Jump to content

Talk:Lacrymosa (song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLacrymosa (song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 31, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
October 2, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Info removal

[edit]

I removed the quote

"I thought it would be awesome for the opening scene, but they wanted something original," - singer Amy Lee about the Mozart cover.

because it was not properly sourced. It was cited as being from the Metal Edge interview, but the source was listed as [1] which is a fansite (?) but certainly a secondary reference. If someone has the article and would like to properly reference it, feel free to put the quote back in. I checked, and Metal Edge does not have online archives that I could find. I also rearranged the article to have better flow. --Patrick Berry 14:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you deleted the trivia and other info? About the quote, the article on EvanescenceWebsite has pics than can support it. I'm reverting your edits. Armando.Otalk • Ev 00:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the 'Trivia' heading because what is listed there is not really 'trivia'. In addition, an article this short does not really need section headers. I also clarified alot of the wording which you have also reverted. To address the issue of the quote, you missed my point. You can't cite a secondary source, you have to be able to cite the original source. If it is supposed to be from metal edge, then the reference has to be from metal edge, not an evanescence fan site. In addition, the fact that Mozart's requiem appeared in a previous song needs a reference too. Don't get me wrong here, I am not trying to come in and jack up this page, I am simply trying to bring the article up to a higher standard. --Patrick Berry 02:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. About the citation, EvanescenceWebsite is the most reliable fansite than exists. If you don't agree with this, it's ok. But as I've alredy said, the EvanescenceWebsite article have scans from the Metal Edge magazine. If you don't want to link the page, maybe you should want to link the images.Armando.Otalk • Ev 03:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This link is to a Private video... The user who posted the link should change the video to public, or the link must be changed... --Gerard Armando (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

[edit]

OK, Evanescence play alt-rock in general but this song is symphonic, and the guitar riffs is a characteristic of metal. Therefore it is ought to be changed to symphonic metal.--Nazzzz (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, do you think this should be considered Metal??? And furthermore... Symphonic Metal??? Common, people!!! This is not Metal at all. 189.136.251.39 (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Antimatter[reply]

This particular song can be considered metal. And Symphonic metal is pretty accurate if you take into consideration that this song is based on Lacrimosa from Mozart's Requiem. So instead of mocking an idea without any argumentation, try to use your brain. — NikFreak (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted back to Alt rock. It is simply the most basic genre description we have, in the light of complete lack of consensus. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, it's better than discussing a lot about it. --Nazzzz (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, discussion is always good, but discussing a topic ad nauseam serves no purpose :) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre (2)

[edit]

As I already said, this song can be considered a metal song because of characteristic metal riffage and a guitar solo. And Symphonic metal is a right description since the song is based on Lacrimosa from Mozart's Requiem. Before you morons start saying Evanescence are not metal, you might try listening to the song. You can argue, in general, whether Evanescence is or isn't a metal band, but there is absolutely no question whether this song is metal or not. Genre is usually more a matter of opinion and if band's music is diverse, there can be discussion about it. But we are talking about a single song that is, by every description, Symphonic metal. If you have some objections regarding this statement, give it out WITH an explanation. I don't want to here things like; "They are not even metal!!" or "Symphonic metal?? Whaaa???" That just shows how weak you are on words because you compensate your lack of arguments with repeating sentences and amount of question and exclamation marks. Now, I will be bold (if that's the right expression) and add Symphonic metal to genres infobox. I would like to have a consensus here before adding it, but in case someone does not approve that, please revert it with an explanation. If you don't mind, don't change. — NikFreak (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The generic genre is currently being used because no sources have been produced stating any given song is of a particular genre. Unless you can find a reliable source that says Lacrymosa is "symphonic metal", do not add it. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am so tired of the whole "no sources" thing on Wikipedia. Please, define a reliable source. There is no such thing as a reliable source. It's always opinions, just that some are written on web sites and some are not. I would leave Wikipedia if no amount of common sense can overcome a handful of sources, but that is obviously not the case. There are not many sources claiming Evanescence to be Alternative metal, yet it is put in genre infobox of most Evanescence albums and songs because people agreed on it. Sources on the Internet are never reliable and if what I said above ("No amount of common sense can overcome a handful of sources.") is really true, I am over with contributing Wikipedia articles. — NikFreak (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can be tired of it if you want, but it is how we operate here. Please read WP:RS for what is okay. To be honest, the generic genre used to be "alt rock", but consensus swayed toward "alt metal" instead. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I apologize for spazzing out. But seriously, there should be some specific rules regarding musical articles (bands, albums, songs and of course for genres). What really bothers me that sometimes the sources can be really ignorant and they do not explain anything. And that is why I always spazz out. I don't see how can a source that only states something without backing it up with some explanations be reliable, but when I add something WITH an explanation, everyone starts saying "no sources". You said yourself "...a reliable source that says "Lacrymosa is symphonic metal"...". You see how funny it is to consider it reliable if it just says "Lacrymosa is symphonic metal". Who is the guy that says it (I am now talking hypothetically since no one said that) that it must be considered truth. Even if he is a criticist or an artist, why should we believe him if he is not giving any evidences. And I see that we don't always follow sources, since Alternative metal was the least sourced genre for Evanescence and gothic rock/metal was the best sourced and yet only alt. metal appears on every Evanescence page (except the main Evanescence article which is also a nonsense in my opinion, I never saw another band article that has a See bellow... link). I hope I haven't made any enemies, since I am known for freaking out often (that's a partial reason for choosing the nickname "NikFreak"). I'll try to be more polite in future. Btw, this is my last genre question/contribution/discussion, since I already spent too much time on that matter (maybe not the last, but I'll keep away from it for awhile). One more thing: if there are some specific rules for musical articles, please give me a link so I can study it (it would be useful for me, since I am a member of some musical projects on Wikipedia). Thank you in advance for your reply. — NikFreak (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA

[edit]

Hi I don't know the Good Article nomination process so someone who knows should do it beause this is a good article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.217.63.195 (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lacrymosa (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles can obviously be improved, but are superior in quality to this article. If you would like specific reasons, I'll be happy to demonstrate blatant issues.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me. 77.29.81.20 (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Two main issues. Prose are very weak. The wording and grammar is poor throughout the entire article. Aside from that, the prose are far from good, which is what we need for GA. Examples - "It is the seventh track on their second studio album, The Open Door (2006), and was used in a promotional trailer for the album." What does this mean? Trailer? What footage is shown? "throughout the song. The song" Repeated basic wording in a close proximity. "one of the "most memorable track" Obvious issue. "but was not included because of its sound" What does that mean? As a reader, how am I to understand why it wasn't used in the movie from that? "The song peaked on number forty-three on iTunes Alternative Music Chart due to its digital downloads. It was part of the setlist for the promotion of the album" iTunes is not an official music chart, therefore mot meriting mention anywhere in the article. These are just in the small lead. The second main issue is its content; the article does not have sufficient coverage for the song. Judging from this search, there are tons of reviews, critical analysis and general information that can be easily added to the page. When rivaled against our GAs nowadays, when we are stricter that ever, I'm afraid that a poorly written short on content article can not be passed. Good luck!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it big enough now?My love is love (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course more sourced and helpful content is always warranted, however the references are all really poorly formatted. No accessdates, works and publishers are poorly formatted, no dates of select few. Those still need a lot of work. I also have yet to review the prose, which I have not looked into yet.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So there are accessdates, publishers and works now, but some of the dates for the refs are not mentioned in the external link. How should we know which is the date? And after finishing that will you start the review of the article? 77.29.83.60 (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Start the review please. 77.29.80.241 (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask, are you related to "My Love Is Love"? Also, I'm sorry it doesn't work like that. You must re-nominate it at the main page as was done the first time, and wait for someone to review it. I can serve as a guide only from here on. Unfortunately, the article is still not ready. Many sources are still not properly formatted (missing some sort of field) and many are not considered highly reliable (Blabbermouth.net, Whiplash.net, Rocknworld.com etc). Prose still need work.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 16:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not and I don't know why you ask that? However I'll remove those and I'll try to properly formate the refs. 77.29.83.50 (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that because you are both fairly new here, and both commenting on a page that you would not find unless familiar with the article, hence I think you are one in the same. Doesn't matter however, as I told you, you must once again repeat the GAN process.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you fail this article? You said that it should be renominated. 77.29.80.247 (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are being dishonest regarding your account, and because you posted me as the reviewer, which I did not agree to.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 13:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the previous comment, I clear my history very often so that's why it looks like it isn't posted from me, and I posted you as a reviewer because I don't know how not to post you as a reviewer because I'm new here lol. Will you tell me the hon not to post you as a reviewer? My love is love (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You follow the instructions at the nomination page, its pretty simple. I've already done it for you, although I warn you it will likely not pass in its current state.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 16:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Love, I know you mean well, but slow down, please. Take some time, work carefully, make it right. I've had to go behind you several times now and fix spelling and various other mistakes. You are doing great work in expanding these Evanescence articles to points I never thought they would reach, and I really appreciate that effort. Nathan, you also meant well, but don't nom for other people, and don't sign for them either. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Listen To Two New Tracks From Evanescence's Album 'The Open Door'"

[edit]

The reference that tells that the song was recorded in Seattle is dead. I think that it could be replaced with The Open Door's liner notes. My love is love (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lacrymosa (song)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Toa Nidhiki05 (talk • contribs • count) 20:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Lede issues
  • I would change 'The song uses genres from alternative metal to gothic rock and post-grunge' to 'The song is influenced by genres such as alternative metal, gothic rock, and post-grunge', since you cannot use a genre.
  • I would adds links to Amadeus, D-minor, and E-minor in the lede
  • The phrase 'The song received mostly positive reviews from music critics who called it one of the best songs on The Open Door and praised the performance of the background choir' is confusing. Should be changed to 'The song was praised as one of the best songs on The Open Door by critics, who particularly complimented the backing choir'.
  • 'The title of the track, lacrymosa, means related to sadness' should have apostrophes before and after the phrase 'related to sadness'.
Prose issues
  • The phrase 'Lee was wearing purple tank, black skirt and black boots' needs an 'a' between 'wearing' and 'purple'.
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Sourcing issues
  • The statement that 'The Millennium Choir performed the Lacrimosa sequence ("Lacrimosa dies illa Qua resurget ex favilla Judicandus homo reus. Huic ergo parce, Deus: Pie Jesu Domine, Dona eis requiem. Amen.") and backing vocals throughout the song' is unsourced.
  • The direct quote from Amy Lee at the end of the 'Background and editing' section is unsourced.
  • The bit that said 'Don Kaye of the website Blabbermouth.net said that while the song was an "interesting experiment"' is a direct quote mid-sentence, and needs a citation even though one is used later in the sentence.
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Only real issue is there are two or three negative reviews, so 'positive to mixed' might be more appropriate in the reviews section.
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  5. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    There are some issues with this article, particularly in regards to sourcing and prose. Its not enough to quick-fail this article (which is a solid article), so I'd like to see these fixed pretty quickly. If no changes are made in the next two days, I am failing this article.

Toa Nidhiki05 20:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"During the performance Lee was wearing a purple tank, black skirt and black boots"?

[edit]

How is what Amy is wearing related to to the song? I mean - Why does it matter what she is wearing during performances? Sounds very unprofessional and almost sounds as if a 13 year old goth wannabe wrote it.


I vote that is removed.

Off topic and irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.90.125 (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of Lacrimosa in Latin

[edit]

Hi everyone - about my edit and the way it got reverted as "replacement of sourced info with unsourced info / original research".

Fact: lacrimosa in Latin means "with tears", tearful, weeping. Lacrima is the simple word for a tear. This is feminine. You can say it of a tearful woman, for example, not of a man. Also, I would not translate as "weeping" here, because it is about a "lacrimosa dies illa", a day of tears, perhaps a day of weeping, but not a weeping day (to exclude the sense that it is the day that weeps).

I can source it: just go to any online latin dictionary and look it up. For example, here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lacrimosus#Latin

On the other hand, I do not think Wikipedia articles should be cluttered with references to dictionaries for simple things like word look-ups. That's why I didn't include the reference.

About the other source for the expression "related to sadness": ^ a b Bottomley, C (September 9, 2006). "Evanescence: Amy Lee Explains the New Songs". VH1 News. Archived from the original on February 4, 2007. Retrieved February 2, 2007.

First, we have now established that this source is not a good source, since it comes up with a wrong explanation of this Latin expression. Can anyone confirm what he says in a dictionary? No. Of course tears are related to sadness, but you can't say the word means that - it is a related concept, not a definition.

Another thing: that quote seems to imply that the explanation comes from Amy Lee on a video interview, but it doesn't. It's an article written by a person named Bottomley who interpolates his comments with things Amy said. The expression "related to sadness" comes from Bottomley (unsourced in his article). I guess he's not an expert in Latin and we shouldn't quote him on issues of latin. That article has some interest, though, so it's nice that it is quoted earlier in our Wikipedia page, so the reference will still be there even if we remove this one.

So, I'm just making the case here that "related to sadness" has to go - it's just repeating on Wikipedia an error someone made elsewhere. But I'm not going to quarrel over this... have it your own way...

Another thing: I can elaborate on the explanation of the phrase from the Requiem if anyone thinks it's interesting for this article. It would be an explanation of what the Requiem "lyrics" say (a very delicate, poetic, balance of fear of God and intimate piety at the same time), but I would end by saying that this doesn't come very close to the lyrics of Evanescence. I think the band just wrote a different sort of sad song.

I hope this helps. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callmepgr (talk • contribs) 14:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, I included the "tearful" definition and a citation to a Notre Dame latin dictionary, while preserving the Bottomley quote as an alternate. It satisfies our requirements on both counts. I agree, I don't like the Bottomley quote being used in this context, but we'll have to find consensus to remove it, since it seems somewhat contentious. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: When I reverted the definition yesterday, I was not looking to preserve the previous definition of "related to sadness", I was only reverting the removal of the sourced definition replaced by what appeared to me as original research as no source was provided in the edit. Please do not retain inaccurate information for the sole reason that my reversion may have appeared to favor the former definition. =) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 01:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Scott, I wasn't meaning to imply that you wanted the old one kept, just that this seemed like a contentious issue, so I didn't remove the original when I inserted the new. I figure the discussion can go on for a few more days, and the old one can be removed if there are no objections. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I took no offense. I just wanted to make my reasons clear. =) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 04:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems everybody is being reasonable here, it shouldn't be difficult to come to a consensus. As for me, I'm kind of new here (I've made quite a few minor edits, but nothing major, and this is my first time on a talk page...).
If Scott says he doesn't mind the removal of "related to sadness", perhaps it can go away. We'll leave the dictionary reference that Huntster made (I hadn't noticed it was there before, but it was).
I'm not sure about the phrase "is a corruption of the Latin term" of the term for one reason. If the "moth" is called "Catocala lacrymosa", and it seems to be correct, isn't that latin too? It might be one of those cases where both spellings are acceptable. I don't know enough Latin to attest to that. Perhaps we can just avoid that (very specialised) problem, and simply say something like "Lacrimosa is latin for tearful", and leave everyone wondering why they chose the "y" version for the title of the song... I do wonder why.
Finally, it just struck me: what is this sentence doing under a section called "controversy and usage in media"? Shouldn't this appear in the introduction or something, a translation of the title of the song?
Thanks for your efforts on getting this right and for reading my explanation here. Callmepgr (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, taxonomical names are made to simulate Latin, but, for example, discoverers are typically allowed to name species whatever they want...they are named after people, places, etc, all the time, simply "Latinised".
I also agree that the section title is terrible, but haven't really put much thought on what else to call it. We'll get there eventually. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Lacrymosa" recorded in a chapel near Seattle, Washington?

[edit]

I may be not noticing it, but in neither the album's liner notes nor The Washington Post article is it said that "Lacrymosa" was recorded in a chapel near Seattle, Washington. --Markhoris (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WP article does mention that Lee, the orchestra and the choir recorded in a chapel on page two, but mentions nothing about Seattle. I could find no reliable sources which does mention it, so I've removed that part from the article. I wonder where that got started. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, thanks for grabbing the infobox mention. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking through the article history, and I found the source for the song being recorded in Seattle here. I don't know why it was removed. Is it a reliable enough source? --Markhoris (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic find! Yes, Sony BMG is a reliable source. I've gone ahead and added Seattle back to both the infobox and prose. I'm sure the wording could be cleaned up considerably, but my mind is in need of sleep. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lacrymosa (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) 09:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lacrymosa (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) 07:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lacrymosa_(song)&oldid=1208073694"