Talk:Bounce (Iggy Azalea song)/Archive 1

Genre by consensus
To avoid genre warring, changes to existing genre Hip Hop, Electrohop, Indian pop requires consensus. The absence of a reference in the infobox is not grounds for blanking the genre. Before making changes based on your personal views please seek consensus. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   13:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Club
Iggy Azalea’s “Bounce”: Hear The Pummeling Club Track Iggy Azalea offers the UK a "summer jam" that sounds like club music with nimble rapping and a forced accent Iggy Azalea's "Bounce" is a record that's clearly meant to be a club banger. The most recent addition to the Def Jam fam just released her next video, an appropriately titled club hit called "Bounce." Instead of her simmering hip-hop tracks, Iggy Azalea gets a bit dance-y, with big breakdowns and super fast rapping, demonstrating she's aiming not just for rap fans, but for the late-night crowd, too.
 * Idolator
 * David Drake, Complex
 * Brian Josephs, Complex
 * Refinery29


 * Wherever possible club music is avoided because it not a proper genre. Its colloquial for electronic dance music. Though if you're gonna use the term club music actually link to club music and the redirect is there to electronic dance, to prevent any confusion.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  10:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Pop-rap
Even with “Bounce,” I was like, “It’s a pop record. I don’t know.” He was like, “Just fucking do it. It’s something different. It’s one song, what’s the big deal?” I couldn’t believe Nas was telling me to do a hip-pop record I have to do the more “twerkable songs” but “Bounce” is on there because I wanted to see how the rap pop thing would go – it’s by far the most commercial song
 * Azalea in an interview with Complex
 * Azalea in an interview with Metro Boston

Rap-Up says the song is electro dance, not electronic dance. And electronic dance = EDM = club, according to Wiki. And 4 sources state its club against 1 which says electro dance, eventhough both are the same thing - club is the more common term. As for pop-rap - the sources state hip-pop and rap pop, which are commonly known on Wiki as pop-rap. No sources for hip hop.— Cool Marc  22:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * questionable. Electro dance is evidently the same as electronic dance. But i won't argue.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  10:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Copy Edit
There was some concern regarding my extensive copy edit of the article (which I was invited to do by the article's author). The majority of what I removed was material that was either redundant, trivial, or irrelevant. The article as written had too many reviews and quotations that were repetitive of one another and an entire section of quotations regarding the controversy over the cultural appropriation associated with the video which did not meaningfully add to the main subject of the article. If you compare my edited revision to the original and now reverted version, you will find that all of the factual information is still there, but written to be more concise and on point. In blindly reverting my edits, a lot of grammatical and wording improvements were also summarily deleted. The bottom line is that there is a difference between quality and quantity. An encyclopedic article has to be concise -- it is not a place for including every quote from every music critic that wrote about the song, or every pundit or blogger that took issue with the cultural overtones of the music video. My suggestion is that any material that is believed to be truly necessary to the article be re-added to my revision as opposed to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Jaytwist (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for all the effort you put in Jay with the c/e, I sincerely appreciated it. And while I agree with WP:CONCISE and that the article does need trimming; no offence but not to the extent of the c/e you did. The info in all the sections are fine, except the Music video and lead which need trimming like I said before. This song is most notable for its music video, that is a general fact and general knowledge, that is what most media publications discuss about the song - its music video. Hence the reviews and cultural imagery sections. That is what would make the article an interesting and knowledgeable read. Also, you can't make a consensus on a song or video's reception without a decent number of visible, neutral reviews. While I agree some quotes need paraphrasing and trimming etc, that is what I thought would happen with a c/e. I didn't expect a mass removal of content leaving every section almost completely bare. Like I said before, I'm also not sure if you are familiar with song articles and their general GA and FA drafts. GAs are meant to be broad in their coverage. I also think during your c/e, you maybe misjudged a lot of info given as "repetitive" and "trivial". I put in a lot of effort into this article and am very knowledgeable of its content, what's notable and what not. After your mass removal, the article was practically a dysfunctional read and made me feel like what was the point in even working and expanding on the article to begin with, sorry! Like I said, no offence whatsoever and all due respect! And I'm very grateful for the effort, but is there not a way of doing a c/e and a trim without the article looking like a stub at the end? I am actually currently busy with a GAN for "Work (Iggy Azalea song)" and that too needed a lot of trimming which we have done and after all the fluff removal the article looks great at the moment, I'm not sure but maybe that could help as a guideline with regard to size and trimming? If you are not willing to do another c/e, I will understand, but you have brilliant grammar and wording skills which will be of high value to the article and I'd be ecstatic if you could give it another try! — Cool Marc  22:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Appreciate where you are coming from and my intent was definitely not to minimize the fruits of your labors. If I could make a suggestion -- perhaps you can take the parts from my revision that you agree with, incorporate them, and then I can do another pass-through, keeping your well-expressed preferences firmly in mind? Jaytwist (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem! Will do and will let you know as soon as I'm done!— Cool Marc  21:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've went through your revision again and what I think will be easiest is, you should work from that revision, but take the following into mind: My revision of this was 100%. Just a c/e if needed? Its a small section anyway haha!
 * I'm 100% happy with your revision of the following sections: Background, release, composition, chart performance, the music video's sections except the reception and cultural imagery.
 * Lead: great, although a sentence about the cultural imagery and reception of the video should return. As well as that the song was performed live on her The New Classic Tour, various festivals and as a supporting act for Beyonce's tour. A sentence about the release should also return. And the 15 millions views can go.
 * Critical reception: My revision of this section is ideal. I suggest the removal of maybe 2 reviews and then a new c/e.
 * Music video reception + cultural appropriation This was completely chopped off in your revision. So I suggest working from my revision, but then removing maybe 3 reviews, and then a c/e with shortening and joining of sentences and then shorter paraphrasing.
 * Live performance: My revision of this was 100%. No events or sources need to be removed, just a c/e and some sentence shortening/combining?
 * Usage in the media:

Everything else is great. I'm sorry for making this such a chore, it's genuinely not my intention. But with the guideline given above, I'm sure your next c/e would be perfect. The main issues are basically just the music video's reception + cultural imagery and then live performances sections, and few other minor issues that I mentioned above. Elsewhere, your c/e was great! Thanks again Jay!— Cool Marc  02:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)