Jump to content

Talk:Imagine (song): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 213: Line 213:


Greenhornfromwildwest (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Greenhornfromwildwest (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

== Real length of the song ==

Hi! I've seen various karaoke videos, and the length of the song is much longer than figures in the infobox. It is around 3:12. Please, verify the fact. Thanks.--[[Special:Contributions/186.59.195.179|186.59.195.179]] ([[User talk:186.59.195.179|talk]]) 16:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:34, 11 June 2020

Featured articleImagine (song) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 8, 2012.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 7, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted

Template:Vital article

Charts section

I've just checked with the reviewed and listed version of this FA, from late 2012. The Charts section has been expanded considerably since then, which I imagine (ho, ho) it needed to. But what's crept in also, in the box detailing chart peaks for the 1971 release, is a number of second and third listings for each country – Canada and the US are obvious examples. Is this okay, having all these alternative charts (Cash Box, Record World, CHUM, etc.), or excessive and the listing equivalent of quote farm? If we think it's okay, then there are at least two other UK charts to add from this era, Melody Maker and NME, and I'm sure it wouldn't stop there – because these song (and album) chart boxes will just grow and grow, in my opinion.

In the case of the US charts, I'd always understood it that Billboard stands as the national chart, even in retrospect (i.e., despite Cash Box's standing until way into the 1970s); so for the US, the Billboard Hot 100 should appear in the Charts section, but the alternative chart peaks can be mentioned in the main text, if necessary. In the case of the two Belgian charts we have, it seems that one replaced the other, according to List of number-one hits (Belgium), anyway. With the CHUM chart, that appears to be for the Toronto area only, so it's obviously not a measure of national sales and/or radio play. So my thinking is we should cut some of these out – CHUM, Belgian Ultratop, Cash Box, Record World – because the coverage seems excessive right now. If not, then should we be looking to expand all other Charts sections for major international hits? – because they end up looking like under-achievers next to this. Any thoughts? JG66 (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Imagine (song) → Imagine (John Lennon song) – 1971 song no doubt more notable than the rest of Imagine (disambiguation) combined, nevertheless Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) requires that once we get into brackets/parentheses and multiple articles we give a precise title. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Radiopathy please see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the primary topic of "Imagine" is Imagine (the dab). We don't have sub-primary topics such as WP:PRIMARY(SONG) WP:PRIMARY(FOOTBALLER) WP:PRIMARY(FILM) etc, this is consistent across the entire en.wikipedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with PrimaryTopic, if it were, we'd be discussion Imagine, which we are not. The song is already disambiguated, therefore it is not a primary topic. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Box set Radiopathy •talk• 14:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry? User:Radiopathy, don't understand your point. What has Box set got to do with this, Box set meets the definition of primary, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it has no brackets after it. We're talking about a title which already isn't primary because it has brackets (song). In ictu oculi (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look how you !voted in the move discussion. Radiopathy •talk• 13:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I opposed your proposed move from box set to boxed set. What's that got to do with this RM? This RM is about whether to follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) for this article or not. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2014 (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.

Lady Gaga

Didn't Lady Gaga perform this live as well? --dnsla23 17:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs)

NY Hilton

Can someone tell me what is wrong with adding to the page the assertion that imagine was written in part at least at the NY HILTON.? Not only does Hilton assert it but there is proof that Lennon at least used NY HILTON stationery to write some of the lyrics

You answered your own question. It's an assertion by a Hilton official. So what that it's written on Hilton stationery? So what if it was written at the Hilton? So what if John took stationery from the Amsterdam Hilton in 1969 and later used it to write the words? Hotcop2 (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piano part

The piano part sounds simple at the beginning of the song, but when John starts singing, I can hear another piano (possibly an electric or electronic piano) in addition to the main piano part. In the video, Lennon is playing a white piano, but in the studio he used an upright piano. Also, I watched on YouTube a video on the making of this song and while Lennon was playing the studio's piano, I saw off to his side, what looked like an RMI Electra Piano. There used to be an article for that instrument and Imagine was listed in there. It said that the instrument was "mixed in with the acoustic piano" and I can make out what sounds like an electric or electronic piano as the former article described. I see that this is a featured article, but it sounds like Lennon mixed the RMI Electra Piano in with the acoustic piano. While I understand the following statement is technically original research (which doesn't hold up in comparison to the wording of a featured article), I'm thinking that Lennon played both an acoustic piano and an electronic piano and mixed them together.--Kevjgav (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The piano is is in mono in the intro. When Lennon starts singing, it's panned into stereo. Hotcop2 (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Music publisher

@Mlpearc: Hi, you're right about the lack of publisher parameter in this type of template, but do you not think it might be an idea to have such a parameter in Infobox Single? We have "Published" in Infobox Song. Also, when a song's notable for the number and range of cover recordings and performances, as "Imagine" is, one could say the identity of the music publisher is every bit as important as naming the composer, no? JG66 (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of this parameter until now. I notice there is no guidance on the template page which could lead to some confusion. Is it the date it was was published, as in Template:Infobox book? Is it the publisher in the author's home country or all publishers? Is it the original publisher or the current publisher? Piriczki (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've said it, P: there is no guidance. I take it that, as with the record label and release fields (per Template:Infobox single#Parameters), it's the first instance that counts – so, the publisher in the territory where the song was originally published/released. I take your point, though: it's published, not publisher, implying an action that requires a date. I hadn't actually considered that until recently. JG66 (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history of infobox song, the "published" parameter was added without explanation or discussion, no guidance for the parameter was ever offered, and a question about it on the talk page went unanswered. It's anybody's guess how it's supposed to be used. I can see problems with songs that had different publishers in different countries and where the ownership of the song has changed hands over the years. Lennon, as well as McCartney, have re-acquired some of their solo songs that were formerly Northern Songs, and McCartney has filed notices of termination for most of the Beatles' songs so he could be getting them back starting in 2019. Piriczki (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forum

@IndianBio: I don't understand what's wrong with using the chart site's official forum when the posts are clearly marked as being from the staff. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS, we cannot use a forum site to link to a content when that content actually originates from a book. The forum members/staff whoever it is have to have copyright from Kent Music Report in posting the information in the forum. Are you sure of that? The source does not seem to have any indication of getting that copyright and hence it cannot be used. If some one has the book, we can use that with the {{cite book}} template. —IB [ Poke ] 16:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@IndianBio: Austriancharts.com is considered a WP:RS, therefore I see no reason not to trust posts clearly indicated as being from the site's staff. Of course, the best is if someone with the book verifies if the information is correct, but unless the site is proven to be incorrect there is no reason not to trust it. And I'd say it's safe to assume they have the right to republish it, but that is irrelevant to the reliability of the source. Wikipedia relies heavily on references to secondary sources, how is this case different? nyuszika7h (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never said Australiancharts.com is unreliable. It is their forum, where any member can post anything, is not reliable. You can go to WP:RSN for this, but pleas eunderstand that just because the main site is reliable, does not mean that we can add content posted in its forums. And you kind of answered your own question, "I'd say it's safe to assume they have the right to republish it", no you cannot assume. The only thing we can assume about the website is that they have right to post the top 50 of the charts from ARIA, we have no idea if they have for Kent Music Report and I'm talking about two different charts here. —IB [ Poke ] 16:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@IndianBio: You have completely ignored my point that the information was posted by a staff member of the site. It clearly says "Staff AU" right there, that's not something users can make up. And therefore yes, we can assume they have the right to post it. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No you cannot. Unless you can show me that Staff from hung Medien were given access to post information from Kent Music Report you are doing WP:OR. —IB [ Poke ] 08:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Imagine (John Lennon song). 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 15:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yoko Ono

I added Yoko Ono as writer and then noticed it has already been reverted a few times. But given that Lennon has apparently stated that she was a co-writer in an interview, I don't see what further confirmation is required.[1] Horatio (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Could get" is not Encyclopedic, Let wait until we can get "has got" - FlightTime (open channel) 03:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what you mean. If Lennon said in an interview that she was a co-writer, isn't that a reliable source? What do we care if the record company gives credit or not? Horatio (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Horatio: Your source says "Could get" that does not verify the claim sufficient enough for inclusion. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It says "In a BBC interview with the couple in 1980, Lennon explains that his failure to credit Ono was due to his being “macho”: “[Imagine] should be credited as a Lennon-Ono song ...". If Lennon says she should have credit, that's good enough for me. The National Music Publishers Association can have their own opinion like anybody else. Horatio (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
<edit conflict>The "further confirmation" that's required is the cold bare fact that Yoko Ono is indeed officially credited as co-writer of "Imagine", not just "likely to be". And it's certainly not the case yet according to the Variety article that's sourced at the end of the Composition section, and the NYT piece that's sourced at the end of the 2nd paragraph of the Lead. And not in that Guardian article either, apparently.
Thank you for raising it for discussion here. I've put in a request for increased page protection on this article. JG66 (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking about "official credit." I'm more interested in what the facts are, who actually wrote the song? Lennon himself says it was a joint work. Horatio (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good lord no, your own opinion does not matter to Wikipedia. If NMPA recognizes Ono's contribution and lists her name in BMI/ASCAP for music royalty and everything, then it should be added, not Lennon's wish to be added. There are legal obligations associated with this. —IB [ Poke ] 03:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since when was Wikipedia in the business of officially recognising anything? The fact of who actually wrote the thing isn't my opinion, but what was said by Lennon, which is surely authoritative in the matter.. Horatio (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No its not, for song articles WP always goes by what ASCAP and BMI lists as officially recognized songwriters. If third party media reports on any artist as unofficially credited, then we mention that too. But we will not add Ono blindly as a songwriter just because Lennon says so. His opinion in this matter is more biased considering she was his partner. —IB [ Poke ] 03:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Since when was Wikipedia in the business of officially recognising anything?" … I believe Wikipedia's only in the business of official recognition, at least in situation such as this one. JG66 (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Lennon said he should have credited Ono, but until Ono is actually credited, no way is it a Lennon–Ono composition. There are countless examples of this in Beatle-land alone … Ringo Starr has acknowledged many times that George Harrison co-wrote "It Don't Come Easy" and "Back Off Boogaloo", but that doesn't mean we credit them as "Starkey–Harrison" songs. JG66 (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this seems completely mad to me, and I'd be happy to credit those as "Starkey–Harrison" songs if that's who the authors themselves said wrote them. But I'll leave it at that. Horatio (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but look at it this way: there are no end of late-period Lennon–McCartney songs where one of them is credited but shouldn't be (because the song was written by either Lennon or McCartney, not both of them). But the official credit remains Lennon–McCartney and we can only add mention in the article, with sufficient sources, of the song's true origin. It's the same with producers – the production credit is the official production credit. JG66 (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've used this argument many times ---
This is an encyclopedia. It has different standards than social media and fansites. Kellymoat (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a trade group (NMPA) that recognized two songwriters when giving out an award, not any sort of binding directive or "official" change. They don't have any authority to change someone's copyright. And since this is a U.S. trade association does anything they do affect copyrights or publishing outside the U.S.? I would think only the publisher could agree to split royalties with another author. Assuming the song is still owned by Lenono Music, wouldn't it basically be Yoko herself agreeing to add her name to the copyright? That is, if any change is actually made. I suggest we treat this the same as the many Lennon-McCartney songs where the infobox shows the official credit then it is explained in the article who primarily or entirely wrote the song. Piriczki (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The field is for songwriters, not credited by such-and-such authority songwriters. What actually happened and what we have sources for is what should be in the infobox. Note that Bob Dylan is credited with drums on My Chartreuse Opinion—it has no place in an infobox. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted to someone's talk page which he removed): See {{Infobox Song}}. What about blues songs that were stolen by racist white record executives and have deliberately inaccurate listings in some authority somewhere? Should we include those as the writers in the infobox when we know it's false? What if someone has "Yankee Doodle Dandy" registered under his name in Maldives? The infobox is for factual, sourced information, which I've provided. How is my source "inaccurate"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In 1980 John Lennon said that Yoko helped with the lyrics and that he should have given her credit. This is already covered in the article and has been for a long time. Nothing has changed since then. Some group made up an award and put Yoko's name on it, that's all. This award, created 46 years after the song was released and 37 years after Lennon died, hardly merits any mention in the article at all. The only entity that can change the songwriting credit is the owner of the song—Lenono Music. So when Yoko goes ahead and adds her name to the copyright, we'll change the infobox. Meanwhile it will reflect what has been indicated on everyone's records, tapes and CDs for decades with an explanation in the body of the article about who wrote what, just like it is in dozens of Lennon-McCartney song articles. And by the way, Lennon is affiliated with PRS, not BMI or ASCAP. Piriczki (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Piriczki: This is my point: it's irrelevant what a rights-holding agency says. The purpose of the field is to say who wrote the song, not who is credited with writing the song by some agency. Did you read anything that I wrote above? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you're only basing it on what Lennon said in an interview. If that's the case you'll need to remove Paul McCartney's name from the infoboxes of the following song articles based on what Lennon said in an interview:
Please Please Me; Do You Want to Know a Secret; I Call Your Name; It Won't Be Long; I'll Be Back; I Feel Fine; No Reply; It's Only Love; In My Life; Run for Your Life; She Said She Said; Tomorrow Never Knows; Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite; I Am the Walrus; Revolution; Happiness Is a Warm Gun; Julia (add Yoko "Yoko helped me with this one"); Everybody's Got Something to Hide; Sexy Sadie; Because; Across the Universe; There's A Place; This Boy; All I've Got To Do; Not A Second Time; You Can't Do That; A Hard Day's Night; I Should Have Known Better; If I Fell; I'm Happy Just To Dance With You; Tell Me Why; Any Time At All; I'll Cry Instead; When I Get Home; I'm A Loser; I Don't Want To Spoil The Party; Ticket To Ride; Yes It Is; Help; You've Got To Hide Yourself Away; You're Going To Lose That Girl; Nowhere Man; Girl; Rain; I'm Only Sleeping; Strawberry Fields; Dear Prudence; Glass Onion; Bungalow Bill; I'm So Tired; Yer Blues; Cry Baby Cry; Goodnight; Ballad Of John And Yoko; Come Together; I Want You (She's So Heavy); Mean Mr. Mustard; Polythene Pam; One After 909; Hey Bulldog; Don't Let Me Down; You Know My Name; Sun King; Dig A Pony; Dig It.
And you'll need to remove Lennon's name from the infoboxes of these song articles based on what he said in an interview:
All My Loving; I'll Follow the Sun; Yesterday; Here There and Everywhere; For No One; Hey Jude; Back in the USSR; Why Don't We Do It in the Road; I Saw Her Standing There; Tip Of My Tongue; I'll Keep You Satisfied; Nobody I Know; Things We Said Today; Don't Want To See You Again; I'm Down; The Night Before; Another Girl; Tell Me What You See; I've Just Seen A Face; That Means A Lot; You Won't See Me; I'm Looking Through You; Woman; Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band; Fixing A Hole; Lovely Rita; Hello Goodbye; Your Mother Should Know; Fool On The Hill; Step Inside Love; Obladi Oblada; Martha My Dear; Blackbird; I Will; Mother Nature's Son; Helter Skelter; Honey Pie; Lady Madonna; All Together Now; Get Back; Let It Be; Maxwell's Silver Hammer; Oh Darling; You Never Give Me Your Money; She Came In Through The Bathroom Window; Golden Slumbers; Carry That Weight; The End; Her Majesty; Two Of Us; The Long And Winding Road.
I suppose you'll need to change the track listings on all of the Beatles' albums too while you're at it.
I think a lot of readers might be confused not seeing the Lennon-McCartney credit they've been seeing on their records for decades. Personally, I think it's better to explain this in the body of the article than to expect the reader to know what Lennon said in an interview decades ago. Piriczki (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, McCartney has stated that he did contribute to the writing of some of those "Lennon-only" songs, especially the early ones. For example, I am pretty sure he claims 20% credit for It Won't Be Long. Which is one of the reasons that going by what someone, even John Lennon himself, said in an interview doesn't work. By all means report what he stated in reliably reported interviews within the body of the article with appropriate sourcing so the reader can decide what to believe. But that does not make for a definitive statement of who has the writing credit. Rlendog (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet confirmed

Hello everyone. I yesterday had sent about this an e-mail to the New York Times but I have not yet received an answer. As soon I received the answer yes or no I will it add in this article. Greetings of Nico from Gouda, the Netherlands. 84.80.54.162 (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yoko Ono confirmed as co-writer

The Guardian has confirmed that Ono is now credited as co-writer. Not only that, but Ono has released a recording of the song with herself named as co-writer.

Quote: "The co-writer of her husband’s signature solo hit releases new ambient version taken from new album Warzone"

Source is here: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/oct/10/yoko-ono-john-lennon-imagine-warzone

Newzild (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Imagine (John Lennon song). 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) 10:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yoko Ono co-writer

The co-writing credit of Lennon-Ono will make it's debut on the Imagine Super=duper Deluxe box set due in October. Like it or not, she is now considered the co-author. The page should reflect as much. The bit about "Lennon composed the song on his Steinway with Yoko looking on" is speculative and not important in the song's history, either way. I had made the edits, but they were reverted. It is sourced and again, like it or not, it is fact and sourced.Hotcop2 (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hotcop2: I was wondering why the edits were reverted. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the edits were reverted, as it seems pretty clear that she's being credited as a writer on the song. --Laser brain (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I own a copy. Can confirm it displays Ono as co-writer. MaJic (comments go here) 02:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blaney?

I think this John Blaney came in himself and added all these references(16 different refences!) to himself or his opinions about this song. Who is he? Why is he apparently the most important source of John Lennon analysis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.58.161.60 (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I'm pretty surprised there's been no response here thus far. Toward that end, I'm going to move this section to the bottom of the page. Anomalous+0 (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Archuleta version

Why is there no mention of the David Archuleta cover when it went top 40 on the Billboard Hot 100? I wonder if more notable cover versions are also omitted from the article? It really shouldn't be featured in that case.--NØ 05:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Find out its notability then, not that hard right? —IB [ Poke ] 09:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable I think since it went top 40. I'll add it.--NØ 14:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JOHN LENNON - IMAGINE

Hello and please read the main wiki article on Lennon`s Imagine song. Ono is not a co-writer. This has nothing to do with the real thing. Is there any need in further explanations? Let me know.

Greenhornfromwildwest (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Real length of the song

Hi! I've seen various karaoke videos, and the length of the song is much longer than figures in the infobox. It is around 3:12. Please, verify the fact. Thanks.--186.59.195.179 (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imagine_(song)&oldid=962015946"