Talk:Love for Sale (song)

Jazz Mid‑importance

	Jazz portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lady Gaga C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lady Gaga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lady Gaga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lady GagaWikipedia:WikiProject Lady GagaTemplate:WikiProject Lady GagaLady Gaga articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Untitled

I added the part about it being a jazz standard. As my english isn't the best I hope that someone can rewrite this and make it more understandable.

this is a very sad song. you can't help feeling sorrow for the singer. 'Every love but true love' and it's Porters genius that hits the minor keys

so adroitly. 2603:7000:3541:4B2F:8472:4417:FF91:3B2E (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although written in the 30's it has all the sensibilities of film noir of the 50's and could easily have been an intro or background of any of those movies. 2603:7000:3541:4B2F:8472:4417:FF91:3B2E (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scandelous

The removed sentence: "The song was thought to be too scandelous for white women to sing and was only performed by black women.", can probably be put back.

For example at this website: [1], it says "Love for Sale (1930), for many years the lyrics of this song could not be broadcast on American radio because they were considered "filthy". Probably because it was so maltreated, Porter referred to it as his favorite among all the songs he wrote, and it created an uproar when first performed. Originally sung by the white protagonist of the show, The New Yorkers, the setting was changed to the Cotton Club where the tune was sung by a black vocalist as part of her act. The 1930's morality considered it less controversial to have a black woman as a streetwalker than a white woman. Aside from its earthy lyrics, the song's popularity was unquestionably also helped by the plaintive, minor-tinged melody characteristic of Porter's music."

And an Ally McBeal fanforum says: The Cole Porter standard "Love for Sale," for example, was written for a white prostitute to sing in the 1927 Broadway production of "The New Yorkers." But there was such a commotion over that notion, the song was banned by censors - until producers simply changed the number's location to Harlem and gave it to a black actress to sing. "And then suddenly it was no longer a banned song," Krakowski said. "The idea of a white prostitute was unacceptable, but if it was a black woman, it was all perfectly all right. Isn't it appalling?"

There are probably better sources out there, and interesting to read if someone adds stuff about it to this article. Bib 15:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Format of title

Am I reading my capitalization conventions correctly? Since for is a preposition, it should not be capitalized in a title... "Love for Sale" rather than "Love For Sale"? --Paul Erik 05:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal and instrumental recordings

The long list of recordings in the paragraph beginning "Notable recordings since" would benefit from distinguishing vocal renditions from purely instrumental ones like that by Cannonball Adderley and Miles Davis (which I'm hearing right now on the radio and which prompted me to look the song up here), as the preceding and following paragraphs do. --Thnidu (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bennett & Gaga-part feels like an advertisement

The whole section about Tony Bennett and Lady Gaga seems unnecessary to me. And on top of that it reads very greasy, with all these overly positive quotes from random people. Also it is very long! It seems like' ibeen ts written by some promotion company. Personally I would cut it completely, because I don't think, this version is more relevant than any other 46.114.88.195 (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I really don't understand why it has more than a mention. Rlitwin (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. You have to consider, that the Tony Bennett & Lady Gaga version was a single from a Grammy winning album, not just a random recording that was put on an album in the 1950s. Obviously there's more that can be written of a recent single release of the song from one of the biggest artists of all time from their respective genre of music, when the Internet provides so many sources. For those old recordings you should probably look for printed media to get more information. Our job shouldn't be to make certain parts of an article worse just to make the less well written parts look better, that makes literally no sense. What you should be worried about is to improve the section about other recordings, and if there is any more relevant information you can find, then please help to improve the article. About your problem about the positive reviews being more present is not surprising as it was a well-acclaimed album nominated even for a Grammy for the Album of the Year. Also there is a negative review present in the article, and I looked for more of those but couldn't find one. Feel free to add more if you feel like there's any missing. Kirtap92 (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]