Talk:Nobody but Me (Isley Brothers song)

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved. Fixing the mispelling surely is uncontroversial. Andrewa (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody but Me (The Isley Bothers song) → Nobody but Me (The Isley Brothers song) — (OMG, I have misspelled The Isley B'r'others, shame on me), This is a song written by and 1963 single by The Isley Brothers, therefore the article's name must be "Nobody but Me (The Isley Brothers song)". --E-Kartoffel (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa!! This needs some careful re-examination. First, the facts. The Human Beinz song reached # 8 on the US pop chart, has been included on many later garage rock compilations, and provides the basis for most if not all of the later versions. It was a reworking of the last 40 seconds or so of the Isley Brothers original single (the bit that goes "no no, no no-no no" etc. etc.) - which itself was never a hit, and was a pretty obscure release. The Human Beinz song has no real relationship to the first 2 minutes or so of the Isleys' song. It's by no means clear to me that the article should be titled "...(The Isley Brothers song)" because the version that is most well known, by the Human Beinz - though the writing is credited to the Isleys - is almost a different song. In the circumstances I was content with it being titled "...(The Human Beinz song)" - even though they did not have the "original version" and did not write it - because their version is so different to the Isleys version and so much better known. It's an unusual situation, but clearly we do not have to name the article on the basis of the earliest version. I'd support the article being moved back to its previous title. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The song is 1: written, 2: performed and 3: first released by The Isley Brothers. The writer credits of The Human Beinz go to the three Isley Brothers: this is what is considered a cover version. By this credit the Human Beinz state: we recorded an Isley Brothers song. Plus: All songs are treated like this in the wikipedia: Original followed by cover versions.(E-Kartoffel (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I wonder if you've actually listened to the two records. The Human Beinz recording is self-evidently not a "cover version" - it is almost a totally different song, and is also much better known than the original recording. I can't find any evidence for your assertion that "all songs are treated like this". Can you point me towards that guidance? Yes, usually, the original version would be credited in the article title - but this is not a "usual" situation, it is very unusual. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference - Isley Brothers and Human Beinz. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

all songs are treated like this, just look at any of the thousands of articles on songs, and how they are structured: Here is a *B-side* of The McCoys, a *hit* it was for The Merseys!!!, and incidentially also recorded by the rather well known David Bowie!!!: Sorrow_(The_McCoys_song). Ando also Liverpool, England group The Mojos did not record a Human Beinz song did they? (E-Kartoffel (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

for future reference, the writer credits: http://www.advancedart.de/ebayfriedi/pictures/humanbeinz.jpg (E-Kartoffel (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

I know the history, thank you, as I've contributed to the article. I would still like to see the WP guidance that states that disambiguation for song titles should be on the basis of the earliest version, or the writers, as I haven't found it yet. As I said, normally that approach would be quite correct, but there will always be exceptions, and I believe this is one. By the way, although you obviously feel strongly about this, there's no need to be quite so aggressive about it. (Perhaps you don't mean to be as I guess English is not your first language, but that is how you come across.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you are right, as I am not a native speaker I fear my train of thought does not come across properly. I don't mean to be aggressive. Still any article about a song mentions writers, producers, origins and that is how we end up naming this article. I don't see a way out of it. We could also name this artice 'Nobody but Me (song)' with a redirect to other songs to get out of this problem (to get into another). What does make me angry that the writer (you?) appears to deliberately dismiss the song's "black music" origins and claims it is "pre-punk" (low-fi, raw) "garage rock", whilst it is a song about dancing, a 1967 mainstream pop product by one of the biggest record companies, and it can be easily mistaken for a contemporary soul production. The HB recording is a 60s soul/dance/discoteque standard. But thankfully the quality of the recording does not affect the article name, no need to discuss this here.(E-Kartoffel (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Just one point to avoid any misunderstanding - starting with this edit I was the one who added content about the Isley Brothers to the article. If you look at my article contributions on black music over the years you'll recognise, I hope, that "dismissing the song's origins" would have been the direct opposite of my intentions! Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: It's interesting to speculate (I don't know whether we can do any more than that} whether the Human Beinz heard the song from the Isley Brothers version, or from the Mojos. As I haven't heard the Mojos version, I don't know. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead vs title

Following recent move activity, the lead and title don't really match. I'm guessing based on discussion above that it's the lead that needs tidying up, rather the title (otherwise I would have relisted te RM). Andrewa (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a start - more work needed though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV and original research

From the article: "Despite its stay in the top ten in 1968, it's likely that the song reached most listeners by its inclusion on Lenny Kaye's Nuggets compilation (note: song isn't on that album, but appears on the Rhino box). " OK. Aside from the other issues already raised about this article (it seems to me, also, that the Human Beinz took an Isley Brothers riff and made something new (rock-and-roll) of it) the statement "the song reached most listeners" by its inclusion on some later compilation is amusing to those who danced to the "no no no no" and learned the guitar solo note for note in the '60's. Wikipedia should avoid this sort of time-centric POV statements. It is clearly original research and POV to say that everyone heard the song when you did. 24.27.31.170 (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Eric[reply]

Fair point. Those edits were made back in 2007 - here - and should really have been taken out before now. I'll edit accordingly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody but Me (The Isley Brothers song) → Nobody but Me (The Human Beinz song) – Perhaps I'm wrong, but do we not name the titles of songs by the artist's version that was most notable? The Human Beinz's version is clearly the most notable in this case. Hoops gza (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to clarify, as anyone coming to this page might be confused. The article was titled Nobody but Me (The Human Beinz song) from the time it was created in 2008, until 2011. It was then moved unilaterally to Nobody but Me (The Isley Bothers song) - misspelled "Bothers" - and then, after the discussion above, moved again to Nobody but Me (The Isley Brothers song). Although I was content with it being called (The Human Beinz song), as the most popular version, I'm equally content with it being called (The Isley Brothers song), named after the original writers and performers. Frankly, I don't think it matters a great deal. Incidentally, anyone who knows both versions will know that they are virtually different songs anyway, as The Human Beinz version basically repeats only the closing refrain of The Isley Brothers song. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The Isley Brothers song is a far better description of the article topic, which includes derivative versions (arguably a different song) by The Human Beinz and several other more significant artists, the Beinz being a one-hit wonder. The IB song is clearly notable enough for an article, as witnessed by the covers. If a separate article on the Beinz version/song is proposed, then merge that content into The Human Beinz, who have no other claim to fame. Andrewa (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Versions

Whether or not the second proposed move above goes ahead, the section Other versions should clearly set out which are versions of the original, and which of the Beinz version. Will work on it. Andrewa (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... the George Thorogood version at http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Nobody-But-Me-lyrics-George-Thorogood-And-The-Destroyers/6FE8755EB97F0B0148257848002FAA6E (yes you do need the last level of that URL or it leads back to the index) does seem to be the Beinz version of the lyrics rather than the IB, as our article currently [1] says.

Note also that a former IB member is Jimi Hendrix. What with this and, even more significantly, 22 charting singles from 1962 to 2001 and 20 charting albums most recently in 2006, they are an important part of musical history. Andrewa (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IB lyrics at http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_isley_brothers/nobody_but_me.html and exactly as I remember them. It got lots of airplay in Oz in the 60s and still hits the occasional FM playlist here. Andrewa (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And of course see Nobody but Me for four more songs of that name, including Nobody but Me (Blake Shelton song) and another recorded by Lou Rawls, both of them available as ringtones which indicates some degree of fame. And there are stll others that have received some Oz airplay over the last half century or so! It's a predictable title, with probably thousands of unrecorded lovesongs by that name penned by unknown lovestruck minstrels over the years. Andrewa (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marsh?

Is it really noteworthy that Dave Marsh counted all the times "no" and "nobody" occur in the song? And does anyone really care that he makes a ridiculous claim of "most negative" song simply by counting what becomes, in effect, a nonsense syllable? Surely this is not noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.62.214 (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who sang lead on the Human Beinz version?

Who sang lead on the Human Beinz version? OlyDLG (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Visit The Human Beinz, then visit their website. Entertaining story of recording there. Tapered (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Significant excision

Removed 3 claims from the article. The number of "no"s wasn't supported by reference, ergo WP:OR. The Human Beinz version was described and listed as Garage Rock. The only cited supporting reference wasn't WP:RS, so it was removed, as well as the claims. The claim that the Human Beinz only used part of the Isley version wasn't supported by refs, and didn't sound that way to me. Since my OR is as good as anyone's, all claims and counterclaims are now out. Tapered (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Garage sound: Aside from the inadequate source for the latest allegation that the Human Beinz version qualities as Garage rock, note that they were an established local bar band. Also, a read from their website [2] describes the sophisticated production that went into their one hit wonder. Tapered (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]