Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 109.158.85.50 (talk) at 11:15, 18 September 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconSongs Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page 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
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Chord progression

This refers to the very common misinterpretation of what a chord progression is. How should we write it on articles?

  • This: "...giving it a circular progression through all the seven diatonic chords of I–IV–VIIo–III–VI–II–V–I."
  • Or this: "The verses follow in the chord progression of Cm–A♭–Cm and the chorus uses an A♭–E♭–Fm–D♭ progression."

--Efe (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, firstly a great thanks to anybody who considers writing about the song - there are too many articles about the chart placings with nothing about the song - could be a dishpan for all the casual reader might ascertain! As everything has to be sourced, I would say use the same format (re-written of course) as in the source. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Hey Ya!" is one of the good examples here. While its sort of original research (as did 90% of song articles, at least on the part is which the song's structure is analyzed), as did other articles which uses the style of writing like used in item number two. Also, I really thought its sort of wrong because the term chord progression doesn't refer to the chords (as in guitar chords). That Cm–A♭–Cm, look in the music sheet. The "notation" is for the readers' guide how to play the song using the guitar. --Efe (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys. Maybe you'd like to see this little discussion about chord progression. I would to note that there are many GAs having that kind of writing / info / interpretation. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Songs by producer

Hi, I note Category:Songs by producer appears to be a WP backwater that needs some considerable expansion, but before that, wp:songs really could do with guidance notes. I have a number of discussion points :-

  1. That the category should be broken down into genre because most producers work primarily in a specific genre. My own query with this is where would you put somebody like, say, George Martin, who with the Beatles crossed over into most genres?
  2. That self-produced songs are an irrelevance - I made my own breakfast this morning but that doesn’t make me a chef (I have a ruder analogy, but you can work that out for yourself). Therefore, unless an artist is also producing for another artist these should be deleted.
  3. That redirects shouldn’t be categorised by producer because most songs are recorded by more than one artist it does suggest that the producer produced ALL versions.
  4. It is unnecessary to have a category with a single entry as all it does is create a circular route to what is or should be in the article. I’d like to roll this out to other categories within wp:songs, but that’s another issue.

Any comments? Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Thanks, Rich for involving me, as I have added several categories to this scheme. In my mind, it should mostly mirror Category:Albums by producer and to that end, I don't think it would be wise to split it up by genre (and, of course, what do you do with, e.g. Glen Ballard?) As far as self-produced songs, then the same criteria should be applied for albums. If an artist is not known for producing and simply happened to make a demo and so "produced" it, then it's probably not wise to have that category. This is a case-by-case thing. Your point about redirects is a good one that does not apply to albums--several recordings of a song can be released without having been produced by the same person. It's not clear to me what the best option is here... Finally, regarding single-member categories, since those would be deleted for albums, they should be deleted here as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had made a post over at Albums to tell them about my post as it is self-evident that the two categories need to be treated in tandem. I should have made that clear. Let's see if anybody responds before I make any more comments. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody else seems to be interested in this. Perhaps you could point me in right direction for albums by producer guidelines and we can see if we can adopt these as they stand. Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well I don't know how those standards were arrived at--all I can say for certain is that if the producer is a redlink, then the category would be deleted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I want to make Rihanna's "S&M" an A class article, which I am pretty sure that it is at already, and was wondering how I go about nominating it? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Non-free use rationale album

At Template_talk:Non-free_use_rationale_album#Here_We_Go_Again_.28Ray_Charles_song.29_alternate_cover_art, I need some coding assistance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moves Like Jagger suggestion

Because of the scenes where the female dancers in Moves Like Jagger by Maroon5 show nipslips (wardrobe malfunctions), then shouldn't it be mentioned on it's page? And that VEVO or Youtube doesn't know it?

174.31.153.173 (talk)Concerned —Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

It seems to me that the prominent use of the bassoon was NOT coincidence. The bassoon is frequently referred toas "the CLOWN of the orchestra".

Lowell Inhorn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.148.12 (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Prince proposal

Please add your opinion. I Help, When I Can.[12] 22:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting opinion

I'm currently working on improving an article, "I Can Only Imagine", to GA or FA status. Currently, the only major problem with the article is the music video portion. I was wondering whether writing a synopsis (similar to what is done on FA-class movie articles) of the video would be a breach of GA/FA criteria, as I have no sources to back up the video's plot. It is highly unlikely I could find a news article or web article describing the video. Any opinions on this would be greatly appreciated, thanks. Toa Nidhiki05 20:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, a little too much WP:DUE weight is currently being given to the video, as it is not mentioned in the article other than by it's description. If you can find a review of the song that comments in some way on the video, that would be good. Expanding on the plot of the video, a little over what may be present in a review, is considered okay, providing that the description is not interpretive. HTH, Uniplex (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that seems fair - if I am unable to find an sources for it, does that disqualify it from GA/FA criteria, which requires comprehensive coverage? Toa Nidhiki05 13:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs&oldid=451126843"