose that the sources identified above (allmusic, pitchfork) are sufficient to say the song is "pop" and/or "bubblegum pop". - SummerPhD 18:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I wouldnt go so far to call the song "bubblegum pop". Even those links don't call it that, they just say that the song sounds like bubblegum pop. For now, as a negotiation, let's just put pop rock in the infobox, I think we can both agree to that. I had a similar discussion of this type last year on the Losing My Religion article, by the way. A lot of you guys are way too technical. So, for now, we'll just keep alt rock out of the infobox until a decent source can be found. Dpm12 (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd say the sources come a hell of a lot closer to calling it bubblegum pop than pop rock. As a compromise, let's just say pop (with in-line cites to reliable sources that say that) and leave everything else out until reliable sources can be found. Then we can add what they say. - SummerPhD 00:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

From the amount of editing going on with the genre in the article, it would seem we settled this several times. I don't recall that happening.

Yes, I understand that you feel it is as obvious as the sky is blue that your opinions are correct, while mine are to be dismissed because I am not a musicologist and everyone other than you is way too technical. Yes, I understand that you feel your opinions will "stay up" until I find a reliable source saying they are not the genres (hmm... find a source that says this song is not "blackened Viking death metal"). And yes, there is what "we" will do "for now". Why? Because.

Yes, my search didn't look for any particular genres, just reliable sources discussing the song. Unfortunately, I found "poppiest", "bubblegummy pop song", "bubblegum", "pop urge"/"pop song"/"pop impulse", "bubble-gummy feel". You don't want to call it bubblegum pop, so you looked for (and found) "alternative rock" and "sunshine pop".

Yes, if I look specifically for sources calling it "bubblegum pop", I can find that:

• "Full of what R.E.M. themselves called big dumb bubblegum pop songs including the Doors-referencing 'Pop Song 89' and the eco-anthem 'Stand'..."
• "the tongue-in-cheek bubblegum pop of ‘Stand’ and ‘Pop Song 89’"
• "all three of the album’s bubblegum pop ditties (‘Pop Song ‘89’, ‘Stand’, ‘Get Up’) is a touch too sugary."
• "According to Stipe, the song was meant to be a bubblegum pop song compared to songs by The Monkees and The Archies."

Thoughts? - SummerPhD 23:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's long enough. I've added bubblegum pop. - SummerPhD 00:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

No, they do not say it "sounds like" or "resembles" bubblegum pop, they say R.E.M. called it bubblegum pop, that it is "tongue-in-cheek bubblegum pop", that Stipe said it was "meant to be a bubblegum pop song" and that it is one of "the album’s bubblegum pop ditties". - SummerPhD 02:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I added a description in the lede about the song as a tribute to bubblegum pop. Not to mention, the "Meaning" section contains this:

"Singer Michael Stipe has said of the song's origin that he and the other band members were discussing The Banana Splits, The Archies, The Monkees, and similar 1960s pop groups. "They threw these super bubblegummy songs at me, and I said, 'I'll raise you and see you one.' And I wrote the most inane lyrics that I could possibly write. Now, it was a very intentional thing to do that. I really like most of those songs, in fact." Guitarist Peter Buck described "Stand" as "without a doubt, the stupidest song we've ever written. That's not necessarily a bad thing though", comparing the song to "Louie Louie" by the Kingsmen in terms of 'stupid' lyrical content."

It's pretty well-established in the article that the song is a bubblegum pop tribute. Adding "bubblegum pop" as an actual genre in the infobox, especially with such overlinking, is ridiculous and unneccessary. Dpm12 (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you added. I also noticed what you deleted, now with another new reason that doesn't seem to fit. Originally, you supported your unsourced genres by saying they were obvious and I can't dispute them because you decided I am not a musicologist. After all, the unsourced genres were the best we could do and I hadn't provided a source saying the song isn't alternative rock. (How any of that supports your unsourced additions is an open question.)

So, I looked for sources, without trying to find specific genres. Everything I found said pop, with a number of very strong hints for "bubblegum pop".

No, you said, REM said it was supposed to "sound like" 60s pop rock.

I pointed back to the sources for pop with bubblegum as a question.

You suggested one of your unsourced genres as a "negotiation" over the sourced pop.

I suggested using the verifiable pop.

At this point, you abandoned the discussion, made the change you wanted and walked away. I asked a few questions, to no response. After waiting the better part of a week, I added bubblegum pop, siting sources.

You returned to remove bubblegum pop. You said you removed the "unnecessary citations" (mine, you left yours). You cited WP:OVERLINK which has nothing to do with the situation. Then you falsly said that "none of those links describe it as 'bubblegum pop', they say it SOUNDS like or RESEMBLES bubblegum pop." As noted, the links directly state it is bubblegum pop, in several reliable source, including those citing Stipe saying it was meant to be bubblegum pop (not "60s pop rock").

Now you've removed it again. Gosh, you added it to the text so clearly it shouldn't be in the genre field because, again, it is somehow overlinking (please quote the section of WP:OVERLINK you feel applies} and including the genre youv'e tried to remove for various reasons is "ridiculous and unneccessary".

I get that you don't like it being there. I get that you want your genres alone to be there. I get that everyone else is wrong and you should be able to decide what to include and what to reject. I get all of that and more. That doesn't change what the sources say. - SummerPhD

1. Michael Stipe on "Stand", MTV.com
2. Buck, Peter (2003). In Time: The Best of R.E.M. 1988–2003 (booklet). Warner Bros. Records. {{cite AV media notes}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

• Stub-Class Alternative music articles
• Mid-importance Alternative music articles
• WikiProject Alternative music articles
• Stub-Class song articles