Talk:All About That Bass/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Claim song sampled K-pop song from 2006

Putting this claim in article represents undue weight. WP:UNDUE states "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". This view is currently a tiny minority view considering it hasn't been picked up at all in the English language press (the language song is written in). If this gets more coverage in future it may belong in article but it currently shouldn't be in there. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

i dunno abt the k-pop one but doesn't the "my momma told me" section lift a motown tune? (not those famous lines, but the MELODY...perhaps from a DIFF motown song?) 209.172.25.144 (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

DUH

the line "Trainor says what she meant was, 'Naw, I'm just playing...' " might make sense in quickie interviews, but here where it comes right after the actual lyrics, it is 100% unnecessary. anyone who can't understand THOSE lines prolly won't understand her recap either. i move to delete. 209.172.25.144 (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Meaning of song title?

Nowhere in the article do I see an explanation of the title of the song ("All About That Bass"). What does it mean? Can someone who knows please add something about that? 64.134.158.29 (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess the meaning becomes apparent if you remove the first letter from the word "bass"...188.104.45.206 (talk) 09:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to see a definitive answer on this question; I'm not convinced by the above suggestion. If we're going to resort to guesswork, it could equally be that the bass of a range of instruments is always the big one. AndyCivil (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Trainor is quoted [1] as saying: "You know how the bass guitar in a song is like its "thickness," the "bottom"? I kind of related a body to that. My producer [Kadish] had the title and said that none of his prior co-writers could figure out what to relate that to. So, I said, "What about a booty? Let's talk about that!" (laughs) From there, it turned into, let's do a song about loving your body … and your booty." Btljs (talk) 08:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

A dozen artists passed on the song

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/oct/02/meghan-trainor-all-about-that-bass-interview-im-getting-flak

Beyonce's people were among them. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Kate Davis cover

Should definitely be a mention of cover by Postmodern Jukebox with singer/bass player Kate Davis performing a scrumptious blues version of the song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erfx1cw7QEI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.106.111 (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. A section on Covers should be added and the Postmodern Jukebox/Kate Davis version should be mentioned. It is, to me, an innovative and affectionate take. MirelesJ (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Source

• https://www.yahoo.com/music/s/bass-gives-singer-breakthrough-133344466.html

Protection request

Recently, an IP has kept removing sourced content from the page (see here), which I consider vandalism. Therefore, it would be appreciated if someone could protect this page. Thank you, Simon (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Could you please accept my offer? Much appreciated, Simon (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Simon, though I agree the edits aren't constructive, they appear to largely be from one IP (49.149.231.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) and I'm seeing constructive edits from new users and other IPs. As such, please leave them talk page messages/warnings and if they continue to be disruptive report them to the appropriate noticeboard, in this case probably WP:AIV. In the future you can make requests for page protection at WP:RFPP :) Sam Walton (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. I suggest you open a section here about the genre and see if you can discuss with them. Sam Walton (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Stick figure (silicone) Barbie doll

[2] notes the lyrics as 'I won't be no stick figure barbie doll', while MetroLyrics says "I won't be no stick-figure, silicone Barbie doll". Which lyric has to be trusted? MaranoFan (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

MetroLyrics as they're a licensed lyric provider - Lips ^{are movin} 13:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

So, should be remove the other source? Both links can't be in the same article... MaranoFan (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I would just edit the lyrics, it was clearly just a small blip on the source's part and the source is reliable, using MetroLyrics won't support the rest of the sentence. - Lips ^{are movin} 13:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Writing

Huffington Post Canada

Simon (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Notes from the copy edit

@Lips Are Movin and MaranoFan:

I just got done combing through this article from WP:GOCE. Some notes before you send this on its way to GAN:

• The commercial perfomance section is very jargon-y. There are concerns over readability for someone (like me) with limited knowledge about the commercial side of the music industry. Some specific problems are lines such as 28-8 climb (I can hazard a guess as to what it means, but it's still shorthand and should be converted to prose), top digital gainer for four straight frames, it was the Hot 100's top airplay gainer, etc. I've left tags inline.
• I put a {{update after}} tag around unreleased debut studio album in the opening sentence set to trigger on Jan 9, when the album is scheduled to drop. I decided to put it there to keep dumb people like me from being confused about a single on an album that has yet to be released. I have no idea if it's common practice to describe singles in the context of existing on an album which currently does not exist; if it is, feel free to drop the template out before it triggers.
• It seems like the "critical reception" sections littered throughout (its home section, and in the music video / covers sections, etc.) are a bit longer than they need to be. I would guess that a solid three or four reviews per section could be cut, but I couldn't (for the most part) decide which ones to axe. Someone with more knowledge than me about which publications carry the least weight should decide how to approach those sections, but they do feel bloated.
• In the same vein, if there are more negative reviews out there than are listed, please give them more room per WP:UNDUE. The more negative reviews were given a whole sentence or two per section (minus the Controversy section).

That's about it. I've somewhat adopted this article, so please ping me if there are any more issues with it and/or if/when it goes to GAN. I went in with more of a scalpel than a cleaver, but I'd like to think I had some part in its future success. Besides the issues I've raised, it seems like it should be golden. Thanks, Deadbeef 09:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Deadbeef: A huge thanks for the copyedit, I initially expanded the article not being very familiar with the GA criteria. I have actually started a new draft of the article keeping all GA criteria in mind. I plan on using the new draft for the GAN instead, but will most definitely take all your edits and points to mind! Thanks again! I will let you know as soon as I've added my new draft so that you can skim over it before I nominate it for GA - I doubt it'll be half has troublesome as this initial one haha! - Lips ^{are movin} 11:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)