Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Songs and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcuts

WikiProject Songs was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 5 November 2012.

This page was nominated for deletion on 2013-02-11. The result of the discussion was wrong venue.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 6 sections are present.

Writers vs performers

Songs are a pain to credit because of the widespread erroneous assumption that a performer must be the sole creator of the song. This doesn't happen much in categories other than music; almost nobody thinks an article should begin with "Hamlet is a play by Kenneth Branagh" or "Football (soccer) is a sport invented by Lionel Messi" or "Harry Potter is a book by Daniel Radcliffe" – but in articles about songs this exact type of obvious mistake happens on a regular basis, maybe even most of the time.

I'm sure my own preference for fixing this would be quite unpopular – to credit every song first to its writers without exception (for example no performer in the short description), and to list the well-known performers after that – but it does have the advantages of not being insane, and of being how things are normally done in all other relevant categories.

It's a bit different for an article about a particular recording, but not SO different; being careful to type "Elvis Presley recording", and to not type "Elvis Presley song" unless he really wrote it, isn't very difficult.

But assuming my ideas aren't the best way, I think it's still clear that the current way obscures reality quite a bit, and needs review. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm also sure your preference will be quite unpopular. For one, most popular music has been consistently credited primarily to recording artists rather than songwriters, and that crediting comes from reliable sources which we base our articles on. Since all those reliable sources follow that convention, why shouldn't we? And it's not like any given song article excludes the writers; they appear in the infobox and the lead quite consistently. And your method would come with the implication that recording a song isn't itself an act of creation, which just makes no sense. I'm sure there are numerous exceptions where it does make more sense to lead with the songwriters, but it would never work as a blanket rule. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with "to not type Elvis Presley song". If it's Elvis Presley song written by X and Y it's still his song - it works this way. Eurohunter (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that writers/composers should be credited first in article text. That is the case in most articles about songs I have seen and edited here. The sub-credit for a song page (seen when you find a song's title in the search bar) is derived from the info box in the article - and often can go to the first or most popular version released (e.g., '1966 Single by Wanda Jackson') but the article text in this particular example begins:

"The Box It Came In" is a song written by Vic McAlpin (1918–1980) and recorded by American country, rock and roll and Christian music artist Wanda Jackson.

By the same token, it is also acceptable to say (to take another example):

"The Ballroom Blitz" (often called "Ballroom Blitz") is a song by British glam rock band The Sweet, written by Nicky Chinn and Mike Chapman.

In the case of a popular standard, the form for the article sub-credit is often, e.g., 'Song by George and Ira Gershwin' -- and then the recording history is noted in the article with such qualifiers as "popularized by", "originally recorded by", "with hit/charting versions by [multiple artists]" etc.

As a lifelong music consumer, career music / arts journalist, and a radio DJ who plays a lot of cover versions and fills his playlists with song data, I am a stickler for historical and factual accuracy.

But I will admonish (since you use Elvis Presley as an example) that music publishing & songwriting attribution can be a sticky, dishonest business, filled with false / contestable credits added to misdirect royalties away from the actual writers* (including the artists). Often, publicly contested authorship is (and should be) noted in the article about that song.

Instances of this have been common for decades, notably in the credits on nearly every Elvis Presley recording (chalk that up to Col. Tom Parker's insistence on this practice for anything Elvis recorded) - and in almost every Phil Spector production, e.g. Mann/Weill compositions that are rendered as 'Spector/Mann/Weill'; although a case for authorship as an 'arranger' can be made here. (notably, many producers are so credited, as songwriters but not as arrangers.) But the extent of a producer's actual authorship as a credited 'songwriter' - or an artist as 'arranger', in the case of someone like Burl Ives garnering additional income from traditional/public domain songs - on thousands of songs, may never be fully determined.

(*My own personal cause in this situation is the standard "You Belong to Me," written by Chilton Price but forever credited to two others (not even in addition to, but in place of her!), Pee Wee King & Redd Stewart, who managed to split credit with her for Stewart's first recording of the song, and have been attached to its 'writing' ever since, as with Ms. Price's previous work, King's only No. 1 hit, "Slow Poke". Excellent article about the songwriter and this odd arrangement, from the Internet Archive: http://www.cincypost.com/2002/sep/27/cloon092702.html)

Respectfully submitted for your consideration... Dano67 (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sales certifications on first release

The current practice of using BPI sales and streaming data for certification means that the information is almost meaningless. In the days of paper sources, a song might be highlighted as having achieved certification as a result of sales associated with a successful chart run. While it is of some interest that songs may achieve certification long afterwards, it's not the same as doing so at the time, and any understanding of cultural impact and the artist's career will be misled if, for example, 30 years later a notorious flop is used in an advert and shows on here as a gold record even though its commercial failure led to the band breaking up. I think it would be better if we showed both historic certifications and current ones. Martinlc (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinlc: How would you like to distinguish historic certifications and current ones? Certifications given 30 years ago or 3 days ago are both historic. I know what you mean, but how would you like to distinguish it? 1, 5, 10, 25 or 30 years and why 25 not just 5 or why not 30 years. Btw. there will be still new certifications in next 50 years for releases released 20, 30 years go or now. Eurohunter (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you're describing sounds like it would be easily solved by including all that information in prose and including the date of certification in the cert table. Not sure I see what the problem is beyond that, nor do I think there's any reason to distinguish between the two. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute at Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär

The article Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär was recently created by User:Tamtam90, and I thank them for that. However, the (unsourced) translation is an utter misrepresentation of the German text. The mistranslation of Wenn to 'When' is what caught my eye first. On closer reading, their English text has often no equivalent in the German. I gave more details at Talk:Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär#Disputed translation.

While correcting the translation, I also made more that half a dozen other improvements – some quite substantial – as described in my edit summaries. Tamtam90 reverted them all, twice. I would welcome the input of other editors in this matter. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, you are certainly right. Purposely translating text incorrectly so it would fit the music better is absurd. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 01:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many poets would publish here their [translated] song-books, under a free license, in the sight of such reviewing? --Tamtam90 (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attracting poets is not the goal of Wikipedia. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 15:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nor to undo their original inputs by "just so walkers". --Tamtam90 (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consult WP:OR. What are "just so walkers"? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poetic translation doesn't need to be completely identical to the original. I don't know why the awesome text (which you put instead of my original translation) must impress the readers as a song. Nevertheless, I already published (under a free license) 50 my translations into another tongue, and some (though still here, within the articles) in en-wiki. The source of the current translation is here. --Tamtam90 (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That "source" fails WP:RS. This discussion should take place at the article's talk page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Our Song (Taylor Swift song)#Requested move 23 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Our Song (Taylor Swift song)#Requested move 23 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Runrig singles proposed merge discussions

There are several proposed merge discussions regarding Runrig singles that may be of interest to this WikiProject:

Requested move at Talk:Fe!n#Requested move 30 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fe!n#Requested move 30 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like WP:SONGCOVER needs some very major thinking about

So, I was having a discussion at an article regarding WP:SONGCOVER. I did a random check, and it looks like that rule is mostly ignored. A situation like that is a bad problem, it means you have a zombie rule-not-rule lurching around and various not-ideal stuff can stem from that.

Rules are supposed to codify common good practice usually, and certainly shouldn't contradict common good practice. If they do, you've either got to change the rule or change what editors are doing (which is a whole lot harder).

What should we do? Heavily change the rule I think. Yes I'm aware of the Turtles in Popular Culture thing, and that is arguably common bad practice (maybe). But we're smart. We could find some way to deal with that I think ("If over X number, use prose" would be a help right off). And only-list-bluelinked-artists seems to be common good practice, so we should codify that.

Anyways, following is my latest post at that article's talk page which shows the data and arguments.

Rules are important, no doubt. They (are supposed to) codify good practice so you can see right off what is common good practice (altho in real life they are often some group of editors telling everyone else what to do (what're you gonna do -- people!)).

Invoking WP:SONGCOVER is a good point. But it's universally ignored. As an actual fact on the ground, editors seem to have voted with their feet to often add versions to song articles. Rules that are commonly ignored are of little weight when invoked. For fun, I'll go down the list in "Category:1954 songs" (chosen at random) without fear or favor and see which mention cover versions (in list or text) which don't meet WP:SECONDARY. Here goes:

Accarezzame -- Yes includes covers that don't meet WP:SECONDARY. All bluelinked artists. (FWIW also includes track listing, also a rule violation, cos (for some random reason) track listings are proscribed for singles but not albums -- I think? Its in "Single track listings" and not 100% clear.)
All Hail to Massachusetts -- No (altho I doubt there are any recorded covers listed anywhere).
All of You (Cole Porter song) -- Yes. Many covers, all to bluelinked artists. Each one has a ref (good job editor!), but half to Discogs and half to Allmusic, which is "marginally reliable", and it says "Listings without accompanying prose do not count toward notability" which these don't have (they're bare listings of details, altho they do give 1-5 star ratings, which could be taken as "discussion" I guess, altho not "text" so hmmm). Discogs is considered worthless as a ref and even if it wasn't it just has bare listings. (If Allmusic listings are considered a secondary source, I see that there are about 15 versions of "Lavender Blue" which we could have.)
Am I a Toy or a Treasure -- No. Sticks strictly to the one chart-making version.
Angel of Death (Hank Williams song) -- Just a redirect to a list of his songs, no article.
Angels in the Sky (Dick Glasser song) -- No, sticks to the rule.
Annie Had a Baby -- No. Answer song, probably had no covers.
As Far As I'm Concerned -- No.
The Auld Triangle -- Yes. All bluelinked artists but one.
Baby Let's Play House -- Yes. List of 5, one was a #84 and one is surely notable, the other 3 don't qualify. All bluelinked artists.
Back Up Buddy -- No.
The Ballad of Davy Crockett -- Yes. Lot of charting versions mentioned, but some uncharting ones too. All bluelinked artists.
Baubles, Bangles, & Beads -- Yes. All bluelinked artists.
Big Long Slidin' Thing -- Yes. Mostly blacklinked artists.
Black and White (Pete Seeger song) -- Yes. All bluelinked artists.
A Blossom Fell -- Yes. All bluelinked artists.
Blue Monday (1954 song) -- Yes. All bluelinked artists.

That's the end of the B's. More than half include these kinds of covers. Probably other random checks would come out similarly, anyone is welcome to do that (I didn't check these beforehand; whatever the outcome, I was going to list them.)

So... WP:SONGCOVER isn't a viable rule. Sorry. Some editors got together and wrote it down. Anybody can write down anything and call it a rule. I get that some editors may wish was a rule. Maybe it once was common practice but there's been a sea change. Who knows, but applying a not-really-a-rule here and there at random is no way to run a business. It's actually an invitation to various kinds of not-ideal situations.

But if you want to go over to Songproject and mobilize an effort (major effort!) to redact all these (which would kind of have a "We're-you're-boss-you're-just-a-worker-and-you'll-do-as-we-say" vibe, considering to all the editors who've voted with their feet to include these cover versions, but whatever) be my guest and good luck.

It does look like the common practice is to include only bluelinked artists. Eminently reasonable -- we basically de facto do that for "notable residents" sections of town articles, altho its not written down anywhere I think (horrors!). Since its common practice and reasonable I'm fine with codifying that.

What can I say? People like write down cover versions. People like to read them. They seldom detract from the utility of an article, and overall are an asset to most. What're you gonna do? Like it or not, it is what it is.

So, hmmmm. What to do. Herostratus (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree less. I think songcover is fine just the way it is. An interminable list of cover versions may me great for Secondhand Songs, but we can't pretend it's anything close to encyclopaedic. It's true that there are many, many articles that are that way, but it seems they are gradually lessening. I remove a lot of covers that aren't noteworthy and see many others doing the same. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]