Talk:Peacock (song)

add

{{editsemiprotected}} in the critical reception section, add this review with this source:

Sputnikmusic said that "I would also place money on “Peacock” never seeing the light of day, primarily because it’s a terrible song with a double entendre so blunt it would make Ke$ha blush but also because it doesn’t exactly flatter Ms. Perry the lyricist (I’m almost 100% certain “cock” cannot rhyme with “biotch” or “payoff,” ever).

It's already in the page! Thanks! Pedro João [talk] 10:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

References

More reviews

{{editsemiprotected}} in the critical reception section add these reviews:

Drowned in Sound said that " ‘Peacock’. It sounds a hell of a lot like ‘Mickey’ by Toni Basil and features the refrain “I want to see you peacock”. This may seem pointless written down, but what Katy does is repeat the last syllable of the line so that it sounds like she is saying the word “cock”. But she isn’t. She is saying, “peacock”. Do you see what she did there? Can you imagine anything so wacky, so edgy as that? It seems that a pop star has written a song about wanting to see a man’s penis. It is probably about Russell Brand’s penis. I, for one, am shocked. I would put very good money on it being released as a single. It’s just a shame that there are no animal names that end with –ina, otherwise there could be a great response song to be made".

NOW Magazine said that "Those two qualities [Perry's sex appeal and goofy, self-effacing charm] are out of balance for most of the album, resulting in awkward jams like E.T. (Futuristic Lover) and Peacock, , four jarring minutes of Perry demanding to see a guy’s penis – whoops, I mean “peacock” – in the cheerleading style of Toni Basil and Gwen Stefani. To some, this amounts to more of a teenage nightmare".

The Hartford Courant said that "Unfortunately, things get even dumber: "Peacock," a sing-songy number with a clattering beat, is basically just an excuse to repeat the word's second syllable in what has to be the clumsiest attempt at a double-entendre since, well, maybe ever. Also, rhyming "peacock" with "bee-otch?" Meh".

Pop Matters said that "Peacock is a noble attempt to empower a nation of men who are embarrassed of their packages, but that Toni Basil-inspired cheer-squad chant (“I want to see your peakcock-cock-cock”) is a nadir on an album with plenty of them".

Dotmusic said that "The most first-gnawing on ‘Peackock', a tacky, ‘Hey Mickey'-styled eurobeat worship of all things phallic. Perry spends three minutes telling us how she wants to see "it", with all "its" strange colours - "I'm intrigued to see a peek"; "I wanna see your peacock-cock-cock." Only Flo-Rida has come this close to depicting willies so vividly".

The Onion A.V. Club said that "assuming that everything here is based on real life also means we have to accept that some guy’s junk was so beautiful that the sight of it made her cry (“Peacock,” Perry’s attempt at a “Hollaback Girl”). Then again, a little suspension of disbelief and a willingness to let playfulness dominate are necessary when listening to Katy Perry".

The Washington Post said that "Peacock" a tune that comes stomping out of the same pep rally that birthed Toni Basil's "Hey Mickey" and Gwen Stefani's "Hollaback Girl." The chorus is an earworm of the highest order, and includes a crude double-entendre where Perry propositions a lover, threatening to "peace out" if he doesn't deliver the goods. You'll be singing along as soon as you unclench your teeth". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.95.103.157 (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I'd like to see more original language and less block quotations. Taking sentences word-for-word from reviewers and pasting them on a Wikipedia article makes for a weak article. A lot of these can be paraphrased, as many say the same thing, i.e. comparisons to Basil and Stefani and the phallic euphemism. Also, not all reviews are notable or reliable—those with red links (no Wikipedia articles) can be a good indication here of what not to use. Yves (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this would need some agreement, and is in danger of WP:QUOTEFARM. Please reconsider, discuss, and reinstate the request. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  22:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Same with E.T. (song). its a quote farm! -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Even worse, it's all "Reviewer XYZ said that, "quotefarmquotefarmquotefarm"". Can't people find another word for "said", or at least try to reword? Yves (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think notability guidelines need to be reviewed. It says songs need independent coverage. That means independent coverage as its own release or independent coverage separate from the album in addition to coverage from 3rd party sources. In the digital age when songs can chart just from an album release picking quotes from an album review and several small insignificant chart positions really don't seem like enough to establish notability. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You do raise a good point. Regarding the song that is the subject of this article, however, I think a number-one position is notable, no? Yves (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. I'm not convinced. Either way if that is the case "Peakcock" would scrape the thresholds of notability but "E.T."... i'm not so sure! -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 13:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

References

Live Performance

I swear she performed the song on The Late Show with David Letterman? Or am I imagining that? calvin999 (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

She did. Entertainment Weekly (I think) has the video and interview, but they do not mention in the actual article what she performed (which was Peacock) so I don't think I can add mention of it since other editors could argue its O.R. and I can't find any good RS. =/ Crystal Clear x3 01:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Katy Perry Peacock Cover.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Katy Perry Peacock Cover.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)