Talk:Praise You

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

Electronic music Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music 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.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Flash mob?

I know the term came into being after this video, but wouldn't it be more accurate in the video section to describe this as an early flash mob? It seems to have all the markings of such; I don't think simply describing it as a guerilla performance does it justice. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Criticalthinker, I added "flash mob" and then I saw this question. So, yes. :) Nevertheless, I let "guerrilla-style" where it was. Maybe both descriptions are worth mentioning, I have no strong opinion on that. Apdency (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stub?

Why is this flagged as a stub? I am not sure how much more information could be added about a video.

Credit

The song was sampled -- some might say entirely sampled -- from a previous recording. There was an interview on National Public Radio several years ago with the woman who had made the previous recording. This should be mentioned. More to the point, why is Fatboy Slim credited as the artist when he didn't write the song or perform on the recording?

I can tell your a bloody American shawn with your out dated view of what a musician is. Althought fat boy did not record any audio for the track himself and instead chose to sample a number of previous lesser works [much like the yanks did with their whole society] it was his creative spark which was responsible for emalgamating these samples with a few drum beats into a pretty banging track, no wonder in recent years the USA has fallen so far behind in music when it continues to produce unoriginal 80's style neo power ballads and refuses to acknowledge fat boy slim is a real artist. CARTHMAN - Get yourself down to Yorkshire my son its well banging ShawnVW 15:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll presume you're referring to Camile Yarborough's recording Take Yo Praise; the chorus of that forms the main vocal line for Praise You. However, there's a lot more to the song than just that looped sample, and while Fatboy Slim didn't necessarily "perform" as such, he was responsible for deciding how to loop the track and what else to splice with it. The inlay of You've Come a Long Way, Baby lists the writers as Slim/Yarborough. Kinitawowi 23:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't they dance to "Praise you"?

The article states that "The video was produced by Jonze as a gift because he was unable to work with Fatboy Slim on the video for "The Rockafeller Skank", so to make up for it, he recorded his dance troupe dancing to "The Rockafeller Skank". It was then later decided to use the footage and just change the music to Praise You."

- but this song dosn't match the rythm of the dance?

It looks like they dance to Praise you.

There is a video on the official Fatboy Slim YouTube "channel" titled "Rockafeller Skank (Spike Jonze Audition Demo Version)" That is a video of Jonze jumping around to Rockafeller Skank. The way the video is shot, the colors match the Praise You video perfectly... That footage isn't included in the Praise you video, its just very similar. Maybe thats creating the confusion. 11-11-2011 67.186.187.14 (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Erick[reply]

piano sample

does anybody know where the piano sample, with which the songs starts, is from? would be interesting for me, but probably also for this article, since the main hookline/scheme of this song is based on this three sampled piano chords. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.196.12 (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love wikipedia!

"The video reportedly cost only US$800 to produce, with most of that money going towards a replacement boombox and food for the cast and crew.[citation needed]". Hilarious! 88.152.4.45 (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video count

Hello ResolutionsPerMinute, I see that you removed the YouTube video count with the edit summary "Trivia, single-vendor source, not a notable count". Many articles include a YouTube video count if it's significant. At what threshold does a count become "notable"? What other vendors are available for this music video? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Many articles include a YouTube video count if it's significant" is a groundless argument. Would you keep copyright violations if many articles have them? Probably not. Furthermore, YouTube is, ultimately, a single-vendor streaming site. There are many, many other video sharing sites out there, including Vimeo, Utreon, Dailymotion, Metacafe, TikTok, Facebook Watch, Twitch, Vine... YouTube just happens to be the most popular one. If this were a good article, would you want a statement such as "The video has received XX million views" present? People would have to keep updating it, and for extremely popular videos, the count would get updated daily, which contradicts criterion 5 of WP:GACR and criterion 1e of WP:FACR. At this point, it is useless trivia and nothing more. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 22:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's the threshold? So the video is available on all of those platforms? How many hits has it had on those, I wonder. Perhaps there's a formula that applies that takes them all into account. I think YouTube hits are a fair indication of popularity (a bit like sales charts)? I'd see no need to update the count here daily. Perhaps what is needed are some secondary sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lies another problem: YouTube is a primary source. It doesn't matter if you see the need to update the numbers daily, because people will still update them whether you want them to or not, secondary source or not. Even so, a secondary source mentioning a milestone number of views would be okay, like a VEVO certified award. Awards matter, but numbers on their own serve no real significance; even a billion views will be yesterday's news 50 years from now. All edges dull sooner or later. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 22:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's the threshold for notability? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I guess there is none. Oh well. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 23:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is mention of YouTube views banned across Wikipedia? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we're back at square one. I'm not getting into another pointless argument with you. I'm done here. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 23:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hang on, I thought you were saying it was trivia? Is there any policy on this or is it just a matter of opinion? I'm not looking for a pointless argument, I'm looking for clearer policy. I mean, 1.7 billion views looks quite a lot to me. Is that also just trivia? Or would a secondary source make it ok? If you are indeed just "done here", does that mean someone could re-add the YouTube view total and you just don't care? Not quite sure what you mean. Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]