Talk:Jangle

message: In this April 2019 edit by , the article text was changed to say that jangle pop is sometimes conflated with college rock. I disagree with this addition for two reasons: the cited source does not explicitly say that jangle pop and college rock genres are sometimes conflated, and we already explain how jangle pop found an early home at college radio stations who helped popularize it, thereby making it a part of the college rock radio format and the college rock sound. College rock is bigger than jangle pop, incorporating more influences than just jangle. For that reason, I am removing the conflation statement. Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The source says as clear as day Jangle pop and college rock are the same.--2601:3C5:8200:97E0:793A:1031:8357:5838 (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it says "At the time the song was released, the music scene was experiencing a groundswell of what were called 'college rock', or sometimes 'jangle pop', bands." This could mean several things, and it certainly is not a statement about two genres being conflated with one another. The bands in the groundswell could be called college rock because they are on college radio or because they are in the college rock genre, and they could be called jangle pop for their sound. Both labels could be applied at the same time but for different reasons. The writer, Rob Caldwell, is a fine music journalist, but he's only talking about one song, not the definitions and confusions of two genres. You're reading too much into his one ambiguous sentence, to create a new definition here. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Like I said it the source says college rock or jangle pop. You are trying to change the wording to get your way. Anybody that can read knows it was talking about college rock and jangle pop being the same. WP:STICKTOSOURCE.Even allmusic calls college rock jangle guitar-pop. --2601:3C5:8200:97E0:793A:1031:8357:5838 (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If reading is your thing you will have seen that the AllMusic page in your link does not say college rock and jangle pop are the same thing. It says that R.E.M. and the Smiths are college rock bands, and that they paved the way for "countless practitioners of jangly guitar-pop" such as the dB's and Let's Active from the US, and the Housemartins and the La's from the UK. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  So are you implying The Smiths and R.E.M. never played Jangle pop? My issue is jangle pop redirects to a sound effect not a specific genre of music. Would like to hear User:ILIL views on it since he is the one that added it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3C5:8200:97E0:2501:1058:B5D8:D4A6 (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's because there is no specific genre of jangle pop, it's a vague description of the guitar around in some songs that has been conflated with a genre. Any band in the last 60 years that's used clean guitars with strumming or arpeggios is being defined as this specific genre. The whole article rests for "authoritative sources" on off-hand comments and single lines from reviews and summaries. Most of the bands referenced sit within clear existing genres (British Invasion, Folk Rock, new wave, alt-rock, Americana, indie-pop, etc) and have been shoehorned into this new genre. It's as if any band that used a synthesiser in the 60s and 70s got included in the genre of "Synth-Pop". 14:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jangle pop conflated with college rock? 

message: Two articles, almost completely identical word-for-word, treating virtually the same subject. And for what? For the sake of not having Jangle pop be a redirect? The fact that it's such a shoddy copy-and-paste job should be taken as an admission to the fact that proposing separate articles for "jangle" and "jangle pop" makes no sense. I've never seen such a brazen case of WP:OVERLAP.  ili (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that there are no other article on 'jangle' technique on the interwiki (the English article will be a single one), and there are plenty of jangle pop articles. And given that original jangle-pop article was reworked weirdly with some bias towards existing sources (I never cease to be bewildered by the sweeping changes to articles where @ILIL is involved in, in a bad way). It seems to me that the best option would be to keep them separate. So it's . While both articles should be reworked to avoid overlaps, leaving only what is relevant to guitar playing style in Jangle including the words about 60s folk-rock scene, while moving everything about 80s post-punk derived style to Jangle pop. Solidest (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two viable options - move Jangle back into Jangle pop, or rework the articles to see if it is worth keeping Jangle as a separate article. I'm supportive of Solidest's suggestion. Once that has been done we can have a clearer idea of what the articles look like. As a point of note, this was not a cut and paste, but a restoration (including page history) of the article to the point at which it was moved from Jangle pop to Jangle. I have then edited it to fix some errors and improve sourcing. SilkTork (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I stand corrected, sorry. I also support your suggestions to rework the articles based on whether the sources are explicitly referring to "jangle" or "jangle-pop".  ili (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

text:   Hey, I don't recall ever engaging with you on any talk page, and I think you need a history lesson.  challenged the sources on this article, specifically about whether they were actually referring to a "jangle pop" genre or simply a "jangle" sound commonly used in popular music (there's a difference!). To address the editor's concerns, I proposed moving the article to Jangle — a solution that worked for the both of us. Since you're going the route of personal attacks — instead of actually explaining whatever you mean by "weird bias towards existing sources" — why not be helpful and name the other articles that you think I've ruined and let's see if we can undo the damages? ili (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weirdest split I've ever seen...