Talk:Somebody That I Used to Know

Music video

The Gotye video wouldn't be doing anything without Walk off the Earth.. Walk off the Earth got more views in one month than Gotye got in half a year. End of story. 08:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.64.145.226 (talk)

I agree. The song went international when (and maybe because) the walk off the earth video went viral. I think this should definitely be mentioned. Anyone have a good reference for citing this? (Muaddib131 (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC))

Genre

World Beat? Experimental? it's Indie Rock! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.9.114.252 (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Composition

Can we put something in about the fact that the xylophone solo is actually Baa, Baa, Black Sheep? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.188.105 (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It isn't exactly Baa, Baa, Black Sheep. It's similar, but this is in a Minor key whereas Baa, Baa, Black sheep is Major. Jjoeshaw (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

THIS SONGS SUCKS MORE THAN A HOOVER VACUUM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.139.234 (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to put this note: I would say that this song has a Peter Gabriel sound. Just a note. Thoughts? 22:08 29 August 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucy1107 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Not really helpful at all! The Man Who Needs No Introduction! (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Somebody That I Used To Know

Please add that the single is 2x Platinum in Switzerland! http://hitparade.ch/awards.asp --79.199.38.46 (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done – I hope you understand that is not a reliable source and is very prune to linkrot. --J (t) 03:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is this not a reliable source? It's the official Swiss certifying database... --79.199.41.147 (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. See Swiss Music Charts. It is currently cited in over 3,000 en Wikipedia articles. And USCongress official pages are subject to linkrot,too, because they move them; it doesn't mean we don't include them. Dru of Id (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: If I'm understanding the source you provided correctly (which I don't guarantee), "Double Platinum" (or "Doppel-Platin") is actually the name of the label; the certification remains Gold, as indicated by the currently cited source ([1]). The album is certified double platinum, but the song is not. Note that anticipated linkrot can be dealt with via WebCite. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There is an issue here. The album from which "Somebody" is taken is called Making Mirrors, not the same nameof the song. So, why it appears twice on the reference? I have searched on iTunes Switzerland and on Amazon Deustchland (Germany) and found this, which i believe could be the album mentioned. I'll include the latter on the release history. But i don't know if it's the 2xplatinum certified, although i believe. Whatsoever, it'll be OR so it's not correct to add it.

I have also searched on the database of the Hitparade and it correctly appears Making Mirrors, so its very clear that the "album" that appears on the "Somebody" search could be the 2-song i've found. Also, here appears the difference. The certified Gold might be the Promo CD, while the certified 2x platinum the CD Single. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 05:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

SNL appearance

Too lazy to edit... In the article, it states his SNL appearance was on 4/13/2012 when in fact it was 4/14/2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.174.185 (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

General notability for usage in media

In the very first case, I think there is a problem with including a list of TV shows which have featured the song in the article's lead. Unless the performance itself is notable (which is the case for something like the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show, but which is not particularly unusual for a performance on a talk show like Kimmel, or appearance on a show like Glee or American Idol, which have hundreds of different songs on them over their full series run), then it does nothing to summarise the song as a whole. Therefore I would like to see this information moved down into a new "Usage in media" section or similar.

Secondly, I put forward that no performance on American Idol (or any other such show) should ever meet notability criteria, unless it then leads to a single or otherwise notable internet viral success. Wikipedia:Notability (music) does not give the clearest guidelines, but I will note the following:

• The two performers themselves barely meet the notability criteria to have their own articles - you could argue that they fall under No. 9 (although that crystal balls that they will ultimately place); the guidelines for No. 10 indicate that they should probably simply redirect to the American Idol (season 11) article.
• The performance itself is indistiguishably notable when compared with any other songs in the relevant episode, and was not in its own right a notable performance.

The use of raw viewer numbers as an argument for its inclusion misleading; the performance of the song at Australia's ARIA awards cannot hope to match 16 million viewers, but the proportional promotion that the song receives for this in the relevant country is similar. This is a Wikipedia:Worldwide view debate. Aside from this, I will note from a spot check of other songs that it is not a common practice across other song articles to make mention of renditions on reality TV shows. As such, I put forward that all references to the performance during American Idol season 11 be removed from this article, even after establishing the "usage in media" sub-section. Aspirex (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your well-written and well-written argument. I agree with you about this information being in the lead section. However, something succinct about the appearance on US TV last week and its affect on both sales and charts would seem in order.

I have read and considered your arguments here carefully. The mention of TV shows was in the article before my edits. In fact, it was the appearance on AI that brought me to the WP article. AI is certainly notable, and the 2 performers (while barely notable), are still notable enough to have WP articles. I agree that appearance on ARIAs is significant in Australia for promitional purposes. Given that, how much more so the appearance on AI, as it is re-broadcast globally. At the end of the day, will 16m in USA is comparable with 1m in Australia, to the extent that the raw viewership trabslates into increased awareness and ultimately raw sales and chart success, makes it more significant. Given a choice, I'm sure Goye would trade success and sales in Australia for US success. The performance of the song on Americal Idol, which is one of the highest rating shows in the USA, and its subsequent rebroadcast globally in dozens of countries, brings the song to the attention of millions, and is a factor in its crossover appeal to mainstream pop audiences. The linkage between these TV appearances is made in the source given, as well as others. I saw the linkage mentioned only this morning on Seven's Sunrise programme.smjwalsh (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The thing that makes me a little uncomfortable about this interpretation is that it means this performance would count as notable, but a future performance on, say, season 14 would not be because it would have no contribution to the immediate success of the song. From the pure performance perspective, those should have equal notability.

But, if as you have said, there are citations to suggest that there is a discernable link between the performance and a spike in sales, then I do agree that it is notable for comment – but, I'd still take it out of the lead. However, rather than putting it into a "usage in media" section, I'd suggest put it into 'Chart History', with a sentence to the effect of "The song reached #3 in the US chart; then, in the week following its performance on top-rating American Idol, it went up to #1". That puts everything into context, and explains why the AI performance is notable. That also gives and opening to link to any future successes, should they occur, for the song if it gains popularity in the countries into which AI is rebroadcast, but which the song has not already achieved success.Aspirex (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

IMHO the performance on AI while good and praised by the judges, was notable for increasing the song's exposure in the Us & Canadian markets, and elsewhere through global re-transmission. Subsequent perforances on AI could be notable if it stimulated increased sales, or was by a significantly notable performer. Inclusion here does not preclude any future notable performances.

I agree with the suibstance of your suggestion.smjwalsh (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Also worth pointing out that Billboard attributes the sudden increase in downloads to Glee and SNL, but makes no reference to American Idol. Aspirex (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

My interpretation is that the appearance on Glee, AI, and SNL in the same week created a critical mass for the song. Any of the first two appearances would have caused a spike - Glee with 10 million viewers and AI with over 16 million, and notably in the 14-25 demographic. SNL has a faithful following but somewhat less than 2 million these days, so would be less significant per se, but significant as part of a trifecta.smjwalsh (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleted a personal analysis

Deleted a part of this section which featured a personal analysis of the music video's theme. It doesn't seem very encyclopedic to have this here, especially with sentences such as "...appears to me..." and multiple run-ons. 65.110.254.157 (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Major overhaul

Hello!. I'm taking care of editing the article to meet all guidelines as well as GA criteria, as i want it to reach GA status. I'm editing the article on a daily basis more than 30 times per day. So, i'd really appreciate that until i'm done with the modifications, all major contributions to be written here before directly adding them to te article. Thanks beforehand :) --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 05:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I've had a go at improving this article, I wish you all the best on your GA quest. See ya later!shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your improvements! Regards. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 13:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Somebody That I Used to Know/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cmbcmb999 (talk · contribs) 08:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am going to start the review of Somebody That I Used To Know. Thanks! Cmbcmb999 (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Nice --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 08:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have thoroughly reviewed the aritcle and have found: The article has reliable sources, it is completely un-biased, it is well-written, it is factually accurate and it is stable. It is now listed as a Good Article.

Thank you Cmbcmb999 (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Me and Shaidar cuebiyar put a lot of effort in the article =) Anything to be fixed? or is everything allright? --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 14:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I personally don't think anything needs to be fixed.

Not to rain on the parade here, but I find this review a bit suspect. While I am sure that Cmbcmb999 was acting in good faith by reviewing this, s/he has only 48 edits to articlespace out of 139 total—not an experienced editor at all. I don't mean to WP:BITE here, but I'm not convinced that Cmb really knows what "good" content looks like. If this had been a more thorough review, I'd be less inclined to bring this up, but it seems that Cmb gave the article a quick once-over and judged it "good" without a real understanding of the process. This article is a strong candidate, IMO, but it deserves a closer look than was given here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Genre

The genres of the song are Alternative rock, indie pop and worldbeat, as stated by iTunes, Amazon, Bllboatd, The Herald Sun, an many other reliable sources. Please, if anyone has a doubt about the genres, put it here before writing on the article. I want to avoid at all costs a edit war, since the article is being reviewed against GA. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 14:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Somebody That I Used to Know/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Mostly procedural. I feel bad doing this, but I saw the first review for this and it really did not seem like much of a review at all. While I am sure that Cmbcmb999 was acting in good faith by reviewing the article, s/he has only 48 edits to articlespace out of 139 total—not an experienced editor at all. I don't mean to WP:BITE here, but I'm not convinced that Cmb really knows what "good" content looks like. If this had been a more thorough review, I'd be less inclined to bring this up, but it seems that Cmb gave the article a quick once-over and judged it "good" without a real understanding of the process. This article is a strong candidate, IMO, but it deserves a closer look than was given there. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I thought the same as you. I've reviewed lots of articles but, as I cannot review my own articles, i said nothing. Please write anything Cmb had missed and i'll fix it. I'm the major contributor and the nominator. —Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 22:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I had been going more for "what does someone else (not me) think?"; I don't think I followed the right procedure here. I've logged over 11K contribs over the past few years, and this whole article reviewing thing is still a bit complicated for me (hence my scepticism of the original review). The instructions on the WP:GAR page didn't help me much either. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the GA criteria is a bit slight. I think you've checked it before. Anyway, I know your intentions are good; i hpe it still meets the criteria. =). —Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 22:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have looked over the article and see no reason to delist. It appears to meet the criteria. I fixed one dead link. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you should at least notify the reviewer so that he/she can give reasons why he/she passed the article to GA. I know it was explained above on the review but it looks like a summary to me. --85.201.45.228 (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent move

With the creation of Somebody That I Used to Know (True Blood), User:Bananas Monkey moved this article to Somebody That I Used to Know (song) without discussion. Can an administrator move this back until there is a discussion? Marcus Qwertyus 00:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I noticed this and created a disambiguation page, which should have been done. With this move, a lot of wikilinks will have to be fixed, see: [2]. This should have also been done by the person who moved the page. - eo (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I was hoping this could be moved back to the original title since this one is obviously the primary topic. Marcus Qwertyus 17:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Gotye mashup of tributes and parodies

Gotye has done a mashup of dozens of YouTube covers/tributes and parodies of this song. News report[3] and Gotye's mashup[4] 60.242.1.97 (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Images

Of the four images in this article, one is the cover, one is from the video, and two are ... from people whose work the song has been compared to? Is that really the best we can find? Their relevance here is almost negative, as at a glance it starts to make you think, wait, was Flo Rida involved in this? Or Bon Iver? --Golbez (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

False information

The line:

"It is also the longest-reigning number-one song on the Alternative Songs chart." Is false, that record belongs to the Foo Fighters at 18 weeks, "Somebody" was number 1 for only 12 weeks. The Man Who Needs No Introduction! (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Teddiefilms

Shouldn't Teddiefilms' YouTube parody "The Star Wars That I Used To Know" be included? I wouldn't have brought this up, but their parodies of several other songs (such as We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together) were mentioned on Wikipedia. I am in no position to make edits, as I started my account this morning and am still learning the ropes, but I felt this should be mentioned. -Invisibletommy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Sound on Sound source

I've added a quote from Gotye in a SOS source about this song. There's a lot more info in that article then I've already put, so somebody, if anybody has time, to put whatever info in that article not included in the wikipedia article in the wiki article. Its just a lot for me. Thank you. 和DITOREtails 00:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

YouTube comment

How is a comment on youtube relevant to the reception of the video? Top ranked comments on youtube usually have more to do with humor than thoughtful insight.Kymmene (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

DJ Mike D Remix

I hope I'm not the only one, but I've heard this version get airplay on two separate occasions (2012, and now today, making me finally Google it): [link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m57zWuvsDTc)

The comments evidence that other stations are playing it as well, but I found no mention on the song's page. I'm not sure what could be done to muster notability, but if we could somehow at least list the fact that this is getting airplay on the page, it might help sojourners such as myself. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 06:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Parodies as a separate cultural event

Making Gotye parodies on youtube seems to be a pretty significant internet meme. It probably deserves a separate mention.70.90.204.42 (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Internet meme

Why is this in Category:Internet memes? D3RP4L3RT (DERPALERT) (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Luiz Bonfá writing credits

I have removed Luiz Bonfa from the writing credits because I don't think sampling 1.x second from Luiz Bonfá's recording qualifies Luiz Bonfa for a co-writing credit of this song. Jubeidono (talk) 08:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"You didn't have to stoop so low" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect You didn't have to stoop so low has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 13 § You didn't have to stoop so low until a consensus is reached. Xeroctic (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)