Talk:Don't Call Me Up

Genre

Would be grateful to hear other points of view as the song isn’t purely pop-sounding and there have been disagreements over intepretation of the source suggesting the song is of the "trop–pop" genre. The source said "'Don't Call Me Up' is a middle finger to a possessive ex, a declaration of independence committed against a flouro-soaked trop-pop background." The fact the "background" he is talking about is the music to the message he is describing, the song falls under the genre of "trop–pop" i.e. the same message could be rapped (making it a rap song) or over a reggae background (making it a reggae song). Samrp45 (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Samrp45: The Clash source actually refers to it as "a pop banger" with a "trop-pop background". This is not the same thing as "trop-pop" song and is WP:OR. The Line of Best Fit and The Fader have both explicitly called it a pop song/track as well. CoolMarc 19:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Coolmarc: Thanks for the reply. I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree. However I accept that the Clash source is the only one mentioning trop–pop so will leave it be. Maybe future sources can clarify further. Samrp45 (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Consensus for genre

The user @Coolmarc: believes we should use the website The Singles Jukebox saying the song is "tropical house" here, even though it cites critics' blogs as its source for genres. These critics are not experts and have not had their work published in reliable sources, but are either a) Having material they published via their blogs quoted on this website, or b) saying it directly to this website. Coolmarc believes this website is a continuation of Stylus Magazine, even though there is very little to suggest at this point this website has anywhere near the stature of that publication. Just because a critic is published elsewhere, does not mean everything they say on the Internet should then be quoted. Coolmarc, this is the place to discuss, not user talk pages. BRD applies to you, as you made a bold edit three hours ago by changing a source, and I removed it. Saying "go to RSN to prove this is an unreliable source" is not an excuse to continue reverting and disregard BRD. I'm starting this discussion for you, so you can get consensus from other users. If you really want, you can re-use Stereoboard. It's not that site that I'm calling into question. Ss112 16:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Ss112 I provided you with all the links and evidence on your talk page and you are pulling a blatant blind eye. Go read the Stylus Magazine Wiki article... the staff from Stylus carried on with The Singles Jukebox as a standalone website. Thomas Inskeep and Edward Okulicz who wrote reviews for Don't Call Me Up are former Stylus staff. They weren't "quoted" as you say by other reputable publications either, Katherine McAsaph frequently writes articles and reviews FOR Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, Time, same with Alfred Soto, Joshua Minsoo Kim they are all paid freelance journalists not random bloggers and their reviews for Don't Call Me Up weren't taken from their blogs either, they were written for The Singles Jukebox. CoolMarc 16:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not "pulling a blatant blind eye" to anything. That doesn't mean The Singles Jukebox has inherited notability just because it has staff from Stylus Magazine. In two edit summaries that you dismissed as me arguing, I provided two precedents: Anthony Fantano, who has written for notable publications, is not considered a reliable source when he self-publishes reviews on his own YouTube channel, theneedledrop. Similarly, the critic Piero Scaruffi, who was quoted on quite a number of album articles years ago, had most of these instances removed because the material was self-published even though he is still considered reliable when quoted by proven reliable publications. I just see a bunch of staff writers banding together and deciding they want to make their own spin-off project; in that sense it's still a blog, and a bunch of writers self-publishing. Their having written for notable publications in the past does not make everything they now decide to publish on the Internet reliable or notable. Nobody is disputing their credentials, so there's no need to keep stating what they've written for. WP:SPS states they have to basically be experts in their field before we can quote them, and I don't see any experts. Also, there is no need to ping me any more. This is not going to be an ongoing argument between you and I. BRD states that in order to make disputed changes you need consensus. Consensus cannot be established between one user who wants the change and one user who doesn't. You can start an RfC or whatever you wish. I'm not disputing that the song is tropical pop, I'm disputing the use of The Singles Jukebox. I'm out. Ss112 16:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It is a group blog; according to the about page, individuals in their staff have written for "Pitchfork, Spin, Witchsong, MTV and One Week One Band among others". Which would make it acceptable to cite those individuals; WP:SPS says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Notability is a requirement for the existence of an article, not for judging the reliability of a source. But alas, the opinion being cited--that of Iris Xie, who has no music-related credentials shown at her Twitter, which the blog links her name to--should not be included here, because she is not an established expert on the subject matter. Conclusion: Not reliable (in this case). Dan56 (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in Dan56. Katherine St Asaph and Alfred Soto who are freelance music journalists also describe the song as trop house as well though? Would their opinion in this case be unreliable? I have made a query at WP:RSN also. CoolMarc 19:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes! Sorry, I did not see the others. According to Pitchfork, "Katherine St. Asaph is a Pitchfork contributor since 2012. Her work has appeared in The Atlantic, Capital New York, The Guardian, MTV Hive, The Village Voice and other publications." But please remember to attribute the opinion to her in the text, as you should with those sources that called it "pop" (a writer for The Fader, I see). Aesthetic opinions on creative works can be diverse (WP:SUBJECTIVE), and better if not presented as fact but individually; "so and so called it a pop song, while this gal believed it was in the style of tropical house". Also, Asaph includes the genre in a critique ("Mabel’s steely performance elevates this rote trop-house"), so this quote would better suit the section on critical opinions. Dan56 (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The noticeboard discussion is at WP:RSN § The Singles Jukebox. — Newslinger talk 22:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Rap 'Lyrics'

Interesting that there is no discussion of the "lyrics" for the rap part. John (talk) 03:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, indeed! My daughter just observed that the rap lyrics sounds like Romanian and we were looking for them to clarify but nobody "speaks" about the rap part as if it doesn't even exist... It would be grate if somebody could clarify this rap part. Is it really in Romanian language? or what language is it and what's the meaning? 2A02:2F0F:7105:B700:C041:59C1:8DE2:4105 (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Swedish certification

Definately not 8,000,000 sales. Coachtripfan (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)