Talk:Stand (R.E.M. song)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia 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^v2.0 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)

You'll have to excuse my obnoxious sarcasm. It's been a @#$%y day: It's not "technically" alt rock, but for now the unsourced addition of it is the best we have. "Wikipedia: The encyclopedia that anyone can add the best we have for now to". Catchy.

While respecting "the best we have", I'd like to suggest something verifiable might be even better. Searching for just "R.E.M."/"REM", "Stand" with and without "Green" and/or "song" (not pre-loading with "pop", "rock" or anything else), I get:

• "easily the poppiest thing they'd released to date"[1]
• "a gloriously, ironically bubblegummy pop song"[2]
• "Blackened symphonic Jewish calypso"[3](It's a joke.)
• "bizarrely affecting contemporary folk of 'The Wrong Child' and 'You Are the Everything,' the bubblegum of 'Stand' and 'Pop Song 89,'"[4]
• "The joviality of tunes like 'Get Up' and especially 'Stand', which dominated the “air” (or first) side, proved divisive, alienating long-time fans while attracting new listeners. Because MTV played the hell out of 'Stand' and because this pop urge would culminate in the questionable 'Shiny Happy People', it’s all too easy to dismiss the pop songs on Green."; "the same pop impulse that motivates 'Stand'"[5]
• "Some songs have a downright bubble-gummy feel: on 'Stand,'"[6]

I get: "poppiest", "bubblegummy pop song", "bubblegum", "pop urge"/"pop song"/"pop impulse", "bubble-gummy feel"

Yeah, "poppiest", "pop urge" and such aren't directly calling it a pop song, but damn that's a lot of bubble-gummy poppiness. Oh, and "bubblegummy pop song"[7], "bubblegum"[[8]] and "pop (song)"[9] are pretty clear to me, whether I have a degree in, urm, musicology or not. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:14, 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^v2.0 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^v2.0 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'..."[10]
• "the tongue-in-cheek bubblegum pop of ‘Stand’ and ‘Pop Song 89’"[11]
• "all three of the album’s bubblegum pop ditties (‘Pop Song ‘89’, ‘Stand’, ‘Get Up’) is a touch too sugary."[12]
• "According to Stipe, the song was meant to be a bubblegum pop song compared to songs by The Monkees and The Archies."[13][14]

Thoughts? - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's long enough. I've added bubblegum pop. - SummerPhD^v2.0 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^v2.0 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^v2.0

No response. I'm restoring it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Having four citations for a genre is ABSOLUTELY overlinking, which is explicitly not allowed. I have had discussions with you. To link Stand in the same category as a Justin Bieber song is crazy. Those links describe the song as a tribute to bubblegum pop, I've read them, I know. Even if you were using a reliable source, you have to admit that having FOUR CITATIONS, which is a blatant disregard of Wikipedia policy, is crazy. I don't mean to be a prude, and I certainly don't enjoy doing this, but I have attempted to reason with you, to no avail. Sorry I don't always respond, I have a life and am busy doing different things. Dpm12 (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I just went through all the sources again, and it appears the Drowned in Sound source is the only reliable one: http://drownedinsound.com/releases/16670/reviews/4144091

I still don't feel comfortable putting it in the infobox though, just because I don't want to clutter it up. Usually, we tend to stick to three in a box, although admittedly, I'm not familiar with any Wikipedia policy that explicitly says so, so I don't know. Not to mention, I don't feel comfortable calling a song that's so OBVIOUSLY a parodic and tongue-in-cheek attempt at bubblegum pop as a TRUE "bubblegum pop" song. Weird Al has parodied Eminem songs, doesn't make those songs rap. I don't know. I mean, I guess if there is a clear consensus for "bubblegum pop", as uncomfortable as it would feel, I would feel better about adding it in the infobox. Dpm12 (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dpm12: I couldn't disagree more about parodies: a parody rap song is a rap song. If Weird Al does a parody of a rap artist in the style of polka, then it's a polka song. But if it's done with the most basic elements of hip hop (beats, rapping, scratching, etc.) then it's hip hop. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, we're back to rehash one bad reason and add a few more to the growing list.

You continue to point to WP:OVERLINKING which has nothing to do with this. You seem to think it says not to cite too many sources. It says nothing about sources. Additionally, you seem to think that having too many sources for it means we should not list it in the infobox, which is beyond absurd.

Next, you have a fresh approach to your prior false claim that the sources do not say it is bubblegum pop. Before, you falsely claimed the sources say it "sounds like" and "resembles" bubblegum pop. In addition to wondering what you think a song genre is -- if it sounds like "blackened Viking bubblegum jazz", I'd think that would make it exactly that -- the sources didn't (and still don't) say that.

Now you are claiming the sources don't say it is bubblegum pop, they say it is a parody of bubblegum pop, parodies of a genre are not in that genre and the sources are not reliable. Let's go source by source.

• http://state.ie/features/r-e-m-r-i-p - "...the tongue-in-cheek bubblegum pop of ‘Stand’..." I do not share your opinion that State is not a reliable source. Would you like to take this to the reliable sources noticeboard? Yes, the song is tongue-in-cheek, not serious. It is, however, bubblegum pop, not something else that "sounds like" it, "resembles" it or is a "parody" of a genre and therefore cannot be the genre. (Shout out to Koavf: Weird Al's polkas came immediately to mind for me as well. A polka song parodying polka is a polka song.)

• https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/music-reviews/2013/0602/454156-r-e-m-green-25th-anniversary-re-issue/ - Raidió Teilifís Éireann is quite clearly a reliable source. If you disagree, I would love to hear your reasoning. "...what R.E.M. themselves called big dumb bubblegum pop songs..." R.E.M. would, IMO, also be a reliable source for whether or not their song in bubblegum pop, especially given your earlier attempt to pseudo-cite them as saying it was "60s pop rock" as evidence it was pop rock. Note that there is no qualification: they were not trying to sound like, alluding to, parodying, winking at or nodding to bubblegum pop. R.E.M. called it bubblegum pop. Granted, they are not, to my knowledge, musicologists, unlike you.

• https://www.axs.com/the-10-best-r-e-m-songs-30836 - AXS is part of AEG. They are a reliable source for what Stipe said. "According to Stipe, the song was meant to be a bubblegum pop song..." Again, as a certified musicologist you may not agree with Stipe's assessment, or perhaps you feel he failed. I does not say it was meant to parody or sound like bubblegum pop. It simply doesn't.

• http://drownedinsound.com/releases/16670/reviews/4144091 - This is the only source of the four you feel is reliable, which I can't understand in the least. In any case, they say it is one of "the album’s bubblegum pop ditties". They do not say it is a parody of bubblegum pop without being bubblegum pop. They did not say it "sounds like" bubblegum pop without being bubble gum pop, they said it is bubblegum pop.

If you would like to point to WP:OVERLINK please quote the section you feel applies. I cannot find anything that has any connection to the issue.

If you wish to claim that various sources say "sounds like", "resembles", a "tribute", a "parody" or whatever, please quote the source directly. You keep making similar claims with differing terms that just aren't in the sources.

I get that you, as the world's most respected musicologist do not feel it belongs in the category. If you get that published in a reliable source, we can use it. Otherwise, the reliable sources are the best we have. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and add bubblegum pop, but we only need one source to avoid overlinking. Dpm12 (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Gosh, that's swell. It's great to have you as the owner of this article. I guess now is as good a time as any to take a look at the text you added. I just want to make sure no POV crept in. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

References

"Weird Al" has made a parody of Stand

I let someone else edit the article. I just noticed that nobody seem to have picked up that the "Weird Al" Yankovic has made a parody of Stand. It is called Spam and is on his album UHF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krokodilien71 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Parodies usually fall under WP:COVERSONG as the song is, in many ways, a cover of the original. COVERSONG says, in essence, that Wikipedia usually does not include cover versions unless the version would be notable enough for a standalone article, absent the notability of the original. So, the question would be whether or not "Spam" meets the requirements under WP:NSONG. "Most songs are not notable." Notable songs are the subject of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. I don't see that level of coverage for "Spam". (FWIW, Spam (song) redirects to UHF – Original Motion Picture Soundtrack and Other Stuff#Parodies and polka.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stand (R.E.M. song). 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170907032648/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?brws_s=1&file_num=nlc008388.6684&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=mhe12pta2k83e08udtq66ot062 to http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?brws_s=1&file_num=nlc008388.6684&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=mhe12pta2k83e08udtq66ot062

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic chat

Extended content

I'd've Never Suspected This Was Parody... And, WHY?! Epigram: "'If there's no meaning in it,' said the King, 'that saves a world of trouble, you know, as we needn't try to find any.'" ("Alice In Wonderland.") For years, off and on, I've wondered about the meaning of the lyrics to the song, "Stand," by R.E.M. And now, in the article on "Stand (R.E.M. Song)," I read: "'Stand' is a song by the American alternative rock band R.E.M., released... in 1989... The song is meant to be a self-aware "tongue-in-cheek" 60s-esque Bubblegum Pop ditty, meant to resemble the music of The Banana Splits, The Archies and The Monkees." So, basically, this is essentially a nonsense song, written in parody of the "Bubblegum" genre -- something I would NEVER have suspected! And after all, why would I? The article on "Bubblegum Pop" says: "Bubblegum's classic period ran from 1967 to 1972. A second wave of bubblegum began two years later and ran until 1977 when disco took over." So my most basic question here, in venting my frustration and disgruntlement, has to be: "What, in God's name, would prompt R.E.M. to parody a style of music that had already been over and done with for TWELVE YEARS!? How could they expect anyone to ever divine their meaning?" Sheesh...! Anyone have any thoughts on this (grumble, mumble, frotz)...? The Grand Rascal (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC) This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)