Jump to content

Talk:Under Pressure

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Does anyone agree that Vanilla Ice ruined this song? Rentastrawberry 01:30, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

200.164.27.202 00:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC) Who is Vanilla Ice???[reply]

I really like this song. However, I think that the article as it stands is not Neutral POV, specifically in regard to the Vanilla Ice sample. I think that the two songs' bass lines are very similar, but I think the language of the article is too strong in stating that Vanilla Ice's (what does he call himself now?) assertation that he wrote the line himself is 'nonsense'. I think the article needs a musicology reference. Surely someone has analysed this question from a DSP perspective and published. Can anyone add to this discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekilfeather (talk • contribs) 19:21, 17 December 2005

I agree..line is removed. -- SoothingR(pour) 09:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well guys, the fact remains that Vanilla Ice did *sample* the line (as the article already correctly states), and so his claim to have written and played a similar line on his record was false. So I have put that word in. It is not POV, although saying 'false' rather than 'nonsense' is of course more neutral. The idea that you would need to use "musicology" or "DSP" to "analyse" this is bizarre, unless you were congenitally deaf.--feline1 11:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Vanilla Ice ripped off the line from Queen, but it is definitely true that there is one note in there that's different. There is an extra note in the Vanilla Ice version. It is the eigth-note pickup into each second bar. It's clear that he stole the line, but it is incorrect to say that it is exactly the same. -Jon Stockton 03:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the line to a modification of part of Sampling (music). This should please most people. Now it has his defence, which was accurate, but not sufficient to avoid having to settle out of court. -Jon Stockton 22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why the line regarding Queen recording a B-side, and thus being credited first, was deleted? Tom Prankerd 05:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it cos it was bollocks LOL That single was done in Queen's studio time, released under their EMI contract, included on their album. Plus there's four of them (and only one of Bowie). These are all reasons to put it as "Queen and David Bowie". But it hardly matters anyways.--feline1 10:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, what source is there for that? The B-side thing is from one of Guinness' History of Rock books (I'll dig out the edition data if needed)... As for them being "four of them", well, tell the numbers thing to the Pat Metheny Band... Like I say, I'd just be interested to hear your sources, and I certainly think it won't actually hurt to say whatever the reason is. It's certainly as relevant as The Used and My Chemical Romance having a scrap over royalties. LOL.

Tom Prankerd 13:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why nobody's put in the Used/My Chemical Romance cover? I shall. Electriceel 12:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol at myself. What a dick. Read it first fool! --Electriceel 12:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just added info about the space station playing under pressure in space, but I found there was already info about it in the pop-culture section. However, I will remove the info in "pop-culture" and keep my newly added contribution under its own topic "Trivia". It makes more sense doesn't it? /Richard, Sweden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.46.43 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 14 December 2006

Interpretations?

[edit]

Are there any scholarly interpretations? The lyrics are pretty self explanatory, but if anyone knows of an interpretation one would be great here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RSido (talk • contribs) 04:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Budapest Comment

[edit]

There was a note under 'Live Recordings' saying that the one in Budapest was played half a note higher. That is not true because the reason it seemed higher during recordings was because the PAL to NTSC transfer messed up the audio making the pitch alot higher. I think it should be removed. JasonDeLima 01:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at this article and noticed that. I have removed the line.--Nyeguy 00:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

[edit]

Can we clean up the trivia section a bit? The statement of being used in Law & Order is inserted twice: Trivia, and Pop Culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.137.73.109 (talk) 11:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Saying that it was used "receintly" in a commercial isn't particularly helpful, does anyone know what month/year it was used?Reindeerz 20:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:QueenBowie UnderPressure.jpg

[edit]

Image:QueenBowie UnderPressure.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pop-culture section seems really long

[edit]

Is this huge list of places where Under Pressure has been used really necessary? My thought is that we could just pick out a couple of notable ones and put them in the trivia section.--Nyeguy 00:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Style vandal

[edit]

Hey Candyfloss, Zone46, Zntrip, just checking whether any of you have reported our resident clown for suspected sockpuppetry, 'cos that was next on my list... Cheers, Ian Rose 01:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"24.92.28.8" = "Thistime19" = "Nightbird135" = "Noway419"... -- Cheers, Candyfloss 13:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's how I see it - in fact I suspect it goes back even further, to Xotheusedguyox, who engaged in precisely the same behaviour and was given an indefinite block by SlimVirgin back in July... Cheers, Ian Rose 15:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MCR?

[edit]

It says that this is part of the MCR project at the top of the page. Why??? As far as I know this has nothing to do with MCR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.223.164 (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MCR and The Used did a live cover version of it in 2005. Grungedude22 (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why the collaboration of John Lennon and David Bowie (Fame, 1975) isn't mentioned as Bowie's "first artist collaboration". The article here says Queen was Bowies' first collaboration. I believe that to be an incorrect statement, but I am known to be frequently incorrect myself. I was just wondering. Anybody? —–15:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)67.164.249.78 (talk)J Hinson

Speaking of MCR, why does the covers section have an infobox for the MCR/Used version when the section covers *counts* 18 versions of the song and none seem any more or less significant than that version. Also sports a fair use image. Does it really need to be there? Rehevkor ✉ 02:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other Releases

[edit]

It strikes me as funny to use youtube as a source... Is there no where else that the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra's cover of this song is documented? Gcdinsmore (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference from AllMusic. 140.168.79.1 (talk) 05:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Video

[edit]

Should be something on the Queen/Bowie video... AnonMoos (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Someone please specify some notable uses of the song in films, video games, television, and advertisements. Bulldog73 (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Torrent

[edit]

Is there any need for a link to the torrent (on KickassTorrents) for the "Killer Queen: A Tribute to Queen" tribute album? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.126.207.158 (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Torrent sites are not reliable sources by any means. NJZombie (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bass line

[edit]

There has been some confusion about who created the song's bassline. John Deacon said (in Japanese magazine Musiclife in 1982, and in the previously mentioned French magazine) that David Bowie had created it. In more recent interviews, Queen guitarist Brian May and drummer Roger Taylor have credited the bass riff to Deacon. Bowie, on his website, said that the bassline was already written before he became involved.

In fact, they all are liars, since none of them created it. The truth is this: [1] --87.165.97.111 (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One could also attribute the bassline to Sibelius (Symphony 1, movement 3) eg: this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH2mziTIZ8o — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of Vanilla Ice Ownership?

[edit]

The article states that Vanilla Ice now owns the song "Under pressure", but the source is Vanilla Ice himself, a notorious liar.

In fact, in that same interview he claims he was 16 when "Ice Ice baby" came out, and that it sold 160 million.

So any independent sources? 71.107.249.74 (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He also told a CNN correspondent that he owns the song in this 2010 CNN interview: transcript. I really don't know, though. At this site, it claims they settled out of court, which means we only have Vanilla Ice's word as to what happened. It may or may not be the actual truth, but it's verifiable that he owns it. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under Pressure (Rah Mix) cd single

[edit]

Probably the fault of the original cd cover/credits (cd1) but the way it's listed in the side box makes it look like it includes versions of Bohemian Rhapsody & Thank God It's Christmas by Queen and David Bowie.109.224.168.181 (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Under Pressure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Under Pressure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added information on the song and its creation.

[edit]

Re: http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/01/11/david_bowie_and_queen_s_under_pressure_is_the_greatest_song_he_never_put.html

This column was written by Jack Hamilton for his Slate column, "Brow Beat", upon David Bowie's death. It mentions:

  • Bowie's generosity in sharing his talents.
  • Queen's greatness as a rock band.
  • The "David Bowie and Queen" attribution.
  • Provides a moment-by-moment explanation of the song.
  • The meaning behind the lyrics.

Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

[edit]

I'm rather concerned about the genre. The New wave genre has no reference, so it will have to be scrapped, and I do have another reference for a genre but I thought I should just warn y'all before I actually did it. UndoubtedlyMe (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate writing credits

[edit]

"...co-written by the five musicians" is meaningful only if one knows the composition of Queen, which is not mentioned prior. GenacGenac (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 August 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed 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: Not moved (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 10:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


– There are 20 entries listed at the Under Pressure (disambiguation) page, including seven songs and two albums. There is no indication of a consensus that this 1981 song is the overwhelming WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the other 19 entries.     Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question. Are you arguing that there is no primary topic, or is this a proposal being initiated simply for the sake of discussion? The fact that this article has been at this title with no moves or move requests since January 2003 is itself an indication of ongoing consensus that this is the primary topic. Overall, this is a recording with considerable historical significance that seems to be given short shrift by being described simply as a "1981 song". Dekimasuよ! 03:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per pageviews, the only thing that comes close to this is Under Pressure (album). But this article still gets over 4 times more views–about a thousand a day. Dekimasuよ! 04:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination posits that the Under Pressure (disambiguation) page has no primary topic. If consensus does, indeed, confirm that the 1981 "Under Pressure" song is considered to be the page's primary topic, which cannot be taken for granted, then the discussion and the !votes will provide a historical record for any future consideration of the subject's Wikipedia standing.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to simply oppose the proposal in this case, because it appears that there is a primary topic in terms of both usage and historical significance. But I am more interested in making it clear that a lack of discussion as to whether this is the primary topic is not an indication that there is no standing consensus that there's a primary topic. Primary topics can and do exist without discussions that show consensus in their favor. That's what WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS is, and it's at the root of much of our editing here. In and of itself, having "no indication of a consensus" on the talk page is not a substantive rationale for initiating a move discussion. Dekimasuよ! 05:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS may be brought up by subsequent participants to this discussion, it can be noted that in the course of explaining what represents consensus, WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS makes no specific mention of WP:REQUESTED MOVES or WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Some primary topics are, of course, obvious and, although there are a number of Wikipedia entries for other people named John Kennedy, Winston Churchill or Elizabeth Taylor, the primary topic in each case is indisputable. Other primary topics are not so immediately obvious and, while page views are a strong guide, those have not been universally accepted in previous WP:RM discussions.
Since there are a number of songs titled "Under Pressure", including one with its own article, Under Pressure (Ice Ice Baby), it appears that a more specific nomination would have been Under Pressure → Under Pressure (Queen & David Bowie song), with the ampersand used as it appears on the album cover. The alternative would be the straightforward Under Pressure → Under Pressure (Queen and David Bowie song). Such details can be decided by other discussion contributors.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS does not explicitly refer to WP:RM. However, it is policy, and it states that "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia" (emphasis added). While I still believe the discussion will re-establish that the Queen and David Bowie song is the primary topic, it is worth noting that the other song you've mentioned is a mashup of the Queen and David Bowie song (using both its melody and lyrics) with another significant song that sampled the bass line of the Queen and David Bowie song. Arguably it could be merged here. Dekimasuよ! 06:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC requests [addition or removal of the qualifier "(disambiguation)"] represent a relatively small percentage of WP:REQUESTED MOVES and feature arguments relative to page views, specific vs. general notability, international renown, etc. There is even a small minority of editors who contend there should be no primary topics at all. Some headers remain for a long time — Leslie Howard was moved to Leslie Howard (actor) in 2005 and remained until 2018, when the actor's header was moved back to Leslie Howard, while the Leslie Howard dab page was moved to Leslie Howard (disambiguation). Keeping such dab page particulars in mind and, with nine songs titled "Under Pressure" listed on the dab page (although only two have their own articles), as well as eleven other entries, it seemed that the primary topic in this case was not indisputable.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to have these discussions whenever an editor really believes that there's no primary topic, and you seem to have indicated that you actually believe that's the case here, so that's fine. I'm simply asking that we not pursue discussions on the grounds that there is "no indication of a consensus" alone. As you noted, different editors have different standards, so taken to a hyperbolic conclusion this would imply we'd need to discuss every title in the encyclopedia, including the examples you called obvious above. It is much simpler and more efficient to assume that there is often a silent consensus. Dekimasuよ! 08:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that primary topic nominations should not be initiated as test cases, just for the sake of having a talk page discussion on the record. Even though there are 68 men listed at John Kennedy (disambiguation), it would be, indeed, a waste of everyone's time to argue for the move of John Kennedy (disambiguation) → John Kennedy [perhaps coincidentally, a vandalism-only account, User talk:IndistinctiveMan, who has been perpetrating such edits since 9 April 2018, has just struck again, changing the dab page's "John F. Kennedy" to "John Fortnite Kennedy"].
Each dab page RM presents its own circumstances — page views are either compared to the page views for other entries on that dab page or to massive page views in general, as in the case of John Kennedy. There was no consensus, for instance, to downgrade a forgotten character actor at Talk:Mitchell Lewis, most probably because of page views across the sparsity of other entries at the Mitchell Lewis (disambiguation) page. There also may be those who feel that key (or most) song titles by The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Queen/Freddie Mercury, David Bowie etc, are primary topics by their high page views as well as by their very nature.
Ultimately, the original nomination was submitted malformed since Under Pressure (song) represents incomplete disambiguation. In later paragraphs, above, I modified the nomination so that it would denote the form Under Pressure (Queen & David Bowie song) or Under Pressure (Queen and David Bowie song), but it appears likely to close as WP:SNOW against the move or, at best, as WP:NO CONSENSUS.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this good faith nom and now I have the lyric and tune running in my head. Hav'n't heard the song in years. Long-term significance has its place, and the interesting lead sentence "It has been voted the second best collaboration of all time in a poll by the Rolling Stone magazine" seems to point towards its primary status. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There's no evidence suggesting this song isn't the primary topic. Many of the 20 topics cited by the OP do not even have articles. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2018 (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.

Aftersun mention?

[edit]

I admit it's unusual to mention a recent film needledrop, but I think this is an exception. The way the movie Aftersun uses and recontextualizes the Under Pressure is noteworthy, and while only time will tell it's true impact, many people have noted that they could never listen to the song again without thinking of that scene, as well as its emotional resonance. You might as well not mention Shrek in regards to All Star. Dunton Delray (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Under_Pressure&oldid=1192729893"