Jump to content

Talk:Candle in the Wind 1997

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


Infobox

[edit]

Shouldn't this article have a SINGLE infobox? It currently has one for ALBUMS. - eo 15:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depression

[edit]

The article describes a deep depression suffered by Elton John, but he was able to write and perform the song in seven days. I don't presume to be a psychologist or know anything of his mental situation, but he accomplished a lot in 7 days of "deep depression". I would suggest that being removed or reworded. Any of us who have lost a very close friend understand some of what he went through, but since there are clinical definitions of depression I would like to see such a diagnosis or a reasonable link before the use in a Wikipedia article. Autkm (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This part ish better written now, but still begs the question. Autkm (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response?

[edit]

This article needs a section on critical response. If I remember correctly, it was panned by the critics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.251.244 (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is fairly adulatory. The general opinion on release was that the song was ghastly, tasteless and mawkish, pandering to the bizarre Diana worshipping of the time. This didn't stop it selling in large numbers of course. --Ef80 (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it particularly appropriate that a song about a vacuous demi-mondaine whould be reworked for Diana - consider what Elton John is really saying about her! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Candle in the Wind 1997. 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}}).

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) 22:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Candle in the Wind 1997. 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) 05:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

overlong, rough at the edges

[edit]

I agree that the article is much too "adulatory" in tone. I have nothing against Elton John or Princess Diana — or, for that matter, Marilyn Monroe. However, I have never particularly liked the song in any of its versions. The original seems to have been less a "tribute" than a meditation on the destructive potential of popular fame, and the sad irony that fame not only often outlives the famous, but their destruction increases that fame. However, the "tribute" gloss is what drew the audience, & EJ pandered to that. It's therefore doubly ironic (at least) that this song was reworked to honor Diana, who died while fleeing from the endless hounding of paparazzi that were feeding into the demands of rabid scandal-sheet consumers. Certainly I am not the only radio listener to have grasped this.

I question repeated use of "tribute" because nowhere is the term defined or even an article offered in explanation. Have a look at Tribute (disambiguation). Considering the roots of the original lyrics, the adulatory rewrite, and the often obsessive nature of fans, I could make the case that the porn-related definition of "tribute" is not entirely incorrect here.

Shouldn't the article also maybe note that The Candle in the Wind is a T. H. White novel (1958) about King Arthur? Certainly EJ (or at least Taupin) is not unaware of this connection to the fundamental English mythos.

In any case, the lede is MUCH too long. It ought to be trimmed back to the first paragraph, maybe the first two. The rest would much better be sorted into appropriate points in the article itself.

As for the body, there's far too much fannish arm-waving and trivia, e.g. the reference to Chubby Checker. The piece could benefit by removing such chaff.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Candle in the Wind 1997. 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) 05:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"England's Rose" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect England's Rose has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 22 § England's Rose until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Candle_in_the_Wind_1997&oldid=1211190424"