Talk:Blister in the Sun

Blister or drifter?

Is this song called "Blister in the Sun" or "Drifter in the Sun"? While the article says "Blister", various other spots in it say "Drifter". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60a1 (talk • contribs) 16:48, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

It's "Blister in the Sun". According to the back of the album, Gordon Gano and basically every single other Femmes fan, it's "Blister". Whoever told you it's also called "Drifter" is an idiot or if you found it on the internet, then those places aren't good sources Doc Strange (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that 68.60.95.91 edited this page on 20 August 2007 to change the title from "Blister in the Sun" to "Drifter in the Sun."  This is the only edit 68.60.95.91 ever made to Wikipedia.  Two days later, on 22 August 2007, 60a1 made her/his only edit to Wikipedia here on this talk page to ask whether the title is "Blister in the Sun" or "Drifter in the Sun."  Two days after that, on 24 August 2007, Superiority undid 68.60.95.91's edit, reverting the page back to its previous standing, wherein the title correctly appears as "Blister in the Sun" throughout the article.  About five months later, Doc Strange responded to 60a1's inquiry.  Yours, allixpeeke (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Was this released as a single?

It says on the main Femmes article that it is not, while it has a category "1983 singles".

It was. The singles discography in the Femmes article only includes charting records, apparently. (There was at least on single released from every album though Rock!!!!!) -Freekee 01:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Released in 1990 or 1982?

The article says it was released in 1982, but the infobox says 1990. Guroadrunner 11:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

According to Amazon.com, the self-titled album was released in 1983. The song is on that album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.49.192 (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Video?

Was there a re-release for the video in connection with the Grosse Point Blank soundtrack? The video I just watched appears to have clips from the original 1982 video as well as the movie and also fantasy images of Socks and Chelsea Clinton. -Etoile 14:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The original was 82, but when it came time to use it in the movie, it was discovered that the original masters of the song were no longer available. To make the song usable in the flick, the Femmes re-recorded an updated version, which is the later release, and not very widely loved like the original.

16:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.142.95 (talk)

While the version that appears on the Grosse Point Blank CD is definitely not the version that appears on Violent Femmes, the version that appears in the actual Grosse Pointe Blank film sounds to me like it is the original version of the song, rather than the re-recording that that appears on the Grosse Point Blank CD.  Maybe I'd have to watch the film again.  Am I wrong?  allixpeeke (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

No, you are right, and I've never understood why this happened. Brian Ritchie has said they rerecorded it because the original master tape had been thrown away, but that doesn't explain why the rerecording only appeared on the soundtrack and the original appeared in the film anyway. I wonder if maybe they couldn't find a high enough second generation master to include on the soundtrack album, or maybe they ran into some kind of weird rights issue with Slash Records. I added info culled from a 1997 Billboard article, but it still doesn't explain the full story. Maybe someone should ask Cusack on Twitter. — The Keymaster (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Meaning?

I came here hoping to get some enlightenment as to the meaning of the lyrics. Can anyone provide insight? —XSG 16:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The Femmes' website has an anecdote about how in high school, a girl pointed out to Gordon's class that he had very small hands. Beyond that, your guess is as good as any. It's also often said to be about masturbation, but that's disputed. Your guess is as good as anyone's, and there's not a reliable enough source for us to report the meaning. -04:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freekee (talk • contribs)

Info?

How many BPM? What key is it in? Stuff like that? --Knick99 (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Little B?

This song doesn't actually sound very much like Little B...there is a similarity, sure, but the rhythm is different, the intervals are different, the notes are different...so yeah. The article says something about how the melody is identical, which definitely, definitely isn't true. It also implies that the entire song is built around Little B which also definitely isn't true because Little B is a two-riff instrumental with a drum solo in the middle. The article implies that basically what the Femmes did is steal the riff (and I've already touched on this), remove the drum solo, write a chorus, and write lyrics to get the song. That's kind of ridiculous. The sentence should probably be deleted or at least significantly altered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.84.19 (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the following passage: The characteristic introductory melody is virtually identical to the 1962 Shadows' track "Little B" from the album Out of the Shadows, though with added lyrics and without that track's lengthy drum solo.

-Freekee (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, both the Violent Femmes and the Shadows borrow the riff from the earlier jazz number "Blues in the Closet," most famously recorded by The Oscar Pettiford Quartet. I suppose it may make sense to point out the signature melody for this song did not originate with Gordan Gano, but it's possible Gano may have figured it out while being unaware other artists had stumbled upon it before. Regardless, there are no RS reference to substantiate these facts, so it's a moot point. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Brincando De Samba

I was listening today to Clara Moreno's "Brincando De Samba" and noticed the same distinctive riff mentioned above featured in the middle of the song. I haven't been able to find much info about "Brincando," but it seems like the Moreno version is recent, even though it has that classic 60's sound. I don't speak Spanish, so I wasn't able to tell if it was a deliberate quote or not. Kitoba (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

trivial?? Dayewalker content for its trivial nature

What makes the fact that it was featured on Band slam trivial, but that it was used in a episode of "Gossip girl" is not trivial? or how about a episode of "My so called life"? how is it that you define one more trivial then another? please provide support for your removal of the content and you choice to leave the other similar content. Please explain how this is not a arbitrary removal.BespokeFM (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I can speak to this. First, let's start with the line itself. The only stab at proper grammar or formatting was the capital letter at the start, and the bullet. The factoid has poor spelling, grammar and punctuation. This does not make other editors inclined to keep a trivia item. But more importantly, there are no wikilinks. There is nothing in the factoid itself to imply whether it is notable. I had never heard of Bandslam, so had no idea if it was notable. Also, it sounded like the song was "featured" in the soundtrack, rather than being a "feature." Once I got around to looking it up and determining that it was, in fact, a movie, and not a videogame, or TV show contest, or such, I found that the lengthy plot summary did not mention the song, and I made the bet that there was nothing notable about the song's appearance in the movie. Almost every movie out there has a dozen or more songs in its soundtrack. This is not notable in any way.

Note that there are two types of being featured. One is simply appearing on the soundtrack, like background music. Another is really being a feature, as in part of the plot. Say, the characters choose the song and play it themselves. It seems like the usage in My So-Called Life, had something to do with the plot, but I can't remember for sure. So this list does need cleaning up, and now that you bring my attention to it, I see others that should be removed. IMO, if it's trivia, it's too trivial to deserve mention. If it's important, it should be worked into the article prose. -Freekee (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Better? -Freekee (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

My So-Called Life should really be included on this page. It wasn't very long [just over a minute], but it was an important experience in the show's storyline: Angela woke up and realised she was no longer infatuated with Jordan, so she did a happy dance and lip-synced to this song. On its own that might be trivial, but this was the first time I, and many of my friends, had ever heard this song and its usage there really did help a whole new generation of kids discover the song and the band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.47.125 (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Meanings, Codings, Keys

It is a 14 of 23 text, the low number allowing only an unclear look on several things:§ "Masturbation" in the "Make some noise" sense: Relief§ An 14th degree Order an it's working: It makes you feel big hands, coming from the Doctors Plain, touching your body and thereby telling, you have to decode the touches.§ Big Hands: other Lodges (girlfriend) from which you can be freed or stolen.§ Big Hands of the law, the order as a whole is big hands.§ The order makes, by taking the whole life and acting into ones past, a person small hands (see Donald Trump, who is 16 of 23 of the same system of orders).§ The agressive stance (punk shouting) in the video supports the work. Original tapes get lost so others can't catch the order. Symbolism in the video makes very clear it is such secret service magic. Known in at least most western countries, most famous example is the SS.§ "blister in the sun" "to be HIGH off of weed": Same meanings: Getting freed§ i strut my stuff: to show what someone is able to do: to the other lodge, "Arbeit macht frei", etc.§ Band Members Names: Gordons - Knot, Gano - Mind Control Domain, Sound Painting; Brian - Life of, Richie - the Reich, les Riches; Dresden - to turn, dre - number three is for orders, Dolls - you are just part of an orders hierarchie, Brian Viglione - the vigilantes.§ 1980ies saw a new start of those orders in other countries too, maybe a NATO projekt.§ The denial of knowledge about meaning by band member fits into them being part of an order (magic sect) thinking them and for them as well as being bound in a medium degree, not being able to get the full pictures.§ Can be heard as referring to Heroin use.§ To "check": generic verb in heroin user culture known worldwide since the US vietnam war.§ "Stain my sheets": Blood and sweat by heroin use; as well: to change other orders someone is in.§ There is Heroin use wisdom in it, not to be told on wikipedia.§ "I just might stop to check you out": Double meaning allows for more fans and bigger sales:§ To check someone or something out: Get out of being bound in another lodge or order, get the other one out of someones or a whole peoples system.§ "Body and beats, I stain my sheets, I don't even know why": An orders magic often implies someone doing something he or she doesn't know about, as well as the 23 system. It even may be a necessity.§ See also: http://www.amiright.com/misheard/song/blisterinthesun.shtml§ (Misheard lyrics (also called mondegreens) occur when people misunderstand the lyrics in a song. These are NOT intentional rephrasing of lyrics, which is called parody. This page contains all the misheard lyrics for Blister In The Sun that have been submitted to this site and the old collection from inthe80s started in 1996.)§ Blister: Blister packaging, bubble, soap bubble: In transit phase, some notice a bubble.§ Punk movement was meant to clear countries, being a specifically made order, too.§ There are some more meanings, yielding bigger sales.§ 87.153.243.150 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Notability of appearances in various media

User Doctorhawkes has repeatedly removed content related to appearances of the song in media without explanation being nebulous assertion that they're not notable. Of the two instances they've chosen to repeatedly remove, one has been present in the article for two months without anyone taking issue with it across several edits (an appearance in a recently released video game), and the other was an edit I made, which they removed within a day of me making it (relating to usage in a television series). The section otherwise contains two media appearances that have gone untouched by the user, one for an appearance in a film and one for an appearance in a fast food commercial. Across the entire section, there is a single citation in relation to any of the four media appearances, and it does not cover all of the information presented about that particular media appearance.

In the decade of discussion that this Talk page contains, nobody has ever argued about the notability of any of the appearances included. the removal of the two more recent additions while leaving the older two edits untouched is, until demonstrated otherwise by Doctorhawkes (the only user seeming to take issue with the edits), arbitrary and should not be honored. After they reverted by edit and removed the earlier edit, I reverted with an edit message saying they should discuss it on the Talk page and demonstrate why they believe the removed appearances are not notable. They refused to do so and reverted again, claiming notability must be demonstrated with a source, despite such an absence for the appearances left untouched, as discussed above. I am going to revert one last time, making abundantly clear to them that I have done my due diligence in assuming good faith on their part. If they revert again, we'll involve the DRN. I have no other option when they refuse to engage.

The article has an abundance of issues. Arbitrarily targeting this content while leaving not encouraging improvement of the content, demonstrating why it ought be removed, or seeking to otherwise improve the overall state of the article is not to the benefit of the article's quality. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Dfsghjkgfhdg, if you want the content included, the WP:ONUS is on you to provide the reliable sourcing demonstrating notability for its inclusion. Edit warring to restore disputed content is ill-advised and your stated expectation that editors removing the content need to prove a negative (that the content is not notable) has no basis in policy.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Ponyo, WP:ONUS does not mention notability, and demonstration of notability will be relevant further in the discussion, but it was not for the point we were at when I made the comment you're replying to. As I stated very explicitly, my issue is with Doctorhawkes' behavior indicating that they are not motivated by doing what is best for the article, evidenced by their selective application of their argument while ignoring other media appearances that are also unsourced and have no notability demonstrated. I have not requested that anyone prove a negative. I requested that bad faith behavior (selectively removing content from an article that displeases you) stop and that good faith behavior begin. Notability has been neither demonstrated nor disputed for any of the media appearances mentioned. The lone citation in the entire section regards a single facet of a single media appearance. (Citations have now been added throughout the section with the only media appearance omitted being the one I added. Clearly, briefly perusing for citations for edits other people added was not an issue, and if they had been acting in good faith, this is how this would have began and ended with no issue.) To pretend the targeted removal of 2 of the 4 media appearances listed is a good faith effort to improve the article is laughable, and it is unreasonable to expect anyone to engage it in good faith when they themselves are not being engaged in good faith. Since the citations have been added and one of the two media appearances re-added and citations sought with, mysteriously, no complaint, I will move on to demonstrating notability at at least the same level as has been done for the media appearances that are not being contested. Any further contest of its inclusion is transparently selective and arbitrary. The source is a Rolling Stone article which asserts that "everyone remembers the scene", and it was literally the first search result for "my so-called life blister in the sun". If the other user were acting in good faith, as they eventually did for the other three sources after having their arm twisted, this would have been a non-issue that never took more than 30 seconds from anyone's life. If an action you take on this site isn't for the purpose of making the project better, you shouldn't be doing it. It is transparent that the betterment of the article was not their core concern. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Casting aspersions regarding the motives of other editors is not the way forward. As previously noted the onus is on you to get consensus for the inclusion of the material you want to restore. So far you don't have it, so it stays out. That's how Wikipedia works.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't have much to add here. The WP:ONUS is upon the person wanting to include the information. Perhaps you weren't aware of that. I had a quick look for some Wikipedia:Reliable sources but couldn't see any. Perhaps you will have more luck? Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)