Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:SONG)

Writers vs performers

[edit]

Songs are a pain to credit because of the widespread erroneous assumption that a performer must be the sole creator of the song. This doesn't happen much in categories other than music; almost nobody thinks an article should begin with "Hamlet is a play by Kenneth Branagh" or "Football (soccer) is a sport invented by Lionel Messi" or "Harry Potter is a book by Daniel Radcliffe" – but in articles about songs this exact type of obvious mistake happens on a regular basis, maybe even most of the time.

I'm sure my own preference for fixing this would be quite unpopular – to credit every song first to its writers without exception (for example no performer in the short description), and to list the well-known performers after that – but it does have the advantages of not being insane, and of being how things are normally done in all other relevant categories.

It's a bit different for an article about a particular recording, but not SO different; being careful to type "Elvis Presley recording", and to not type "Elvis Presley song" unless he really wrote it, isn't very difficult.

But assuming my ideas aren't the best way, I think it's still clear that the current way obscures reality quite a bit, and needs review. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm also sure your preference will be quite unpopular. For one, most popular music has been consistently credited primarily to recording artists rather than songwriters, and that crediting comes from reliable sources which we base our articles on. Since all those reliable sources follow that convention, why shouldn't we? And it's not like any given song article excludes the writers; they appear in the infobox and the lead quite consistently. And your method would come with the implication that recording a song isn't itself an act of creation, which just makes no sense. I'm sure there are numerous exceptions where it does make more sense to lead with the songwriters, but it would never work as a blanket rule. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with "to not type Elvis Presley song". If it's Elvis Presley song written by X and Y it's still his song - it works this way. Eurohunter (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree that writers/composers should be credited first in article text. That is the case in most articles about songs I have seen and edited here. The sub-credit for a song page (seen when you find a song's title in the search bar) is derived from the info box in the article - and often can go to the first or most popular version released (e.g., '1966 Single by Wanda Jackson') but the article text in this particular example begins:

"The Box It Came In" is a song written by Vic McAlpin (1918–1980) and recorded by American country, rock and roll and Christian music artist Wanda Jackson.

By the same token, it is also acceptable to say (to take another example):

"The Ballroom Blitz" (often called "Ballroom Blitz") is a song by British glam rock band The Sweet, written by Nicky Chinn and Mike Chapman.

In the case of a popular standard, the form for the article sub-credit is often, e.g., 'Song by George and Ira Gershwin' -- and then the recording history is noted in the article with such qualifiers as "popularized by", "originally recorded by", "with hit/charting versions by [multiple artists]" etc.
As a lifelong music consumer, career music / arts journalist, and a radio DJ who plays a lot of cover versions and fills his playlists with song data, I am a stickler for historical and factual accuracy.
But I will admonish (since you use Elvis Presley as an example) that music publishing & songwriting attribution can be a sticky, dishonest business, filled with false / contestable credits added to misdirect royalties away from the actual writers* (including the artists). Often, publicly contested authorship is (and should be) noted in the article about that song.
Instances of this have been common for decades, notably in the credits on nearly every Elvis Presley recording (chalk that up to Col. Tom Parker's insistence on this practice for anything Elvis recorded) - and in almost every Phil Spector production, e.g. Mann/Weill compositions that are rendered as 'Spector/Mann/Weill'; although a case for authorship as an 'arranger' can be made here. (notably, many producers are so credited, as songwriters but not as arrangers.) But the extent of a producer's actual authorship as a credited 'songwriter' - or an artist as 'arranger', in the case of someone like Burl Ives garnering additional income from traditional/public domain songs - on thousands of songs, may never be fully determined.
(*My own personal cause in this situation is the standard "You Belong to Me," written by Chilton Price but forever credited to two others (not even in addition to, but in place of her!), Pee Wee King & Redd Stewart, who managed to split credit with her for Stewart's first recording of the song, and have been attached to its 'writing' ever since, as with Ms. Price's previous work, King's only No. 1 hit, "Slow Poke". Excellent article about the songwriter and this odd arrangement, from the Internet Archive: http://www.cincypost.com/2002/sep/27/cloon092702.html)
Respectfully submitted for your consideration... Dano67 (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute at Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär

[edit]

The article Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär was recently created by User:Tamtam90, and I thank them for that. However, the (unsourced) translation is an utter misrepresentation of the German text. The mistranslation of Wenn to 'When' is what caught my eye first. On closer reading, their English text has often no equivalent in the German. I gave more details at Talk:Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär#Disputed translation.

While correcting the translation, I also made more that half a dozen other improvements – some quite substantial – as described in my edit summaries. Tamtam90 reverted them all, twice. I would welcome the input of other editors in this matter. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, you are certainly right. Purposely translating text incorrectly so it would fit the music better is absurd. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 01:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many poets would publish here their [translated] song-books, under a free license, in the sight of such reviewing? --Tamtam90 (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attracting poets is not the goal of Wikipedia. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 15:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nor to undo their original inputs by "just so walkers". --Tamtam90 (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please consult WP:OR. What are "just so walkers"? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poetic translation doesn't need to be completely identical to the original. I don't know why the awesome text (which you put instead of my original translation) must impress the readers as a song. Nevertheless, I already published (under a free license) 50 my translations into another tongue, and some (though still here, within the articles) in en-wiki. The source of the current translation is here. --Tamtam90 (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Runrig singles proposed merge discussions

[edit]

There are several proposed merge discussions regarding Runrig singles that may be of interest to this WikiProject:

Requested move at Talk:Fe!n#Requested move 30 August 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fe!n#Requested move 30 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like WP:SONGCOVER needs some very major thinking about

[edit]

So, I was having a discussion at an article regarding WP:SONGCOVER. I did a random check, and it looks like that rule is mostly ignored. A situation like that is a bad problem, it means you have a zombie rule-not-rule lurching around and various not-ideal stuff can stem from that.

Rules are supposed to codify common good practice usually, and certainly shouldn't contradict common good practice. If they do, you've either got to change the rule or change what editors are doing (which is a whole lot harder).

What should we do? Heavily change the rule I think. Yes I'm aware of the Turtles in Popular Culture thing, and that is arguably common bad practice (maybe). But we're smart. We could find some way to deal with that I think ("If over X number, use prose" would be a help right off). And only-list-bluelinked-artists seems to be common good practice, so we should codify that.

Anyways, following is my latest post at that article's talk page which shows the data and arguments.

Rules are important, no doubt. They (are supposed to) codify good practice so you can see right off what is common good practice (altho in real life they are often some group of editors telling everyone else what to do (what're you gonna do -- people!)).
Invoking WP:SONGCOVER is a good point. But it's universally ignored. As an actual fact on the ground, editors seem to have voted with their feet to often add versions to song articles. Rules that are commonly ignored are of little weight when invoked. For fun, I'll go down the list in "Category:1954 songs" (chosen at random) without fear or favor and see which mention cover versions (in list or text) which don't meet WP:SECONDARY. Here goes:
That's the end of the B's. More than half include these kinds of covers. Probably other random checks would come out similarly, anyone is welcome to do that (I didn't check these beforehand; whatever the outcome, I was going to list them.)
So... WP:SONGCOVER isn't a viable rule. Sorry. Some editors got together and wrote it down. Anybody can write down anything and call it a rule. I get that some editors may wish was a rule. Maybe it once was common practice but there's been a sea change. Who knows, but applying a not-really-a-rule here and there at random is no way to run a business. It's actually an invitation to various kinds of not-ideal situations.
But if you want to go over to Songproject and mobilize an effort (major effort!) to redact all these (which would kind of have a "We're-you're-boss-you're-just-a-worker-and-you'll-do-as-we-say" vibe, considering to all the editors who've voted with their feet to include these cover versions, but whatever) be my guest and good luck.
It does look like the common practice is to include only bluelinked artists. Eminently reasonable -- we basically de facto do that for "notable residents" sections of town articles, altho its not written down anywhere I think (horrors!). Since its common practice and reasonable I'm fine with codifying that.
What can I say? People like write down cover versions. People like to read them. They seldom detract from the utility of an article, and overall are an asset to most. What're you gonna do? Like it or not, it is what it is.

So, hmmmm. What to do. Herostratus (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree less. I think songcover is fine just the way it is. An interminable list of cover versions may be great for Secondhand Songs, but we can't pretend it's anything close to encyclopaedic. It's true that there are many, many articles that are that way, but it seems they are gradually lessening. I remove a lot of covers that aren't noteworthy and see many others doing the same. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A failure to enforce a rule doesn't necessarily invalidate it. Personally, I think the main section is fine as is and just needs to be enforced more strictly. I do disagree with the separate articles portion as I think it's too open to unnecessary splits/forks, but that's probably a matter for a different discussion. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What to do? Clean up articles where SONGCOVER isn't being applied and should be. DonIago (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Many editors have ignored this rule" = "WP:SONGCOVER isn't a viable rule"?? Not sure about that. Another related issue is that many editors add single performances, on stage or on TV, as "cover versions". Even if the artists are notable, AFAIK this is not correct. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such guidelines don't exist in isolation. Behind them, overarching them, is the kind of expertise collected in long articles like Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Ultimately reconciling inclusionist and exclusionist (eg Herostratus and...well...myself) is probably an impossible task. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I get it, you all seem to think that adding cover versions by bluelinked artists is not OK. Looks like you are in the minority tho (I deduce this by the huge number of editors that that do give cover versions), but you're going to delete them anyway. That is not how rules are supposed to work, but one does see this. It is unfortunate, but hey what are you going to do.
The reason that you're in the minority might be that, after all, more editors like to provide information than not. I think it's pretty clear that editors like to write this material and readers like to read it. Getting between the two should be avoided. Well, it's too bad, but it it what it is I guess. As a practical matter, the info enhances the articles on net. Because of course they do, how could they not. Song articles are seldom too long. The material is usually either broken out into a separate section or paragraph, and the reader can skip it if she wants, or else it is integrated into the text as part of the history of the song.
There're a lot of reasons people might want to read a song article. Maybe they're writing a paper American Songs and the Discovery of Mass Pleasure: An Interholistic Paradisciplinary Investigaton or My Favorite Boy Bands or whatever. Maybe they are thinking of the song and want so see who wrote it and when, or where it got to on the charts, or if how popular the song is, or who else covered it, or whatever. Maybe they are following a chain of links down the rabbit hole (surfing the Wikipedia if you will). Maybe they are wanting deeper info on on their favorite band, songwriter, or producer. Maybe they're looking for songs that the band they're researching covered. Maybe they are writing a magazine article about songwriters from a particular city or whatever. Maybe they came there via the Random Article button. Maybe they're looking for a version they've heard but don't know the artist. Maybe this, maybe that, whatever. We pretty much don't prefer one motivation over another, we're here to provide info, it's up to the reader to know why she wants it and how to use it.
You will note that some' of those motives, maybe not carried by most readers but surely not an insignificant number either -- wanting to know how popular the song is (how many notable artists covered it is a good indication of that), wanting specifically to know who covered the song just because, looking for a version they've heard but don't know the artist, looking for songs that the band they're researching covered, etc. -- are things that are enhanced by including info on cover versions. While none of the other motives are harmed by including the info. Few readers are like "Ugh, I came here to find out who wrote the song, but that list of cover versions at the end made it harder for me to do that."
I came here because some editor came to an article I spent the time and effort to make, and made it objectively lesser and weaker by deleting the paragraph listing various covers. And there's nothing I or we, the majority, can do about it. This annoys me, and annoying the editors by messing up their stuff for no good reason is not excellent. But if you all want to play wack-a-mole with this stuff, you certainly won't be the only ones doing that sort of thing. Carry on. Herostratus (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that one of issues here is whether you think of the article as being about the song or about a particular version of a song. I would say that if you go back to the 1900s, up until about 1960 (and varying a lot by genre), the emphasis was on the songwriter and the song, not the particular version of it. For instance, if you look at Heart and Soul (Frank Loesser and Hoagy Carmichael song) (1938), at least ten versions charted over about 20 years. I don't see how you could discuss the impact and importance of the song in the American songbook without mentioning that it charted multiple times over a period of years. And why not mention them? We're talking a small amount of text for each version. If it become totally excessive, I could see putting the list on a separate page. Another reason for mentioning covers is if someone is searching for information on that cover; if they are looking for, say, "Eddy Duchin Heart and Soul", their first result will be this article, which is likely to be the best we have to offer, since the Duchin version doesn't have its own article. I don't see any reason NOT to mention covers by notable artists, and I think mentioning them is a natural part of a song article.Brianyoumans (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anything to avoid mention of covers such as at this highly informative list - apparently covered in both Iran and Yugoslavia and by Gary Glitter!!--Egghead06 (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TBH, I think that list of versions of Then He Kissed Me is interesting in that it shows how well known the song is around the world. I don't think I realized it was that well known world-wide.Brianyoumans (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve no problem with "interesting" or including covers but…… at least include a reliable source that is about the cover (not just a mention of it), say why it is notable/significant, help the reader understand why this cover is important. Without these things, we are just producing laundry lists.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The problem isn't saying "Musician X once covered this", it's doing so without providing any indication of why it matters that musician X once covered that song. Many musicians cover many songs at some time or another, and we absolutely shouldn't be saying that just because a musician sang a song once, or even released their cover on an album, that that makes their cover of it somehow meaningful in the larger cultural landscape. DonIago (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Except that "a musician singing a song once" is not a cover version, it's just a performance. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it's all kind of the same thing in terms of editors adding mentions of "covers" without providing evidence that those covers or performances are significant in any manner. DonIago (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the fact that a song has been played in concert is not very notable, usually. A cover that's on an album by a notable performer or group is much better. For me, the fact that a performer cares enough about the song to want to cover it and record it seems significant.Brianyoumans (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't inherited though. Just because Bon Jovi covers a song doesn't make Bon Jovi's cover of the song in and of itself significant. DonIago (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly not notable enough for its own article. But is it notable enough to mention in an article on the song? Certainly not every detail in an article is itself "notable". I would think that it would be sufficient to be verifiable, interesting to some of our readers, and something that adds to our understanding of the subject.Brianyoumans (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this exactly what WP:SONGCOVER is intended to address, by requiring evidence that the cover itself is significant? I don't think the significance of a cover should be allowed to be determined solely by which artist performed it. DonIago (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. A cover isn't noteworthy just because it was covered by someone notable. Imagine how many covers Johnny Cash or Frank Sinatra or hundreds of notable jazz musicians recorded. "Interesting to some of our readers, and something that adds to our understanding of the subject" is a bar so low almost all covers would meet it.Doctorhawkes (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A particular cover might not be meaningful or notable, but mentioning the different covers might serve the purpose of highlighting the notability of the original song. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is an abundance of covers, there should be a source that mentions that the song has been covered many times in any case. DonIago (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about a rule like "and please don't bother us with stories about Yugoslavia, Iran and places like that"? AwerDiWeGo (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for I'm Just Wild About Harry

[edit]

I'm Just Wild About Harry has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs&oldid=1256040317"