Talk:Nightlife (Thin Lizzy album)

Album name

What is the correct album's name? Nightlife or Night Life? Thin Lizzy's official website calls it Night Life. And as can be seen here, every vinyl issues have Night Life written on it. However there's a statement in the article – Some reissue CDs, and occasionally other sources, spell the album title as Night Life, the same as the song title. However the original album title is Nightlife. A citation from that book would be good to clarify such statement. Otherwise, I see no point in having current name for the article. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It's there on the album cover. I don't really see how any other source could trump the title as it is on the cover of the album, as drawn by Fitzpatrick per Lynott's instructions. The spines of the LPs also say "Nightlife". The official band website actually says "Nightlife" [1], although it gets the song title wrong. You might have been looking at the other "official" website (welcome to the cliquey, backbiting world of Thin Lizzy). The book citation is given; that's how it's written in the book, and also in both other Byrne books and the "authorised" Lynott biography by Graeme Thompson. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This website is also considered official and it shows Night Life as the album's name. The cover has Nightlife written on it, but Night Life is written on the vinyl itself. That's what puzzled me in the first place. Guess we'll never know what's the real title of this album as everyone spells it differently. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

That's the site started by the Thin Lizzy estate as opposed to the band itself. The guy who ran it has died so it hasn't been updated for a few years. The discography info comes from band history guru Peter Nielsen who is a lovely guy but he refuses to admit the existence of the band post-1986; more political stuff. His own site says "Nightlife" [2] but he's put "Night Life" on that site you found. It looks to me like Vertigo/Mercury (record company) always used "Night Life" on their labels, although at the bottom of the link I just posted above, they used both formats in their promo material. I'm satisfied that Lynott's intention was "Nightlife" as he and Fitzpatrick worked closely on the album cover, but the record company certainly seemed to contradict that with their labels. Whether they had a good reason to do that or whether they just got it wrong (as they occasionally did with song titles), as you say, we'll probably never know. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. It's best to leave it like it is. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

"Night Life": Willie Nelson cover

The quasi-title song of this album, "Night Life", is credited only to Phil Lynott, but it's clearly a cover of sorts of the 1960 Willie Nelson song "Night Life". The chord structure is identical or nearly identical, the melody is quite similar, and both consist of verses alternating with the refrain "The night life/ Ain't no good life/ But it's my life". The Nelson version has a 3/4 waltz feel, while the Thin Lizzy version starts off that way (presumably as a nod to the original) before moving into a 4/4 blues rock feel. And the verses are different. But I think it's obvious that Nelson should have gotten a songwriting credit, and if this song were released today he probably would have, or there would have been a lawsuit, given how litigious music companies have gotten.

The problem is that there doesn't seem to be a reliable source on the web that states exactly this. Ink19.com, which I don't know if it's exactly a reliable source, states that the song "cops Willie Nelson’s tune of the same name" only at the beginning, which is not quite right. Rolling Stone, which clearly is a reliable source, states that this is Thin Lizzy "taking their own stab" at the Nelson song - which is more or less accurate, but I wish they had spelled it out a little more.

That this is a cover is I think obvious to anyone who listens to both versions, on YouTube or elsewhere. But there's no great source online that exactly explains the relationship between the two songs. Maybe someone has access to some book or something that explains it. Barring that, I don't know what the best way is to express that this is a cover with some original elements. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree that it's a cover of any sort. I personally think it's obvious to anyone who listens to both songs that they are completely different songs that share a short line of lyrics and a sentiment. The lyrics are otherwise completely different, and I don't see any musical similarity at all. I think that if there had been any chance of a lawsuit, it would have happened by now as it has to Led Zeppelin, Gary Moore etc.

That aside, the relevant factor here is that there are no sources backing up what you say. The ink19 source that states that Thin Lizzy's version "cops Willie Nelson’s tune of the same name" is not very helpful – what does "cops" even mean? I am not sure how reliable it is either. The Rolling Stone source is the only other one I have ever seen that even mentions Willie Nelson. I have every book written about Thin Lizzy and none mentions Nelson at all in the context of this song. The most detailed, "Are You Ready? Thin Lizzy: Album by Album" by Alan Byrne, spends nearly a whole page on the song without mentioning Nelson once. There's also a demo recorded by Lynott with Jan Schelhaas, which has different, improvised lyrics, but they don't borrow from Nelson either.

The current wording cannot stay. To claim that Lynott "borrows the title and chorus" from Nelson is too contentious to remain without a source, and must be removed. Your source mentions nothing of "borrowing", nor anything about a title and a chorus. It simply does not support the claim. The best you're going to get here is that Lynott's song was inspired by Nelson's, or is a nod to it. That much is probably true anyway; Lynott would certainly have been familiar with Nelson's work. But that does not make it a cover. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm very surprised by your response - it's one thing to say that there are no reliable sources indicating a connection, but to actually say that you don't see any musical similarity is surprising. I don't know how much you know about music theory, but the chord structure of both songs is nearly identical: I I7 IV iv I vi ii V I etc. And, of course, the repeated refrain/chorus of the two is the same. (As is the title.)

The fact that no book on Thin Lizzy mentions the Nelson song, while unfortunate, doesn't really prove anything - evidence of absence and all that. My guess is that none of the authors knew about the Nelson song, and perhaps Lynott for some reason didn't want to talk about it.

There's no real point talking about a theoretical lawsuit, but I'll say that songwriters have successfully sued for much less; like the "My Sweet Lord" and "Blurred Lines" suits, which didn't have any lyrics in common with their alleged source, and in the case of "Blurred Lines" not even any chords in common.

Anyway, the real issue is what the reliable sources say. We're agreed that there's at least one reliable source - Rolling Stone magazine - which covers the two songs, and it says that here Thin Lizzy is "taking a stab" at the Nelson song. What do you think that wording means? Or do you think this should simply be ignored? Korny O'Near (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you're as surprised at my response as I am at your initial claim. What you're saying is almost entirely conjecture. Your knowledge of musical theory is as irrelevant as mine since there are no sources to support your point. As for the title, there are thousands of songs that share titles – it's also irrelevant.

No, the lack of mention anywhere doesn't prove anything, but then I wasn't trying to prove anything – you are. The burden of proof is with you. Likewise the lawsuit thing. I will say though that comparing this to "My Sweet Lord" made my jaw drop. The tunes of MSL and "He's So Fine" are practically identical, and these two in question simply are not.

We've got Rolling Stone and nothing else, so we are bound by what it says. It doesn't say much. In fact it says less than my preferred wording which you reverted. "Taking a stab" is so vague that it could be interpreted as almost anything. I don't know what the author intended and we are not permitted to synthesise that source to suit more technical wording. What matters is what he wrote, and he didn't write that it's a cover, or that Lynott borrowed the title and chorus, or that musical structures are shared, or anything like that. I'm happy for there to be a mention of the Nelson song in the article, preferably with the RS source rather than the current one, but I cannot accept the current wording without a better source. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

There's more I could say about copyright, music theory, etc., but as you note, it's irrelevant, so I won't. So we're left with Rolling Stone saying that Thin Lizzy are "taking a stab" at the Nelson song. I don't think it's synthesis to say that what they mean is "covering". What else could they mean? Especially since the other artist they mention as "taking a stab" at the song, B. B. King, did in fact cover it officially.

Given that, I suggest changing the wording to "The song "Night Life" is credited only to Lynott, though Rolling Stone magazine has called it a cover of the 1960 Willie Nelson song "Night Life"." What do you think? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I do think that's synthesis. RS did not say it was a cover and did not use that word. We cannot call it a cover because nobody in any reliable source has used that word. Calling a song a cover when it's credited to someone else is legally highly questionable, which I suggest is why RS used such woolly terminology. It's unverifiable. If you want to use the RS source, all we can say is that RS described Thin Lizzy's song as "taking a stab" at Nelson's song. Anything else is putting words in RS's mouth. Wikipedia reflects source material and does not embellish it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I feel like you're wikilawyering at this point. Every article on Wikipedia paraphrases its sources. Tell me, what could "taking a stab at" mean here, if not "covering"? Korny O'Near (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I feel you're trying to twist a source to suit your point of view because you can't find a source that actually supports what you want to say. I've explained that I don't know what the author meant, but I do know he didn't say it was a cover. So neither can we. Why don't you just want to say what RS said? Why do you want to expand it into something else?

Your claim is simply not sufficiently supported. This is the only source you've got, so we're well into WP:UNDUE here too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear: when Rolling Stone says that B.B. King (who covered Nelson's "Night Life" throughout his career) was "taking a stab" at the song, you have no idea what that means? It might as well have been written in hieroglyphics?

Also, I don't think devoting one sentence to the opinion of a reliable source constitutes "undue weight". Korny O'Near (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how to be any clearer. I don't know what the author intended, and neither do you. It is pure and simple confirmation bias on your part. I don't care what it says about BB King; you're taking what the source says about one artist and applying it to another. That simply does not fly. Read WP:V again – you want to say the Lizzy song is a cover, well you have to find a reliable source that actually says that, particularly as another editor is challenging that claim. I'm really not sure you're grasping how tenuous your claim is. No reliable source anywhere has used the word 'cover', and if your opinion was as solid as you think it is, you wouldn't have any trouble finding more sources.

I've already said I'm fine with using the wording that RS used; you have not explained why this isn't good enough for you. As for undue weight, you misunderstand me. What I mean is that among the dozens of reliable sources dealing with Nightlife, only one talks about Nelson's song (and that in vague terms) – it's a minority view among reliable sources. That's why I feel its inclusion is undue weight. But I'm happy to include it, provided we stick to the source rather than extrapolate it to fit your opinion. I really feel I've indulged this enough now; if you have no better source for 'cover' than RS, I think we've gone as far as we can. You might want to consider a compromise along the lines I've suggested. I'm not talking about ditching the whole premise after all, which is what I'd rather do, given the choice. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I do know what the author meant, given that there's only thing "taking a stab at" could mean in this context - there's literally nothing else it could mean.

It's true that Rolling Stone's is a minority viewpoint, though I think that's only because of ignorance of the Willie Nelson song among rock critics. But that's why my proposed sentence talks about it only as Rolling Stone's opinion. This doesn't meet any of the criteria for undue weight. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I know that's what you think; I just don't agree that it's remotely clear enough to use that interpretation. Your wording says RS "called it a cover", which they simply didn't. That's just your interpretation of the source, and we disagree on that. I believe it is undue weight but as I've said, I'm happy to include it providing the wording accurately reflects the source.

You still haven't explained why using the wording in the source isn't sufficient for you. We're going to need to find a compromise, and given that we disagree quite profoundly on the interpretation of the source, we should stick as closely as possible to the wording they use. I really don't see what your objection to that could be. Otherwise we will be discussing this indefinitely, and I do not wish to do that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I'll bite: what's your proposed compromise wording? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Something like: "Rolling Stone described the album's title track "Night Life" as taking a stab at Willie Nelson's 1960 song of the same name [a word for word quote, whatever RS said], with Lynott repeating a lyric from Nelson's song several times."

Something simple like that. Just a straight representation of what RS said. Just like RS left it to the reader to interpret what they're saying, we should do the same. Readers can make their own judgement. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that's helpful. I'm curious about the "repeating a lyric from Nelson's song several times" part. Doesn't that qualify as original research? Why are you willing to concede that point but not others? Korny O'Near (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It probably is OR, yes, but I included it as part of the compromise with you. I'd rather leave that bit off. It was probably the only thing we agreed on, that that particular lyric was shared between the two songs. Beyond that, we are at odds. But yes, it's probably OR, just OR that is not particularly contentious for us. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you're willing to concede that the lyric is repeated several times in the Thin Lizzy song, are you willing to concede that it's also repeated several times in the Nelson song? And that it functions as a chorus, or refrain, in both songs? Korny O'Near (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I've already said the lyric was shared between the two songs. I don't consider it a chorus and 'refrain' is a pretty woolly term, the type we should avoid. I'm not prepared to concede anything further, and as we've said, this is already stretching OR to the point that if anyone else objected, we'd have to take the unsourced part off. This is realistically as much as we're likely to agree upon. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm against saying that one song "repeats a lyric" from the other song, since it's misleading - it implies that that's the only thing the two songs have in common. So I guess we'd have to remove that part, which just leaves the Rolling Stone quote. And now I'm wondering: if you think this quote is utterly meaningless, why include it? If the article had said that this song "argles the bargle", would you want to include that quote as well? Korny O'Near (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, we'll remove that part. We don't have any source material comparing the two songs in terms of lyrical or musical similarity or lack thereof, so that's out. As for why I want to include the quote, I should have thought it was obvious - because you have raised the point, and the quote is the only material we have relevant to your claim which satisfies Wikipedia rules. It's relevant in that it discusses the Lizzy song "Night Life", so it can go in the article. The fact that it doesn't mean a great deal is not lost on me, but it's all you've got, so I assume you'd want it included. If you don't, then we can forget the whole deal if you'd prefer. The whole problem with this is that the source material does not discuss the point you want to make, and that's a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia policy. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll say this: if I wanted to make a point in a Wikipedia article, and all the source material I had was of the specifity in that RS source, I wouldn't bother to make the point. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

We've already established that we have different opinions on the specificity of the quote. I think it means something very specific, while you think it could mean "almost anything". (You haven't actually come up with an example of anything else it could mean, but no matter.) I'm not sure, though, that a direct quote could work. The full sentence from that Rolling Stone article is "It's no coincidence that guitar heroes like B.B. King and Thin Lizzy have taken their own stabs at "Night Life." ". How would you massage that into this context? Korny O'Near (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes you're right – no matter. I don't think you understand this point. It doesn't matter one little tiny bit what we might think that source is "trying to say". That's why I didn't want to waste my time guessing what RS 'might really have meant'. It only matters what it actually says, and it needs to be crystal clear. It isn't. Is that quote the one you originally showed me? That one is even less useful than the one I seem to remember. You're right, there's nothing there we can use. Did you really think you could twist that into saying "RS called it a cover"? That wouldn't have withstood even the briefest of scrutiny from a third party, which I would certainly have invited. The fact that it's not credited to Nelson, and nobody anywhere (except you) has said that it should be, dismisses any claim of it being a cover. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

We've spent a lot of time on this, and we're not getting anywhere. Do you have any other wording you want to use? Otherwise we should head to a RfC or something, or just drop it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I created the RfC. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Relationship to Willie Nelson's "Night Life"

Should this article mention the 1960 Willie Nelson song "Night Life", and if so, how should its relationship to the Thin Lizzy song "Night Life" be described?

Here are the facts:

• The 1974 Thin Lizzy album Nightlife contains a song called "Night Life", credited only to lead singer Phil Lynott.
• The Willie Nelson song and the Thin Lizzy song both contain a repeated lyric that's a variation of "The night life/ Ain't no good life/ But it's my life".
• Other than that, the lyrics are different.
• The chords and melody of the two songs may have similarities as well, depending on whom you ask - you can hear them both on YouTube, if you're curious; the Willie Nelson song here and Thin Lizzy song here.
• Despite the potential similarities, there appears to be only one clearly reliable source that mentions the two songs together: this Rolling Stone blurb about Willie Nelson's "Night Life", which begins, "It's no coincidence that guitar heroes like B.B. King and Thin Lizzy have taken their own stabs at "Night Life." ".
• For the record, B.B. King directly covered Nelson's "Night Life" throughout his career. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• "Rolling Stone calls the song a cover of the Willie Nelson song" - or words to that effect. I think it's obvious, from context and common sense, that RS is calling this a cover. (And I would call it a cover also.) Attributing the opinion to Rolling Stone prevents us from having to take sides on what is sort of a legal dispute. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

That's just a flat out falsehood. Rolling Stone does not use that word, nor, in my opinion, does it use words to that effect. You are the only person using the word 'cover', so to use it in this article is utterly unsupported by reliable sources. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet You're being abusive. Damotclese (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Would you like to clarify that, Damotclese? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

In summary of the lengthy discussion above, my point of view is that the two songs are not similar enough for one to be a cover of the other. More importantly, no reliable (or unreliable) source anywhere says that the Thin Lizzy song is a cover of the Willie Nelson song, despite sharing part of the lyrics. The almost total lack of sources discussing the two songs together makes it very difficult to refer to them together in the article without veering into original research. However, I was happy to include a reference to the Rolling Stone article, providing it was not synthesised into an implication that Rolling Stone actually called the Thin Lizzy song a cover of the Nelson song. The Rolling Stone source simply does not say that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

So what do you think the article should say? Korny O'Near (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This is getting a bit tedious. Again, and for the last time, something like: "RS described the title track as "taking a stab" at Nelson's 1960 song of the same name." I do not expect to be asked this question again. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Alright, fine - that's the opposite of what you said before ("there's nothing there we can use"), but this is fine too. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Well I made that suggestion before but you were non-committal. Other than this wording, there's nothing we can use as far as I'm concerned. Either you are happy with this wording or you aren't. It would be helpful if you could actually make a judgement on this wording either way. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I put my opinion in the section above this one. As to this specific wording, I'm not sure - it's odd to have a quote where none of the exact words appeared in the original source. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

You said it was "helpful". What we need here is for you to say whether you are happy with this wording being used in the article. And you're starting to lose me. "None of the exact words"? Be more specific. Would "RS described the title track as Thin Lizzy "taking their own stab" at Nelson's 1960 song of the same name." be more to your taste? Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I meant that, in your suggested quote of "taking a stab", none of those three words appear exactly in the original. And by "helpful", I just meant that it was helpful to know your opinion. "taking their own stab" may or may not be better, I'm not sure - it's still an inexact quote. We're in the middle of an RfC; I'm curious to hear what (if anything) other people have to say. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You're starting to lose me here. Further up you've said the quote from RS was this: "It's no coincidence that guitar heroes like B.B. King and Thin Lizzy have taken their own stabs at "Night Life." and now you're saying that "taking their own stab" is an inexact quote. It looks mighty similar to me. If you're talking minor grammar and syntax, then the sentence can be fixed to make the quote exact. I do hope you're not just waiting for me to think up umpteen almost identical sentences till I hit on one that you like. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)