Jump to content

Talk:Bette Davis Eyes

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

No mention of 7-up?

[edit]

When I was a child, the 7-up version was more familiar to me than the original. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WYFUWDeFTw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.237.104.116 (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Take

[edit]

Kim herself says in several interviews still found at YouTube that it in fact is the second take, so the cited source must be in error. Brett Alexander Hunter (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The third time she says it's the 2nd take.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sSrMIvpyFg&t=3048s

Covers

[edit]

Am I the only one who remembers a mid 90's video of a cover of this? It played on MTV at least in Europe and it was pop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.130.23 (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall Bonnie Tyler doing a version of this too, strange its not mentioned anywhere in the article??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.197.14 (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gwyneth Paltrow for the movie "Duets", though that was 2000. 77.171.247.220 (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crow or Pro?

[edit]

Gotta disagree with Sullivan - it does not sound like she sings 'crow', definitely sounds like she sings 'pro', and 'crow' makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Alexander Hunter (talk • contribs) 21:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Czech version by Marie Rottrová (Dívka, která spí jen tak)

[edit]

After perusing the Wikipedia guidelines on notability I feel I can in good conscience restore mention of the Czech version by Marie Rottrová: if any editor supports the deletion as non-notable I would ask for a corroborating citation from the Wikipedia guidelines. I am puzzled by an editor's being moved to delete mention of a version of Bette Davis Eyes by a longstanding high-profile recording artist - albeit not in the English speaking world - while having no apparent issue with the song's being mentioned as being the audition piece of a current Oz XFactor contestant. I'm not saying mention of Dean Ray's version should be deleted - just making the point that individual Wikipedia users will have individual responses as to whether a version of a song is notable: if an individual doesn't deem a version notable he or she does not have to note it but to take the step of editing it out there should be a definite breach of Wikipedia guidelines. As I've said I would ask any editor who wishes for the Marie Rottrová mention to remain deleted to cite the Wikipedia guidelines which would support that position. I do admit to having included no source info in my original edit - an omission which I have rectified.--Cherrylimerickey (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Someone's really determined to get his own way. Re the undoing of my edit:
1) WP:WTAF says nothing about notability but is being creatively interpreted by the offended editor to support his actions. If indeed notability is dependent on the existence of an English Wikipedia article on the singer then the Dean Ray version should definitely be excised - it's blue not red but the actual article is on the 2014 season of the Oz X Factor: Dean Ray himself has no article. At least Marie Rottrová has her own article if on a non-English wiki: perhaps the offended editor isn't aware that the blue (cs) after her name represents an interwiki link?
2) My source does indeed ID the Rottrová recording as a Bette Davis Eyes cover - the images of both the sleeve & the single clearly display the title of the original English language song in parenthesis.
That said - I'll let it ride. However I like to think people will look at this talk page & be aware of the Marie Rottrová cover. I feel sure foreign language renderings will be of interest to anyone who reads a Wikipedia article on a song. --Cherrylimerickey (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bette Davis Eyes?

[edit]

It could be me, but I never understood what it meant to have "Bette Davis eyes". I have wondered about this for a long time. Daniel Sparkman (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe watching this video would help: YouTube video-Bette Davis Eyes
H Padleckas (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When this song came out, a woman I worked with in Memphis, TN claimed she was the inspiration for it. Her name was Carol; I don't remember her last name. She knew one of the song writers and was interviewed on a couple of local radio stations. I'm usually pretty skeptical about stuff like this (people claim all kinds of things), but I didn't have any trouble believing her: I swear, she was the spitting image of Bette Davis.
D Gish (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the faces of all the people you know in your everyday life. Half of them have "Bette Davis Eyes". But, which half? And, what does that mean?

Genre

[edit]

Please don't revert cited material without reason. If you want to add any other genres, you need sources per WP:RS. 183.171.176.59 (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the onus is on "new wave" advocates, and repeated attempts to add a highly questionable and definitely non-RS source do not do the job. Why use the notoriously erratic and undependable about.com when there are sites like allmusic.com to rollingstone.com to discogs.com to billboard.com. and more? These are professional music sites created by genuine experts in their fields; several, including allmusic, have found a high degree of acceptance as sources in academia - which about.com never has and never will because of the self-identified nature of their "guides." The "source" here, a certain Steve Peake, is an about.com "guide" - an amateur enthusiast who volunteers to write for the site. To reiterate - "new wave" needs an RS. What is currently here as a "source" is little more than a WP:MOS "casual mention" from an article of questionable merit that emphasizes Carnes' credentials in - adult contemporary, pop, and country. Furthermore, even if a legitimate source can be found for "new wave" (and it can, without too much trouble), that categorization is neither definitive nor exclusionary.
As it happens, nearly every source above has a different genre for this song, with "pop, "rock," and "adult contemporary" leading the list, and they will be added with appropriate real sources. A better source for "new wave" should be found and added.Sensei48 (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Bette Davis Eyes. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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) 02:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Bette Davis Eyes. 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:

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) 08:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bette Davis Eyes. 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:

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) 03:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bette Davis Eyes. 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:

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) 21:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional film use, Austenland (2013)

[edit]

I added this mention but it was reverted as user generated source. Not sure why a fact has to be reverted simply because it is not immediately easily referenced but can be checked by perusing the film in question. 

 It also features briefly in the romantic comedy film Austenland (film).[1]

Here is another link that may be less user generated, not sure, someone else can add it in this time.

https://www.soundtrack.net/movie/austenland/

I think it fitted the movie ok and deserves a mention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austenland_(film)

Idyllic press (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:SONGTRIVIA, it isn't necessary to list every appearance in movies, TV shows, commercials etc. The other problem is the sourcing which is not top class, and IMDb generally isn't suitable as a source.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Austenland (2013) Soundtracks". IMDb. Retrieved 24 July 2016.

Balance

[edit]

Imho the article contains too much chart/success Info and too little on the Song/Lyrics. KhlavKhalash (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New wave

[edit]

Its questionable, this song belongs to the new wave genre. There might have been people to see it that way, but to have it the wp article, there should be sth. more of an explanation. This song is obviously a pop rock ballad. KhlavKhalash (talk) 07:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genre is always subjective and requires a source. New wave and soft rock are both sourced in the infobox. As the article New wave music says, it is something of a catch-all term for early 1980s pop music. The extensive use of synths and the style of the accompanying video are in my view clear signs of the song being new wave.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Swift

[edit]

I think that if Gwyneth Paltrow warrants mention in this article, then Taylor Swift should definitely be included as well. 77.170.172.143 (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Swift's version doesn't meet the WP:COVERSONG criteria. I can't find any substantial media coverage about it, and I don't believe it charted anywhere. Skyrack95 (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Taylor Swift Cover

[edit]

Are artists covers on concert tours really encyclopedic in nature? Drh-19 (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bette_Davis_Eyes&oldid=1223905784"