Jump to content

Talk:Fever (Little Willie John song)

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

Untitled

[edit]

An infobox for the Little Willie John recording of "Fever" was requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/List_of_notable_songs/5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by InnocuousPseudonym (talk • contribs) 20:24 UTC, 17 July 2007

FIFA

[edit]

Does anyone know the version used in the Mastercard Fifa Football World Cup ads? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.23.218 (talk • contribs) 12:02 UTC, 28 June 2006

Parodies

[edit]

Was it Martin Short (on SCTV) who, as "Peggy Lee for the Bran Council", sang "Fiber"? —Tamfang 21:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does The Simpsons cover count? I added it anyway.Sposato (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on merging Fever (Madonna song)

[edit]

No merge - Madonna's version is notable enough in it's own right to have an article on - it certain has more references (five) this one has one - labelled as an external link. Would also overbalance this article entirely.--Alf melmac 12:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, and I do not see any rationale for merging. I will delete the templates. --Alexander (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note : There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions with the purpose of trying to establish a standard rule for merge/separate different versions of the same song. Please make known your feelings on the matter. Regards. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A new merge proposal has been made between the Little Willie John Fever article and the Madonna Fever article since they are both about the same song.

Too much Madonna

[edit]

This article has far too much information on the Madonna version of the song. There have been hundreds of recordings of "Fever," the most historically significant being those of Little Willie John and Peggy Lee. The article should be weighted toward extensive discussion of those versions, and not Madonna's or any of the others. Other versions by major musical figures of the 20th and 21st century, Madonna and Elvis Presley, certainly deserve mention but have no place being either the focus of or the bulk of the information in the article.PJtP (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. While the articles should remain merged, I think info on other versions of the song should be significantly beefed up. I'm also strongly for removing the bloated, frankly unneeded section on track lists and remixes pertaining to the Madonna version. - eo (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with eo. Beef up LWJ and PL, remove the track lists and remixes from the Madonna section. If I had more courage I'd remove this kind of track listing and remixes from every article - this is an encyclopedia, not a trade journal. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly!!! This is one of the rare occasions when I prefer the German wiki entry... 84.60.181.243 (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


According to the database linked in the external links section, there are 800 recorded versions of this song. What makes the listings (aside from Little Willie John) in this article significant enough to warrant their own section? The bullet list of Madonna's accomplishments with this song can easily be removed, but really shouldn't the whole section be removed? The Beyonce cover MIGHT be worth mentioning because of the minor controversy but what is significant about Amanda Lear's single that it gets a write-up but Peggy Lee and Elvis get buried in the intro? --Brendanmccabe (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mess. The article should present an overview of what is a classic song, over 50 years old. The extent of the detail given to recent versions by Madonna and Beyonce is simply embarrassing. A start could be to expand the sections on the Little Willie John and Peggy Lee versions, and then to cut back the later sections. Does anyone not agree with that? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. A totally disproportionate amount of space is given to the Madonna and Beyonce versions, which is misleading. This article reads like it's been edited/vandalised by Madonna and Beyonce's PR departments. It's embarrassing.

Not embarrassing, just sad. What's next, a Justin Beiber version to be celebrated?? I'm 22, but I recognize definitive versions of classic songs. I like a couple Madonna songs, and several more Beyonce songs, but this treatment of a "Fever" article just make Wikipedia look like a free-for-all for ignoramouses. Someone please change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.177.161 (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Moreno Muppet Show Performance

[edit]

Season 1, episode 5 of The Muppet Show featured a cover of the song with Rita Moreno and Animal. Originally aired October 9, 1976. Definitive. Unforgettable. 24.215.250.197 (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Tex ?

[edit]

The French page mentions the involvement of Joe Tex in the writing, but not the English page. Could somebody confirm his involvement ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.140.72.25 (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

beyonce knowles controversy section should be removed

[edit]

The "controversy" surrounded the advert and had nothing to do with the song. Therefore it belongs in the Beyonce Knowles article, and should only be referenced here with a link.

The Beyonce section's way too long and reads like her PR department's written it.

Removal of image

[edit]

I see no compelling reason to remove an interesting and relevant image from a distinguished NY stage showing one of the many uses of this song. Especially not on a misunderstanding (quoting the edit summary) that it's a "dance troup" (where did that come from?) rather than well established cabaret performers. A little investigation at Commons should ally any fears of falseness re: their "dancing" (actually performing La Lupe's lyrics also) to this song, which has been in their repertoire for 40 years. I'm reinstating the photo. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologise for calling well established cabaret performers a "dance troup," it was an assumption that they were dancing to the song. However, I cannot see why the photo has any place on this article without any supporting text or references, nor can I see why it warrants pride of place at the top of the article. I shall leave it there for the moment and see if anybody else wishes to comment. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS What is the name of these well established performers? The caption is silent on the matter, just tells us they come from Stockholm. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! There's a bit more than that in the caption, come on! Link to the show that the Lupe version of the song has been included in for 40 years, for example.
I didn't feel personal or even group name-dropping would be in order or relevant since the varied use of the song, still for over 65 years (!), is what I feel makes the image relevant, and they are not world famous. I had no intention of promoting them personally in this context. The song is in their story, but they personally are not in the song's, though its varied use is - can you see what I mean?
Why not go to the image's page at Commons for that info? Wouldn't anyone curious do that? And possible on from there to the CabarEng page there? Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the bottom of the page of the article, there are literally 100 artists+ who have sung this song, let alone those that have performed to this song. Imagine the mayhem if they all thought a picture was appropriate too! Without text (not just a caption) and supporting references I won't change my mind. Perhaps others will disagree with me, in which I will accept a consensus to keep. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
Not next to the lead paragraph. There have been multiple notable versions of this song--Wild Side Story's is not among them. It's not essential, but I would not object to its retention (near the bottom of the article) as an illustration of the diversity of settings in which the song has found a home. I would argue that a vampish pic of Peggy Lee from 1958 or thereafter should be the initial illustration, although I don't see anything in the Commons that fits the bill. Surely her cover is the one that has been part of the public consciousness for fifty years, through its use in innumerable films and television shows, as well as radio play. As Little Willie John premiered the song and had a (lesser) hit with it, a photo of him near the top would also be welcome, although the Commons again comes up short. -- Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and  Done. Thank you for helping! SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Lee Versions

[edit]

Why there is no mention of fact that Peggy Lee has another version with completely different lyrics from both the original and her first version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.72.57 (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tell us more - with sources, please. You may well be right - I'm not a Peggy Lee expert - but if you have reliable information it could be added in. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody supply a reference for this: "Only the first and the fourth verse of the Little Willie John version were used, because Lee thought that the second and the third original verses were too risque for her musical tastes.? I've just done a comparison of the lyrics - the verses left out by Peggy Lee seem comparatively innocuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattypenny (talk • contribs) 06:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. The current title appears to be correct per WP:SONGDAB. --BDD (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fever (Little Willie John song) → Fever (Eddie Cooley and Otis Blackwell song) – The song is well-known to many people, and well-known artists rendered it, like Madonna. Of course, anybody can vote for Fever (Cooley and Blackwell song) instead. George Ho (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose We use the first recorder dab not the writers dab, also this is not an "election" to ask people to "vote". Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 16:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We should use the best disambiguator available. I certainly oppose using the songwriters' names in this instance, simply because very few readers would know in advance of reading the article who the writers of the song are. In any case, it's usually credited to Cooley and Davenport - the latter being a pseudonym used by Blackwell. The best known version is probably the one by Peggy Lee - essentially a cover version but with Lee's input to the lyrics. I don't think there's any real reason to depart from the current title, though if I were writing this article from scratch I'd probably be tempted to title it Fever (1956 song) - which redirects to this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Discussing which version by which singer is the most well-known could go on forever and could change overnight many times - it seems obvious to me that the song's article should be named with its creators' names in parentheses (whenever parentheses really are necessary). Whoever the first recorder is doesn't make h the owner of the song or give that person or h heirs any right to claim the song as hs, on WP or anywhere else. Using the year published is also acceptable to me, but not the first recorder. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Little Willie John's version is the original charting version and, as such, is the disambiguation we use. I actually prefer disambiguation by songwriter, but there are so many problems with that idea, it is not generally practical, Ghmyrtle has already shown us why it won't work this time. I would not oppose moving it back to Fever (1956 song), from where it came. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "the original charting version ... is the disambiguation we use" I'd like to know if such an inappropriate and silly policy is official for WP work and where I can read about that, if sadly so. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fever (Little Willie John song) → Fever (1956 song) – The other proposed title did not receive support because no general reader would be familiar with songwriters' names. I am now proposing a year disambiguator then. While Little Willie John version was the first, the Peggy Lee version was more well-known until the Madonna one (or Beyonce). Either I forget that Lee was not the first, or I did not know that she wasn't the first. And I don't think many people are familiar with Little Willie John today, as much as retro-enthusiasts or R&B-enthusiasts do. George Ho (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it has to be under someone, why not the first as the guidelines say, and won't Google search pick it up, don't think we redirects like Fever (Peggy Lee song) help get them there? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are there good reasons for departing from the advice at WP:SONGS? It says: "If there is more than one song article with a title then disambiguate by putting the artist name in the title." The current title does that - but it may not do it very well. Many readers will not have heard of Little Willie John - but equally many readers will not know that the song dates from 1956. Unless there are clearer arguments in favour, I'm tending towards keeping the title as it is currently. But equally I wouldn't oppose a change if there are better arguments to be made for that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose--The song was first recorded by Little Willie John. That is reason enough to keep the current title. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think you'll create any better clarity with this move. If someone knows it is a 1956 song, they probably already know more about it than I ever will. If not, then what does 1956 do for the article, other than to have some pertinent disambiguator in the title, which Little Willie John already serves to do? This is one of those unfortunate situations where NOTHING will make the title any better, so just leave it the way it is, and put 1956 on the DAB line. Dovid (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment only. I said I won't oppose this RM and I won't. On reflection I can't support it either. Generally, there are three options for us to disambiguate, a) By first performer. b) By writer, or c) by year. I can see logical reasons to support or oppose any of those options, but as WP is already running on a) above I see no reason that this particular song should be an exception. Remember we also having piping... Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

For expansion

[edit]

I Am... ***D.D. 15:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blackwell and Cooley

[edit]

It's clear to me that the punctuation on this page, used to source Blackwell's quote, contains an error. It says: As Otis explained: "Eddie Cooley was a friend of mine from New York and he called me up and said "Man, I got an idea for a song called "Fever", but I can´t finish it. I had to write it under another name because, at that time, I was still under contract to Joe Davis.". But, this page on the same site makes it clear that it was Blackwell - not Cooley - who was contracted to publisher Joe Davis, and so had to conceal his identity by using the pseudonym John Davenport - Cooley's name appeared unaltered as the co-writer. I've tweaked the punctuation in the quote accordingly, to place the end of the Cooley quote after the words "...finish it". I hope this is uncontentious. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghmyrtle: Yes you're right about that. But is the website quoting him a reliable source? I couldn't find anything to prove it is. I Am... ***D.D. 19:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It depends what you mean, and how you want to "prove" it. I regard it as written by experts in their field, highly reliable and well-informed in most cases, and have used it many times. Of course, it's not infallible - but it is far less fallible than, say, Allmusic. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@My love is love and Ghmyrtle: might I suggest you guys run the reference once through WP:RSN? The plan is to take this article for GA in future, so its better we resolve any reliable reference issues right now. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted it. I Am... ***D.D. 14:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox for the Beyoncé release

[edit]

Calling the release the "promotional material" looks misleading. It was released as a digital download commercially. Shall "infobox song" or "infobox single" be used? If the former, how do we call it? If the latter... hmm? --George Ho (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been months. Shall I change the Beyoncé infobox from "song" to "single"? I downloaded the iTunes player, went to the store, and found that the song is sold as a single. I must pay for the song. Same when I go to Amazon Music. George Ho (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that being sold separately does not mean a single release. It needs to be billed as such from the recording company/Beyonce's management or from Billboard or third party media. Take the case for Lady Gaga's Artpop era. Both "Venus" and "Dope" were released independently. But they were billed as promotional releases for the countdown to the album. —IB [ Poke ] 08:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we not call them "promotional materials"? That approach is less accurate. Which other infobox is appropriate for digitally-released commercial singles? George Ho (talk) 08:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the release is a promo, why using the image? Per FFD discussion, which you started, promos are normally discouraged if the singer was not the first well-known to popularize the song. However, it's the image of the digital release. Now I'm torn. --George Ho (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For promotional singles we use {{Infobox song}} only but change the type to promotional. As for the usage of the cover art, my discussion for Madonna's "I Want You" was regarding the commercial availability of the cover art. Both "I Want You" and "Impressive Instant" were promotional releases, but not commercially available. Hence adding their artwork fails the first aspect of WP:NFCC. Its not the case here since "Fever" by Beyonce was commercially available. —IB [ Poke ] 08:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fever (Little Willie John song). 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.

checkY The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fever (Little Willie John song). 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) 20:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Little Willie John chart position

[edit]

There was no such thing as Billboard Hot 100 in 1956, that didn't start until 1958. The single reached #1 in R&B for 5 weeks, #24 in Best Sellers, and #28 in Top 100. Top 100 chart on the week it peaked is http://www.umdmusic.com/default.asp?Lang=English&Chart=D&ChDate=19560718&ChMode=N — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.137.114 (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct - I've tweaked the wording. Thanks for your comment. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was sorry to see

[edit]

the recent chopping of the list of other covers because it somewhat deletes the fact as how significant the song is in popular culture. I agree that some, many, of the versions included could go but this looks like overkill to me. However I have given up arguing about this these sorts of things, being content to just carp about them. Carptrash (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fever_(Little_Willie_John_song)&oldid=1206266020"