Jump to content

Talk:Jangle pop/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Comments from 2006

Hey... read the jangle pop article. Small. Very small. Which is fine... except REM wasn't the first jangle pop band, nor was it an American genre. For example, The Church, an Australian band, started out as a jangle pop band. Their first album, Of Skins and Heart, was released a year before REM's first EP (and their first single was released a year and a half before REM's first EP). Many other examples, but that's enough to prove the article invalid. Tis all... thanks.

Agreed, this barely scratches the surface of jangly pop bands...

Shouldn't The Smiths be wiht R.E.M. and the other bands on this? They are rather jangly (ex. THis Charming Man)69.249.46.86 00:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This article says that jangle pop was primarily a southern and midwestern phenomenon and I question this. For starters, I have listed two bands from Boston, Mass. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sderoski (talk • contribs).

The Feelies were from New Jersey. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.197.126.242 (talk • contribs).

I certainly think that The Sundays deserve a mention.

Pretenders

Should the Pretenders be on this page? When reading the article they definitely came to mind.

Sources??

Without sources I'd say this article should be deleted. It's been tagged since March. Anyone feel like improving it? --John 19:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I vote delete. I consider myself fairly knowledgeable musically, esp. about some of the bands listed here, and I've never in my 45 years heard the term "Jangle pop" used to describe any of them. I don't believe there's any such recognized or recognizable genre. This is an invented sub-sub-sub-genre. It's completely meaningless. Someone cite a single, credible source using this term, please, or else this article has to go. (BTW, Pylon never jangled.)Cloonmore 00:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5483799 using the term "jangly pop," which is what I call it, not "jangle pop." National Public Radio is a serious source. I think the article needs a lot of improvement (the dominance of the Gin Blossoms in this style in the 1990's is not even mentioned), but I vote not to delete. It provides the basis for future improvement. -Larry Siegel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.252.238 (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?q=jangle+pop it's a category on Amazon. The term "Jangle" has been used for at least 20 years. I believe I first heard it referring to the Bangles. It's a well-established term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petchboo (talk • contribs) 13:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The Jam

Is The Jam considered a jangle pop band? They are definitely a power pop band, but I always thought they were considered mod revival. 99.172.71.185 (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Jam aren't remotely jangle pop. At least there are no sources that have ever, to my knowledge, thrown them into this category. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The Smiths

Shoving The Smiths into a list of (mostly) US 'college rock' bands is lazy & spurious. Sure they jangle, and a few sources have maybe classified their music as pop (because it has sold in the millions), but they have proven far more important and influential than any other act on this article's page, with the exception of the Byrds and REM. If I had more time I'd do a paragraph on The Smiths - certainly, having influenced the entire Britpop movement a decade later, they need honorable mention. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would include The Smiths--but that's based on my personal experience, I knew them basically as a college/art/cult band (and I am not, personally, a fan). However, what I personally think isn't the question: Shouldn't the point here be what recognized critics and reviewers say about the topic, not our own personal opinions? There is no doubt that "jangle pop" existed and exists as a significant genre. The genre is intelligently discussed in the little Allmusic essay that is cited (incorrectly?) in the current text. The Allmusic list of jangle bands (I hope this link works: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:2692~T10 ) doesn't include The Smiths. Nor does the word "jangle" appear in the Allmusic essay on The Smiths ( http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:kifyxqr5ld0e~T00 ) although there's mention of their connections to R.E.M. and other relevant bands, and they ARE categorized as a "college" band. This is not, of course, the end of the matter, if some other recognized authorities do make the connection--but I don't quickly find such a cite. So despite my own personal opinion, I'd have to agree to omit them from the "jangle" article unless and until citable contrary opinion shows up. More to the point, this article is rather light on sources and since the genre is a lovely one, it would be nice if we could all come up with some more.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this: although The Smiths surely jangle, and despite remaining popular long after their 1987 demise (if this denotes pop), I don't think that the band belong in this category. If this is disputed by anyone, then at the very least The Smiths should warrant their own mention outside a mound of US college acts. At least in the UK, The Smiths were actually an 80s phenomenon whose influence continues to this day, according to sources. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Folk rock

Folk rock should quite obviously be included in Stylistic origins. As the folk rock work of The Beatles and The Byrds is fundamental to the genre, as stated in the opening of the article itself. Jakeb (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Here are a couple of critical sources from a quick Google search that support the linkage.[1][2] --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Pile of nonsense

I was a British NME teenager in the 80's but before today I have never heard the term "Jangle Pop". I therefore don't know where to start with this article as it seems to be made up of opinions that have popped out of someone's head. Not a lot makes sense and I can't see how "Indie" can be a derivative of "Jangle" when bands were known as Indie from the late 70's on and the term covers a multitude of styles from Joseph K to Primal Scream.

I would therefore suggest that if someone with citations has the time,that this article should be taken outside and given humane death and you start again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.203.25 (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

jangle pop, a genre of alternative rock?

how is it that jangle pop is a genre of alternative rock? it should be a genre of either rock or pop music. For ex: the beatles song, 'words of love' is labelled as jangle pop. Does that mean the beatles are alternative? No, they are rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.53.109 (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

A misunderstanding here. The Beatles were not jangle pop, which was a genre that attempted to recreated their (and other bands of the 60s) sounds in the 80s. They are just a source. In the same way British musicians trying to recreate the sound of Muddy Waters in the 60s didn't make him Blues rock. I think the article is actually pretty clear about this.--SabreBD (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That was the heyday of a lot of poppy alt rock bands like Hootie & the Blowfish, the Gin Blossoms, Blessid Union of Souls, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.218.17 (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Dreadful sources, garbage page.

This is an embarrassment, most of the references are to articles on about.com, blogs like Thoughtco or AllMusic, which I believe is UGC.

Frankly I believe the page should be removed. If there are are no authoritative or credible source even as a seed then the page is worthless. I agree with the above commenter who points out that while "jangly" has been an adjective applied to certain types guitar sound for decades, "Jangle Pop" as a distinct genre seems to be a recent invention, possibly even prompted by the creation of this page. Applying it to bands of the past is anachronistic.92.25.59.213 (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no view on the merits or lack thereof regarding this article, and nor do I wish to discuss it. However, the sources used in the article are mostly fine. Allmusic, in particular, does not feature user generated material for its articles and reviews (unless specifically listed under "user reviews"), and is widely used on Wikipedia music articles. Paste magazine and The Daily Gazette too are both reliable sources. Consensus about About.com/ThoughtCo is usually evaluated guide-by-guide and article-by-article; in this case, I would think Steve Peake is probably pretty reliable, given his history of writing for a number of publications and websites on '80s guitar music. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Nope the sources are terrible. About.com and Thoughtco are just content farms and whoever Steve Peake is he has no profile outside publishing for these sorts of sites, regardless if he considers himself an expert on the "genre". Wikipedia has specific warnings against Allmusic regarding genre, and hilariously, the Allmusic.com entry itself on "jangle pop" which is used as a source here seems in fact to have been plagiarised from an earlier unsourced version of this page. x
The AllMusic page, which first seems to have been posted around 2004 (there's no evidence of it prior to then on the wayback machine) is thus "Jangle Pop was an American post-punk movement of the mid-'80s that marked a return to the chiming guitars and pop melodies of the '60s. Sparked by the arrival of R.E.M., jangle pop also had some folk-rock overtones, but it was essentially a pop-based format. [...] Jangle pop was primarily a southern and midwestern US phenomenon, though a group of bands called the [[Paisley Underground][ led a more psychedelic movement on the West Coast." While the very first wikipedia entry on this reads published in 2003 reads "Jangle pop was an American musical genre that arose in the middle of the 1980s, combining angular, chiming guitars and power pop structures. The first and most famous jangle pop band was R.E.M., who eventually became one of the biggest bands in the world [...] Jangle pop was a major force between 1984 and 1987 -- not only were there Southern-pop bands like R.E.M. and Let's Active, there were the Paisley Underground bands on the West Coast who were more psychedelic".
Similarly a blogcritics article that was posted in 2005, since removed, but available via the wayback machine also contains lines that are direct lifts from earlier editions of the page, again the signature line "Jangle Pop was a mostly American post-punk movement of the mid-'80s that marked a return to the chiming guitars and pop melodies of the '60s.
This seems to be an example of wikipedia "citogenesis" - https://xkcd.com/978/ Verlaine76 (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Just took the time to check Steve Peake's status amongst other wikipedians and found the following page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources/About.com_Critics_Table
"[Critic] Steve Peake - [Genre] 80s music - [Reliable?] No - [Reasoning] Unable to find any information regarding any other professional work." Verlaine76 (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Ahem, but Citation needed, and that barely improves things. With all due respect "don't quote me on this" means "I don't know if this is true and don't want to take responsibility for it if it's not, but let's just pretend it is". Even if it is the case, basically it means that AllMusic (or rather one of its writers) invented the genre in 2001 and then retrospective applied it to the 1980s, and then Wikpedia editors stretched it back to the 1960s. If so the article should be rewritten to reflect that.
"Heavy Metal" was a term invented in the late 60s and in widespread use by the early 70s, "Punk Rock" has been shown to have been used years before Nevermind the Bollocks was released, from fans to journalists to my parents, everyone was calling Nirvana and all the related bands "Grunge" pretty much as soon as they broke big. But I'd be amazed if you can find sources that were applying the term "Jangle Pop" or "Jangle Rock" to anything other than in the most arbitrary, isolated and ephemeral context before this article was first posted. And some of the sources here don't even use the term "Jangle Pop" but just describe a guitar sound, a band or specific songs as "jangly".
I'd recommend deleting all references to About.com and Thoughtco by Steve Peake as, despite being, with Steve LaBate, the most referenced writer on this page, he's considered by Wikipedia to be an unreliable source (see above), as well as the AllMusic sources as they can't be demonstrated to have existed before the wikipedia article existed, If they can, you have to ask is a single uncredited two paragraph entry on a website really be considered authoritative?
The Steve LaBate article which is just an unsourced listicle, whose text is only 260 words long, yet is reference 6 times, and also looks to have cribbed a lot from the existing wikipedia article of the time (Similar lists of bands, the same references to "Chiming 12 string Rickenbackers", the roots being in the 60s and a resurgence in the 80s, etc). The Popmatters article is just a passing reference in a review, and while might demonstrate current usage, is just have likely to have been inspired by the existence of this article. The Kocher article (which just seems to be a small local blog) gives a general overview of the use of the Rickenbacker guitars but again makes no specific reference to "jangle pop". It mentions specific genres and styles (Mersey Beat, Folk Rock, Power Pop, Psychedelia, Garage Rock, even in passing, Prog Rock) but never "Jangle Pop", using "jangling" a mere once in the article as an adjective for the guitar sound (Do we now create a genre called "Twang Rock" for every player associated with a Telecaster or a Gretsch, or "Fat Rock" for every band whose guitarist who straps on a Les Paul?) Someone needs to check if the Unterberger book makes any reference to Jangle pop, I suspect not, that it merely asserts the influence of The Byrds and their "jangling Rickenbacker sound" beyond Folk Rock, which is all the entry does here.
Of course by that time you're almost out of useful sources. I've no doubt you can find references to "jangle pop" or "Jangly Rock" back through the last 60 years of music criticism, but any attempt to place it as a coherent genre, and a term consistently applied to a set of bands as a definition with criteria other than "60s Influenced", "doesn't use distortion", and "might own a Rickenbacker" is an ad hoc creation and a spurious anachronism. Verlaine76 (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Although I have to say that just because AllMusic's description of the subject resembles what the Wikipedia article said doesn't necessarily mean AllMusic is wrong, or getting their info from Wikipedia. I was able to find references to "jangle-pop" in some '90s music magazines... ILTP (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Logical fallacy dude, I can't prove a negative, and you definitely can't use "doesn't necessarily mean Allmusic is wrong" to imply a positive. If you say "I was able to find references to "jangle-pop" in some '90s music magazines..." then by all means cite them. But they really need to do better than just use "jangle" as an adjective and pop as a catchall term. As I said earlier, compare this to the pages for Grunge, Heavy Metal or Punk Rock which give clear sources for the origins of the terms. Even a term as nebulous and temporary as Brit-pop has a generally accepted point of origin and was in ubiquitous use in the mid 90s. However the most consistent cited origin for the term, Stuart Maconie who claimed to have coined the term in reviews for the NME, is often desputed on WP because his (published) claims aren't considered reliable enough, despite the fact that no-one's seriously challenged his claim. Well his claim, for whatever it's worth is considerably more reliable that ANYTHING on this page.
Frankly I think this page is currently a good candidate for deletion as it basically is down to five sources pretty poor sources. The Labate article reads like a rewrite of earlier versions of this wiki page by a writer on a tight deadline, as I established in earlier. It's a 250 word lede for a listicle but is referenced six times, and so this currently this article has conjoured a whole genre out of one journo saying "hey, all these bands use a similar guitar sound/style". Ironically the opening of this article now largely plagiarises the Labate article. Two more articles just use the term as a passing reference in reviews of rather obscure bands, and again are sources that existed long after this page and the term Jangle Pop started spreading through wikipedia. None of them read as properly researched or authoritative, and I don't think they're meant to be. Of the other two, one (Kocher) doesn't use the term "Jangle-pop" at all and is actually about guitars, and the other (Unterberger) probably doesn't and isn't used in that way as a source either, but is largely used just to shoe horn the Byrds into the article, despite the fact that the Byrds' music belongs to clearly established genres of Folk Rock, Country Rock and Psychedelia.
This article is on life support, and really needs the plug pulled.Verlaine76 (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@Verlaine76: You can query "jangle pop" on Google Books to find older references to the term. Here's one from 1997 and another from 1996. When people use the term they're really just talking about pop-rock with a lot of top end and maybe some arpeggiated guitar. It's funny how you think "folk rock" is a "clearly established genre" just because it has more literature focused on the subject. I wonder if you could name the musical elements of "folk music", let alone folk rock?
There is undeniably a distinct stylistic line running through the Beatles' "What You're Doing", Jackie DeShannon's "When You Walk into the Room" and the Byrds' "Turn Turn Turn". And it's not folk rock, country rock, or psychedelia. With respect to the speciousness of "jangle pop", it's hardly Vaporwave, Neon pop-punk, or Lowercase. There are enough invocations of "jangle pop" in the media to justify an article, even if it's a short one, and even if there's only one or two sources that go in-depth. ILTP (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I've looked at these sources and they're exactly what I predicted what they would be, they've just used "jangle-pop" as a quick descriptor, applying it to specific songs or dissimilar bands. Somehow The Sundays and REM are the same genre just because one journo thinks they sound similar. There's not discussion in ANY of these articles about how the "term" came about, what links these bands other than "60s influence" and "clean jangly guitars". One is a brief mention in a concerts listing page. The other is six mentions (with the three examples given being passing mentions) in a supposed "Guide to 90s rock". Well, if jangle pop is a genre that encompasses everything from the Beatles, via the Byrds, Tom Petty, and REM right up to The Bare Naked Ladies, you'd think it would get more than six mentions, seeing as somehow it seems to be one of the most widespread, divergent and resilient genres in pop music history, especially as major supposed "jangle-pop" acts like REM, The Cranberries and Tom Petty were huge in the 90s. I wonder how often Grunge, Britpop or Rave are mentioned in the same book? [Edit - answer: 21 for Rave, 51 for Grunge and 24 for "Britpop" and "Brit-pop" combined as the author jumps between the two.] Verlaine76 (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Some genres are more niche than others. There isn't a lot of literature focused on jangle because there weren't really any big jangle artists other than Byrds, the Smiths, R.E.M., a few one-hit wonders, and a bunch more "cult favorites". Even though jangle has a lot of overlap with indie rock, power pop, and folk rock, there's just not a lot to write about if you try to distinguish it from any of those movements. ILTP (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing to write, it's a descriptor not a genre, little more than a catch phrase. The only book that seems to exist on the genre is basically a vanity published compilation of public domain internet articles, possible algorithmically generated. So I concur with the decision to shift to "jangle" as a subject and have cleaned up accordingly. As for Niche, well previous versions of this article and the rather unreliable sources previously (and in some cases currently) used tried to tie in a number of the biggest bands in the world, such as The Who, the Beach Boys, Simon and Garfunkel, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, etc into the genre, so minds needed to be made up. Without proper, reliable, historical primary and secondary sources on the origins, use and development of the genre, beyond a occasional offhand, sporadic uses as shorthand by a few journos, it needed to go.Verlaine76 (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
"There's nothing to write" — actually there's everything to write, as indicated on this talk page. You just seem to have a hard time accepting that it's possible to find a reasonable degree of consistency with how the descriptor is usually applied. Bannister has offered an excellent definition of jangle, one which rings true (pun intended). ILTP (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Not for "jangle pop" dude, it's not anywhere other than a few listicles and passing mentions. There's no history, no etymology or anything that you can point to, as a description it's used occasionally and inconsistently. I was OK with "jangle" a generic term but you're the one taking reference to a guitar sound and pretending that there's any evidence that it's a coherent genre supported by anything other than rubbish informal sources. You keep shoe-horning "Jangle Pop" in and pointing to sources that don't mention even it. There's only the bloody LaBate listicle and a couple of reviews! Bannister doesn't mention "Jangle POP" does he. You keep going back to that LaBate listicle, so I think we need to get some sort of independent adjudication on if that is an acceptable source. It's now referenced eight times (from 260 words) when really it's just a preamble to a list of some of the writer's favourite songs. Also you've thrown in a bunch of books with NO quotations to establish the argument they're trying to make there's just sitting there with no page reference, no quoted comments despite the fact that they're not available online for anyone to make an assessment of if your use is correct. When citing from books you should cite page numbers and quote from them, not just a link to a review on Google Books. If this were a first year student paper such practice would get a paper failed.
Please have a look at this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_incidents and be aware that this is precisely what you're engaged in right now, I'm trying to work with you to save this page from, that. If you want a series of articles repeatedly doubling down on the fact that people associate jangle with Rickenbackers, 12 strings in particular, great, but it looks like you cribbed a bunch of resources from the 12 string guitar page on electric guitars, which, guess what, I largely wrote! In one instance you're cramming the Bannister source in next to stuff about the 60s when he writes specifically about the 80s, you cite him saying that the style is suited to bands with a single guitarist right before talking about the Beatles, that's just embarrassing. You cite articles such as Ruhlmann's that is about folk rock, but doesn't mention "jangle", Rickenbackers or 12 strings at all, and is just padding and a diversion. You've reused in sources that I had already established were poor or off topic and are ruining this page, making a general incoherent mess of it.Verlaine76 (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
1) Your argument is that Wikipedia invented "jangle-pop" when it's already been demonstrated that the descriptor has existed since at least the early 1980s. It doesn't take an ethnomusicologist to deduce that the Byrds-influenced bands got called "jangle" because they sound like that one Byrds song that mentions "jangle". Just from that one indisputable fact, we can conclude that "jangle" must refer to Roger McGuinn's guitar sound, since there's nothing else in the recording that could reasonably fit that onomatopoeia. The question of what defines "jangle" can then be answered by simply researching how McGuinn got his sound. He used a Rickenbacker 12-string, he used compression, he strummed and finger-picked, he played with a lot of treble, he used drone ...
2) The Labate source isn't ideal, but it's better than nothing for establishing some basic context. It doesn't even contain any inaccuracies or falsehoods, so why fuss about it?
3) Bannister does not distinguish between "1980s jangle" and "1960s jangle", if there is such a thing.
4) Every book is cited to the page, if you look closely.
5) Rickenbackers are relevant to the topic. If you think they aren't, then place specify the other makes of electric 12-strings that McGuinn and Harrison used between 1964 and 1965. There are innumerable sources that associate the Rickenbacker 360/12 to jangly sounds (or otherwise referred to by some variation of "Roger McGuinn's guitar sound"). Look for yourself:
https://www.google.com/search?q="rickenbacker"+"jangle"&tbm=nws
https://www.google.com/search?q="rickenbacker"+"jangle"&tbm=bks
6) If you think references to jangle pop are inappropriate for an article about jangle, then do you also believe that the article for Rock music should erase all references to Rock and roll?
7) Why are we pretending that "jangle pop" and "jangle" are totally different subjects? The only difference between the two is that "jangle" almost always suggests a pop context, whereas "jangle-pop" always suggests a pop context. Are these hairs really worth splitting? Or should we take them further and distinguish between "jangle" and "jingle-jangle"?
8) Why are you talking about "shoehorning" unsupported claims when you've done exactly the same by adding a ridiculous " ... usually credited to ... " pseudo-disclaimer in the middle of the sentence about "Mr. Tambourine Man" coining the term? ILTP (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
1) I have no problem with it being a descriptor, but it's not an established defined genre. You keep jumping from one thing to another as if they are the same thing when they are not. No one seriously talks about "fuzz rock" (until I guess someone makes a wiki page on it) even though fuzz is central to rock from the 60s on. No one talks about "power chord rock" even though numerous genres (punk, metal, Rock n roll amongst others) and founded on the use of power chords. Does any book on rock and pop has an entry on "jangle pop" even if the term is scattered infrequently in their pages? No notable musician or critic has ever expanded at length on it as a genre, or either included them self or distanced themselves from the genre other that in one review of an incredibly obscure band in a brief mention a couple of years ago. It doesn't take an ethnomusicologist to deduce that the Byrds-influenced bands got called "jangle" because they sound like that one Byrds song that mentions "jangle". Um, yes it does for an encyclopaedia entry, otherwise, if it's something you've deduced it's original research. You're starting from an assumption and then desperately looking for sources to back that up. You're not finding any that are any good so just looking for anything that references the term Jangle meanwhile adding more and more sources that establish that George Harrison using a Rick influenced subsequence guitar players and Mr Tambourine Man was an influential song in the folk rock boom. No one it disputing that, but you then jump from that to Jangle pop being a thing. This is pure Underpants Gnome logic.
2) The Labate source is worse than nothing because for a start as I pointed out its clearly derived from earlier versions of this page, contains speculation and even admits that it's not clear on what the "genre" even is and is used to support claims that are not made in his text anyway. It's an informal blogpost of the kind that Wikipedia warns against using. Also who is LaBate anyway, a quick google shows he's never published outside online sources, so appears to be little more than a blogger and now currently works as a PR flack. Here is a picture of him talking to a barbecue rib! http://www.babyrobotmedia.com/about/
3) My argument is that Bannister never defines jangle pop as a genre, no one other than LaBate does. My argument is that jangle pop never really existed at all as a genre till this page appeared, or very close to it, and I think the evidence is very strong, no one has proved otherwise. If the term metastasised into a genre because of use by online critics and wikipedia in the 2000s than then any mention here needs to establish and reference that. I can't prove that happened (though I think the circumstantial evidence is extremely strong) . If it was used as a descriptor prior to that it seems only in associate as a sometimes dismissive term for 80s and 90s bands or particular songs. it's a term so unimportant I'd be willing to bet good money that "jangle pop" doesn't appear in the index page of a any of the books cited here. The damage is clear because this ahistorical term is being applied not as a descriptor but as a genre across Wikipeda for no real reason. It IS now seeping out further into other discourses and that's damaging. Maybe a synonym for certain types of indie guitar rock is a trivial hill to die on but it is something that happens in other areas too.
4) OK my bad on the page numbers but again without clear quotations of what is discussed and again always "jangle" not "jangle pop". Again I'll put up with jangle but a jump to then saying "that means all these things are also also "jangle pop" is POV. My contention that simply spamming the text with citations of dubious relevance with no actually quotation is still something that would be considered very poor practice in any formal academic context.
5) Well since the vast majority of this article is now about Rickenbackers, McGuinn and Mr Tambourine man, maybe just merge this with one of those articles.
6) Thousands of books, chapters, encyclopedia entries have been written on rock and rock and roll, they are established subjects exhaustively researched. You can't come up with a proper origin for 'Jangle pop" you just know it's a thing. The best you can do is throw up google books searches that demonstrate inconsistent and transient use of the term. You mentioned silly sounding genres like lowercase, neon punk-pop and vapourwave, but those articles on those "genres" (actually a subheading in neon punk pop's case) clearly explain the history and use of the terms, citing where they came from and their context. You are the one jumping between "jangle" and jangle pop.
7) Why are we pretending that "jangle pop" and "jangle" are totally different subjects? One is an description of a sound, widely used that existed from before the time of guitar music (Dylan didn't invent word term did he.) The other is a specific descriptor that you have decided needs to be turned turn into a genre. If you can't tell the difference I can't help you. Heavy Rock is not a genre, the wiki disambiguation page directs you to hard rock and heavy metal music. Still you'll find millions of references to "heavy rock" across popular music history. In the article here you've jumped between it being a "term journalists use" and a "subgenre" when in fact you're making the claim here that it's more of a meta genre considering the wide breadth of eras and bands you're trying to group under the term. Can you not see the contradiction here?
8) Because the ONLY source you have for the term is by your admission not very good. Even the article itself kind of admits it's not very good. Maybe if it had stayed as just a synonym for certain types of north American 80s guitar bands it could have been ignored, as there was at least evidence that it was used to occasionally describe those bands but it's now being attached to everything from The Beach Boys to My Bloody Valentine if we're not careful!
Anyway I'm done. TBH I'm of the opinion that in it's current state the page is unsalvageable and better as an example of what can go wrong with wikipedia with acceptance of informal, unreliable non-authoritative sources and self supporting feedback loops. Some people are for some reason deeply wedded to this term, I suspect because, not in spite of the fact that, as repeatedly demonstrated, as a genre and a category it's largely a creation of wikipedia itself. I went through Pitchfork using it as a search term and as far as I can see they've they've never used the term once. I suspect the same is true of UK publications such as NME and Melody maker in the decades under discussion. It seems to have popped up a occasionally in Rolling Stone's 50 year history, but almost always in the last decade - I got one hit prior to 2010, about 130 since - see the pattern?
I went through something similar a few years back with the Wikipedia page on match cuts, a page that was openly mocked by a renown academic on the subject. (http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2011/05/25/graphic-content-ahead/) That page is still self contradictory and contains one absolutely terrible howler. In the end I decided it was better left as a good example of Wikipedia's weaknesses. Verlaine76 (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
1) "You're starting from an assumption and then desperately looking for sources to back that up" – This is unavoidable for topics like these that are rarely covered at length but still notable. There's nothing wrong with an article that "cribs" from sources devoting minimal coverage to the subject (see: Avant-pop, Art pop, Recording studio as an instrument). Juxtaposing inconsistent sources does not necessarily produce synthesized claims.
1.5) "No notable musician or critic has ever expanded at length on it as a genre" – Notable to whom? And ever? How can you make these presumptions when you were claiming not too long ago that "jangle-pop" never appeared in print until after this Wikipedia article?
1.5.5) Labate is a regular contributor to Paste, Paste is considered a reliable publication, and you've yet to dispute any of his claims, so he's fine to cite as far as I'm concerned.
2) From what I see, there is no claim in the article that depends on whether Bannister uses the term "jangle" instead of "jangle pop".
3) "clearly derived from earlier versions of this page" – see 1.5
6) "The best you can do is throw up google books searches that demonstrate inconsistent and transient use of the term." – see 1
7) It's becoming more apparent that you have misguided views on music genres, how they're "established", and how seriously they're supposed to be taken – and it's not a subject I care to get into. Articles about music genres are not to be debated as if they're the Bible or the U.S Constitution. "Heavy rock" may very well a notable topic beyond hard rock and heavy metal – it only takes one journalist to argue as to how.
8) Bottom line: there's hundreds of sources that refer to jangle-pop as a music genre, but you don't accept them because either it's all "citogenesis" or just "passing references". ILTP (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
You're deliberately misrepresenting or misunderstanding. I Didn't say Jangle pop "never appeared in print". Please see my first comment on this page on the subject: "Jangle Pop" as a distinct genre seems to be a recent invention". I stand by that. As for "Notable to whom? And ever? How can you make these presumptions [...]" This is hilarious since you're basically using the argument "well, you can't prove I'm wrong, you can't prove this never happened ever". Thats not how it works. Your claim is essentially unfalsifiable. Out there somewhere is your "black swan" article where a notable journalist at length expounds and explains the long detailed history of "Jangle pop", written somewhere in the early 1980s, mentioning all the bands you need it to, you just haven't found it yet! I don;'t need to prove jangle pop as a genre is not notable, YOU need to establish that it is, and currently your sources that you over rely on, are garbage. LaBate is no longer a journalist at Paste or anywhere, and I've no idea if he worked there as anything other than a stringer or freelancer, neither do you. He has no publication history outside the site, similar to reason that Peake was earlier removed. Given that in 10 years it seems he tended to write a few short articles a month, mainly quick reviews, I suspect he wasn't a full time staff writer. In his entire 12 year history at Paste he's written exactly four articles that use the term "Jangle Pop", and that is the only one where "jangle pop" is the subject of the article or actually uses the term more than once, and it's basically just a listicle he compiled with help from his friends, he says so. This hardly establishes him as an expert on the subject. This is the reason you've needed to conflate "Jangle" and "Jangle pop" as the same thing. I'm not going to argue with you on genres, it's a subject I literally teach. You think "it only takes one journalist to argue as to how." No, otherwise Lion Pop would be a genre, so would Miasma Rock. This is how stuff gets jammed into Wiki on the basis that any external source that merely demonstrates some sort of usage will do. Answer me this question, have Led Zeppelin ever been counted as Jangle Pop? If I could find one journalist in a credible publication (one with a 89 year history that is read around the world) who describes a famous Led Zeppelin song that uses drones, opening string arpeggios and a 12 string guitar, with a folk rock influence, as jangle pop or even just "jangly", could I cite it on this page? Does that mean I can now add Led Zep to the list of Jangle Pop bands? What if I can cite a credible source, an interview with the engineer who was there, that Page used a Rickenbacker 12 string (a key defining element or "Jangle Pop") on another similarly famous jangly, folky, droney, arppegio'ed song? (The source is probably incorrect but again by your standards it doesn't matter, it's "credible".) I'm not going to, and you know what would happen if I tried, but by your criterion I wouldn't be wrong. And to be clarify, no I don't think Led Zep are a jangle pop band, but paradoxically, but your standards I can "prove" that they are. You claim there are hundreds of references to "Jangle Pop" as a genre. well, from what I've found they're all post 2003 (i.e after this page), the vast majority after 2009 and most of them read as if they're copied from various versions of this page. Or, as I said they simply, quickly, describe a single band or song in the same way that you might refer to Otis Redding as "60s soul" or The Eagles or Fleetwood Mac as "classic rock". And citogenesis is a real thing, there's even a wiki page on it. But I'm done trying to fix this or convince you of anything. Verlaine76 (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Again this won't convince you of anything but I just put it here for posterity. I did a search fo the term "jangle-pop" and "jangle pop" in Rock's Backpages, an huge database of rock journalism, covering the NME, Melody Maker, Vox (not the US website), Mojo, Creem, Rolling Stone, etc and it brought back six articles. Before 2003 it returns just two. I think this pretty throughly deep-sixes the "notability" argument from anywhere before 2003. It's all over the web, yes, so it's pretty obviously a term just millennials are using. Verlaine76 (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Jesus H Christ! so we're using rateyourmusic.com as a research source now? Doesn't that illustrate, with crystal clarity, the problem here? This is barely one step up from "A guy in a pub told me." I mean that very thread basically has people asking "when the heck did Jangle-pop become a thing" and the answers being all kind of "Uh, in the eighties, I think.. maybe.. I guess".
Your claim that "What You're Doing","When You Walk into the Room", and "Turn Turn Turn" were in some why stylistically linked is textbook POV. DeShannon's sound owes more to similarities to Spector's wall of sound (using many of the same wrecking crew musicians for example) than anything else. For "Eight Miles High", McGuinn was inspired by John Coltrane and Ravi Shankar, they were influences. It doesn't mean that for that track the Byrds were actually a free-jazz group, or a Indian classical music ensemble. If the unifying link is simple "12 string guitar" that's daft, and is circular reasoning. Jangle Pop bands tend to use 12 string, therefore any band that's used a 12 string is Jangle Pop? After all, I can find on Last.fm a genre called "fuzz Rock", then do we turn that into a genre that includes "Satisfaction", "Purple Haze", "Spirit in the Sky" and all of the 'Gish' LP because they all used Big Muffs and Tonebenders? I don't doubt I could find a bunch of references to Fuzz Rock over the last 5 decades scattered across Google Books. The fact that jangle pop has sporadically popped up here and there through the decades as an isolated term, more an adjective than anything else doesn't really help the case here. What's happened is "bands that sound like the Byrds" had been turned somehow into a genre, and then the Byrds, and all the bands that influenced them have been arbitrarily folded into that genre. It's madness.
From what I can see "jangle-pop" seems to have been used occasionally prior to this page existing to refer to some 80s and 90s bands or even specific songs that had a general early 60s guitar influence (mainly REM and similar acts, also Bare Naked Ladies) but less as a generic marker and more likely as a mild diss or stylistic reference. As a point of comparison, in the 2000s there was the term "Landfill Indie" to refer to shitty middle of the road guitar bands that were pale imitations or pastiches of prior indie bands. It has an entry under "indie Rock", but it's not actually its own genre. Jangle Pop as it exists at all it seems to me it has a similar status but one a hell of a lot less clearly defined. I mean, at least we know who coined the term "landfill indie", the best we can come up with here is a Google Books search result that I'll wager has little to do with a lot of the bands listed in this page.
With regard to current media mentions of Jangle Pop, as I pointed out, it almost largely stems from this page and/or the adoption of the term by Allmusic.com, which ever came first and I think they're closely related. And as I pointed out previously, Wikipedia has warnings about using allmusic.com as a guide to genres anyway.
Comparisons with folk music is of course a distraction, as it covers a huge array of cultural expressions and encompasses different musical forms around the world. But Folk Rock on the other hand was always a valid and easily understood term, that came about at a particular time in the US and the UK. Absolutely it is an defined genre, with different strands and subgenres that changed over the decade, but common threads of musicians that were tradition folk artists (Dylan, McGuinn, Richard Thompson, Simon and Garfunkel, Donovan, etc) moving into using electric instruments and band formats while continuing to play traditional songs, or new songs that closely reflected those melodic and harmonic structures and lyrical content, and other electric bands who were already more rock based adopted more folky acoustic and tradition elements into their styles (e.g. The Band, The Lovin' Spoonful). If they stopped doing that, as certainly for periods Donovan and The Byrds did, they tended to stop being considered Folk Rock. It was also born of and part of particular cultural movements, with regard to the politics, culture, even technology of the times. Same with Punk, same with Metal, same with Grunge, Hip-Hop, Funk, even Vapourwave!
Seriously, just kill it. With fire! Verlaine76 (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I was only linking the Rateyourmusic thread to pass on the information within it. I agree and disagree with many of the other things you've written. It's too tiresome to walk through every point, so I'd rather just stick to the accusations of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RS - and I don't think either are issues after the most recent expansions. ILTP (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jangle_pop/Archive_1&oldid=1055648461"