Talk:Common People

Use of Championed

I am not sure that the use of Championed in the Sentence : "Cocker's simple four-bar synthesizer line was championed by keyboardist Candida Doyle, and the final single was mixed down from over 40 tracks." is proper. If one of the grammar gurus could look at this and make a final judgment, I would be appreciative. Mister B. 02:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Because I wrote that sentence, here is what I was trying to summarise from recollection of the BBC3 programme. Cocker wrote the distinctive ten-note backing melody for the verses at home, most of the rest of the band thought it was naff and Cocker himself was unsure. Doyle saw its potential, demonstrated that potential while much of the rest of the song was apparently written around it, and also performed it on the recording. Chambers defines "champion" as a noun firstly as "someone who defends a cause", and as a verb as "to challenge (obs); to defend; to support". The cause defended here also won out, which, I suppose, is why the word came to mind. --Cedders^tk 14:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Cedders that seems fine, I wonder if we could word it in a more laymen way. Although, it may just be my vocabulary lacking. Mister B. 03:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Real incident

The article contains this line: "However, Cocker admittedly embellished the incident with the Greek student who declares she 'want[s] to live like common people' — she most definitely never wanted to sleep with him!" Um... source? Is this taken from an interview? --LostLeviathan 01:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The BBC3 documentary now referenced interviews primary sources, and the statement was from Cocker's testimony as at 2005. I've added other material from my recollection of the broadcast a few weeks ago that I'm reasonably certain of. --Cedders 10:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Emphasising importance

I'm not quite sure how to stress the cultural significance of the song (It was kept from number 1 by Robson & Jerome!) without appearing POV. My contemporaries (slightly younger than members of Pulp) and other critics tend to disagree about the second best song on Different Class, but Common People is the one song from the 1990s (along with perhaps Parklife (song) and Killer (song)) that we'll all remember when our hair and teeth have fallen out. --Cedders 10:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Lost In the Supermarket?

I think that the verse "I took her to the supermarket/Don't know why, but I had to start it somewhere..." is a pretty obvious tribute to the Clash song "Lost in the Supermarket", with music resembling as well. Yet, there's no source for the statement, so, if anyone wishes to investigate...--Vitriden 11:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pulp - common people.jpg

Image:Pulp - common people.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cover version

I don't think there's any point in arguing over whether Shatner's version is "better" (to be fair, they were both amusing in different ways), but I would ask that people stick to verifiable facts and secondary sources, such as books and articles, as far as possible, and maintain a historical sense of perspective.

This version won critical praise <ref>[http://www.google.com/search?q=%22common+people%22+%22has+been%22+album+reviews&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBS_en]</ref> and was the center of a popular "[[viral video]]" phenomenon on [[You-tube]] which took the form of a wide variety of user-interpreted videos which used it as a soundtrack. This made the song famous in markets outside of the United Kingdom and resulted in this cover version becoming the definitive one in the minds of many.

A Google search is an invitation to the reader to do their own research, rather than a source itself. Rather than adding a citation needed template, I've removed most of the last sentence (I added a mention of the cover back in 2006, as I thought it was notable, but it shouldn't take over the article). It may be the first version that some people heard, but that's certainly fewer than those who heard the original in 1995, and has any serious author claimed the cover supplanted the original in the minds of those who had heard it later, as the sentence seems to imply? All I'm saying is that it can be hard to get historical perspective on the recent past. Different classes, different generations. --Cedders^tk 17:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

References

First, what sort of reference would better prove the statement "This version won critical praise?" Should I reference one positive review, or a whole slew of them? It's not worth the hassle. The reference I used proves it simply and easily. The rules about research are only the rules because they work. All I want to do is prove to any doubter that any random search for reviews of the song and album are mostly positive. The fact that there are many positive reviews of it can be quickly checked by glancing at that page, without bothering to click on any of them. There, I've shown it's true that it was critically well received at the click of a mouse.

Second, you say more people "certainly" first heard the original back in 1995 than either heard the cover first, or just the cover and the original not at all. And that's probably true in the one smallish country where it was a hit. The sentence you altered didn't imply that it "surplanted" the original in their minds. It implied that it brought the song to millions who had never heard the original before, and these people want to know more about the song. For example, it's important to note that Ben Folds who is most responsible for it.

I'd like to offer you another reason to doubt your statement: More than two-thirds of the English-speaking world lives outside of Europe; mostly in North America, where the original never was a hit. In order for the original to be definitive in one's mind, you'd more likely than not have to be a Brit who grew up in the 1990s. Every day that goes by, that's less and less likely, and more and more people who have heard this song and visit this article wanting to learn about it will have heard only the new version. Actually, I am as confident that this is the case already as you are "certain" that it is not. For one thing, it was true of me.

Leave your emotions aside and face it. While the Pulp version should always come first in this article, the time has come for it to allow more space at the bottom to the version most modern people interested in this song know and love and want to learn about. (Including the fact that it's more properly called "Fold's version" than "Shatner's" as you have done.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 06:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

8 years on, and I have no idea why the William Shatner joke cover version of this song is given such prominence in this article. Sure, it should be mentioned, along with the many other covers and adaptations, but it has no long term significance. The notorious WP "all the world's America" bias strikes yet again. --Ef80 (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Fogus vs. Jackson's inclusion

Fogus, are you sure that "backing vocals" really is the best description of what Jackson's credit should be? He basically takes the whole second section, and then is mixed pretty equally for the final one, I'd say dominating it. It's more of a duet. I don't think the section would be complete without mentioning his contribution. We just want to describe the dominant features of the track.Chrisrus (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Video text copied from another source?

The text for the "video" section of this article was probably cut-and-pasted from somewhere else, as it refers to Pulp as "indie band Pulp" -- I think anyone reading this article probably knows who Pulp are! 76.2.164.171 (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Two Articles?

Should we have a separate article for the Ben Folds' version? Chrisrus (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally think cover versions in general should not get their own page, principally because the topic is the song. After all, Yesterday (song) has been recorded over 3000 times, and it would be undesirable to create a stub for all those recordings that ever charted or were by notable musicians. When covers do get their own page because they reach number 1, like Singin' in the Rain (UK single), it looks like they are created just so they get their own infobox, and the quality can suffer. There might be exceptions where the title of the re-recording/remix is different and it is independently notable, such as Proper Education. WP:SIZE suggests only splitting articles when the main body gets to 30K or ten printed pages, and Common People is less than a third of that. Also there need to be more references to establish notability (and provide content!) for the cover before it gets a stand-alone article. I wonder what the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music think. BTW I added Common People to my watchlist after developing the article based on seeing the 2006 documentary; I don't recall it mentioning the Folds/Shatner version although I had heard it, which is why IIRC I created the subheading for it.

However, I do think that the Folds/Shatner version should get a sentence in the lead paragraph, with the date of release and so on. The thing about the Pulp version being unknown in the US is from the linked Allmusic review: "one of the great singles of the 1990s, but a standard only in Europe, and largely unknown in America". The only reference works I have are for the UK: Guinness British Hit Singles shows Pulp entered the Top 75 on 3 June 1995 and stayed there for 13 weeks. So it needs someone to check such up-to-date equivalents in other countries. I'll add a critical assessment of the 1995 version from Rock: The Rough Guide. --Cedders^tk 09:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What further citation do you feel it needs? Chrisrus (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

In particular for the last sentence: "widespread appeal" is imprecise and would be worth being able to verify, quantify and get extra details; what is the source for this statement? There are a few reviews available online from reliable sources ("beyond good or bad" being the Guardian's quote! suggesting it's not notable for quality one way or another but for incongruity), but the reviews are for the Has Been album in general and don't establish for example whether the version was released as a single, which would be a useful fact. I note it was included on one compilation, as against several dozen for the original (and no, this isn't about their relative merit, only notability), and seems to have had quite a lot of airplay on Triple J in Australia.

Canada to Australia doesn't seem a pretty wide spread?

What kind of review beyond the several we already have would you concider reliable? Rolling Stone?

They still release singles? Where do they sell them?

Chart references include ideal objective information; in this case we have quite a bit on the original, as it has been discussed in numerous guides and magazines and was the subject of two documentaries. Accurate summary of both review and context (e.g. the ballet and film) would make the section better. Some of the sources at William Shatner's Gonzo Ballet may help add content, but I haven't checked. Also you said in a comment, now in the archives, that it should really be referred to as the Ben Folds version. What is that comment based on, and could that be used as a source? Also, I've never seen a Google or YouTube search being used in a Wikipedia footnote anywhere else: since a search (the result of which also varies over time) doesn't of itself make any assertions, it cannot be a source, surely? Do you know what statement the search (presumably the documents it returns) is supposed to be supporting?

As you read the sources, who is primarily responsible for the work? No one calls it "the Ben Folds version" but me, as far as I know, but that's not in the article anyway. However, as the article makes clear, it was he who had the idea and produced the song.

a popular "viral video" phenomenon on YouTube is interesting, but again, it's hard to quantify. Was this three videos or three hundred? Was it commented on by a reliable source? There's a general resistance to internet memes on Wikipedia because it's so hard to assess their significance and they may distort coverage (see WP:Recentism). I think the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (music), Wikipedia:Notability (web) (especially criterion 3) and Wikipedia:No original research are all relevant. Have you read them? The first would strongly suggest that usually a song should not get its own page, let alone individual performances or recordings of songs.Chrisrus (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, good luck with it. (BTW I was wrong in claiming I'd created that subhead - I must have misremembered. Apologies.) --Cedders^tk 12:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Who did? Should I be talking to him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 03:46, 11 October 2009

Sorry, if my comments were unclear. I'm not saying "widespread appeal" is necessarily incorrect, I'm asking what does it mean exactly? and how do we know?. I've no idea how popular either version was in Canada, but if someone can say something more than "my impression was it was very popular in Canada" with a reference and so on, cool. What reliable sources can add to this article is a good question, and it's dealt with by more experienced editors than me at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, WP:RSN and Wikipedia:Wikiproject Albums#Professional reviews. Allmusic (which we've used) uses professional reviewers and is fine, so is Rolling Stone; sputnik music I presume not; in general user-generated content including YouTube is not considered reliable. Singles charts have to be based on something, whether physical sales or downloads, and are a source of information about notability. Trying to summarise everything on the web, reliable or not, would be original research (please other editors correct me if I'm wrong).

Off the topic, Allmusic credits the album to Shatner in the title, but describes it as a collaboration. In full: "There's only one cover of a big pop tune, and it's Pulp's "Common People" -- one of the great singles of the 1990s, but a standard only in Europe, and largely unknown in America. While it's played on Has Been with a knowing wink, the song itself is intended to be funny: in Jarvis Cocker's hands, the wit cut like a blade, while Shatner blusters his way through it, but the difference is in delivery -- Shatner knows what the words mean, and he delivers it with an actor's precision. It's funny, but it's sincere, right down to how Folds brings his idol Joe Jackson in to snarl the chorus, so the cover works as a piece of music, not just as a novelty."

I don't know who added the heading, but I'm checking through the revisions and turned up potentially interesting stuff that could go back in. "This made the song famous in markets outside of the United Kingdom and resulted in this cover version becoming the definitive one in the minds of many." was removed by someone in Sweden by the looks of it, correctly IMO because it was vague and unsourced. --Cedders^tk 12:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: I've restored a few paragraphs mostly about other covers that were mostly deleted without explanation. One of the assertions about "Triple J" was deleted with an edit summary of "Triple J spam", but I think ABC and 500,000 listeners is reliable and notable. Now all we need is to know how it scored before the Shatner version and readers can guess in how many minds the cover became definitive. :) One final policy actually related to deletion debates to mention is "Google searches are not references"; I'm sure this goes even more for YouTube. --Cedders^tk 14:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Common People which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RFC bot 11:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 31 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Common People (song) → Common People – This is the most natural disambiguation per WP:DIFFCAPS. Since common people was moved to commoner a few years ago, readers are unlikely to confuse that article with this one. Conifer (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. DannyS712 (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose whom exactly is removing (song) helping? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • If someone types in "Common People" – both words capitalized! – it's not hard to believe that they are probably looking for the song. Indeed, comparing pages, Common People (song) gets more views than commoner despite its parenthetical disambiguation. So, to answer your question: this move helps the reader, which is why we prefer natural disambiguation when possible. Conifer (talk) 06:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral, but support creating dab page at basename of "Common People". It might be helpful to have a disambiguation page at the basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support per WP:DIFFCAPS since this is the only topic named with a capital "P". Alternatively per Paintspot we could create a DAB and also list Common People's Newspaper. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom's argument. The song is the only article with this title and is clearly the primary topic for the capitalised term. PC78 (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Massive built-in ambiguity. People aren't that fussy about caps when searching, & we are wrong to assume they are. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Unlike Red Meat, "Common People" is not a highly likely search term for someone looking for the Commoner article. I think WP:DIFFCAPS works quite well here.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.