Jump to content

Talk:Tennis Court (song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTennis Court (song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starTennis Court (song) is part of the Pure Heroine series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 9, 2014Good article nomineeListed
March 22, 2019Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Release history

[edit]

I have a few issues with the way RazorEyeEdits has reformatted the release history section. Firstly, separating "commercial" and "promotional" release is original research and confusing. In the modern day, where songs can be purchased online as an album track, separate single releases are becoming less common. Sending a song to radio is often the only release as song gets, and is just as valid as a separate digital download release. Secondly, the "catalog" number (notice this article is written in NZ English, therefore "catalogue" is appropriate) seems to be complete OR, as I cannot find this number in the citation given. Adabow (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of Promotional single is literally A single released to radio. Also, A citation to Discogs would be more appropriate, but editors seem to dislike Discogs citations. I have the Tennis Court EP on Vinyl, and I can confirm the no. for that is correct at the very least; otherwise, it is not original research. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 06:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can cite your copy by using {{cite music release notes}}. Radio is a commerical release. In fact, today, most singles that are released after an album is released do not receive a purchaseable release. See this article from Billboard, relating to "XO" and "Drunk in Love released as the CHR (top 40) and urban (R&B/hip-hop) singles, respectively from Beyonce, with only radio release. Adabow (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If only I had a dollar for every time someone has attempted to back up their argument with an article from a magazine incorrectly labeling promotional singles! Labels, magazines and such mislabel Promos as singles because:
1. To gain more publicity and commercial gain to sell the song off an album.
2. Due to misinformation, undeliberately, and understandingly, because of example no. 1.
RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 07:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia consensus is that being sent by the label to radio playlists (not just being played on the radio) is a form of single release. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 4#Singles release date is when FIRST being SOLD as a Single, NOT Radio Airplay and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 7#'Radio ONLY' singles...Propose infobox Radio single if the industry would support this. Quite messy discussions, but over time this fact has become quite well-accepted. FYI, Billboard is a highly reliable music industry source.Adabow (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly consensus when it's just a bunch of Wikipedia users agreeing on something they don't know much about. I mean, I don't claim to know everything, but I am smart enough to understand the "PROMO ONLY - NOT FOR SALE" sticker they slap on Promo CDs have a meaning. You're right. They are quite messy discussions. Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia bringing free, unbiased and easy-access information to the public, which is why consensuses made by people who are obviously not professionals shouldn't really be worshiped as our very own Ten Commandments; I believe we really should be following the rules of the industry and not making up our own rules simply for the sake of organisation. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 13:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An extremely reliable industry source (Billboard) discusses the releases of songs as singles, referring to their radio add dates. I don't understand what further evidence you would like me to provide. Adabow (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You either missed the point or didn't read my comment properly. Billboard, much like a significant proportion of the population, has mistaken what a single is. Much like how you would mistake the words mass and weight; it's simple as that! RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 07:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your point seems to be based on your opinion and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And no, a physics magazine would not make that mistake, and similarly a music industry magazine would not mistake what a single is. I have provided recent evidence to back up the radio release=single idea. If you know of reasonably recent reliable evidence that contradicts this, then please provide it here. Adabow (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence? I've given you my evidence, and rebutted yours. Show me evidence that the music industry itself has changed it's structure. It hasn't changed; it's still the same. Radio singles still have that "Promo Only" sticker on them, do they not? Singles still exist as a commercial product, do they not? I've been saying that this entire debate, you know! By the way, what kind of argument is "Your point seems to be based on your opinion"? You have an opinion too, but I don't say your opinion is invalid just because I'm debating you! That's just rude! RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 08:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't given any evidence, you have just asserted that a "Promotional single is literally A single released to radio", and that magazines often mislabel songs as singles. Yes, the music industry has changed. CD singles are few and far between, and vinyl is a very niche format. The vast majority of songs are now sold digitally. Once an album has been released, there is no need for a label to create a separate item for a single on digital shops, when consumers can purchase it as a track from the album. Record labels receive royalties for having a song played on the radio. Radio stations must be told which songs the labels want them to play. They want to build enthusiasm for the song so that listeners (a) have the radio play the song more and generate airing royalties and (b) drive sales for the song. I know you have outlined your mistrust of Billboard, but here is an article calling "Team" and "Glory and Gore" singles, despite neither being released for separate sale, yet both have been (or will be) released to US radio. It also notes that "Tennis Court" was going to be the third US single, as it was slated for mainstream rock radio release [1]. Going through your contributions history it seems you have a problem with this idea in other articles too, so can I ask that if you still disagree you raise this issue at a wider forum, such as WT:SONGS and/or WT:WPMU? Cheers, Adabow (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Electro?

[edit]

Source says "electro-goth". I am not sure about the genre is electro... Simon (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goth is definitely wrong. Do you think we should just remove it? Adabow (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just think so. Simon (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modern rock radio

[edit]

The song was sent to US modern rock radio sometime in late May or early June. [dead link] If anyone can find a date for this release and/or an archiving machine (other than archive.is/archive.today) which can generate a decent permanent copy of [2], it would be much appreciated. Adabow (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to generate a copy here — obviously it doesn't appear as correctly formatted as it should be but it still manages to retain the page's content, so I think we can do with this for now. Holiday56 (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]