Talk:Feel Good Inc.

Shoudnt there be more Demo Version info? Feel Good Inc is NOT based on Howls Moving Castle! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.145.224 (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Loveableness scale

Who wouldn't like this song? Jerks!!! This song, I say, has a 91% rating on the Loveableness scale. Add more if you like the song. Also, give a rating on the Loveableness scale for yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.80.56.241 (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Genre

The infobox lists this as "Britpop". I'd say it closer to Hip Hop. Or maybe just "pop". I mean, De La Soul on a britpop track? Jacoplane 00:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• It's more hybrid than anything else. But since there is no such a genre as hybrid, and Gorillaz is a Britpop group, Feel Good is therefore Britpop.

I'd say it is more Pop than Britpop, When I think of Britpop I think of Blur, the Charlatans UK, the Happy Mondays, or the Psychedelic Furs or anything equally not so popular anywhere other than the british isles. - 69.47.132.138 01:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

its hip hop, maybe a britpop group (damon albarn/blur duh!)but this is definatly hip hop. alternative at that. 124.185.130.150 (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Speculation Unnecessary?

This is a debatable issue I guess, but the whole "alleged subliminal messages" and "backward speech" malarky doesn't really have a place in the article unless it can be verified beyond any doubt, such is my opinion. I am sure many may disagree.

Agreed. I can safely say that I've listened to it backwards and heard nothing. Frankly, most, if not all alleged back-masked "subliminal messages" I've ever heard are pretty big stretches, and this is no exception. Unless Damon Albarn comes out and verifies it, I'd say whoever "discovered" this was probably deliberately looking for something to hear, no different than when someone gazes at the clouds and claims they see a giraffe.

Well, someone just put another alleged subliminal message up:''' As in a few songs, certain words can be heard when Feel Good Inc. is played backwards. During the chorus, the words thought to have been said are "Oh, I hate it all turn back. Remember them all when they went in memory to paradise, and you'd say 'I love everyone and you'. Hold me, it sleeps. I'm so young, ignoring what it is. Let me now have a bit of fun. Remember them all when they went..."'

This is clearly original research and doesn't belong in the article, unless someone has a notable and verifiable source. Some guy putting it on YouTube and telling us what it says is not going to cut it. MFNickster 03:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have listened to the song backwards before, and I have heard quiet a few things in the chorus. The chrous makes sense backwards but I dont believe it was intentional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.30.176 (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Lyrics

The whole lyrics section is pointless, and I have removed it

I'm re-removing the lyrics section. It'd be fine to have a link to a lyric page elsewhere on the 'net, but lyrics are generally not included on song pages. ka1iban 21:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Question

The article mentions that Feel Good, Inc. is the single that thrust Gorillaz onto the American music scene, but what about Clint Eastwood? That single was released before Feel Good, and was the song that got me interested in Gorillaz.

i agree. a lot americans were exposed to gorillaz five years ago with clint eastwood. they may have been somewhat forgotten in the years to come because (as i understand it) they didn't play many live shows, and also because their next album was a b-sides, but at the time there was plenty of exposure. 66.82.9.53 09:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the definition of "popular" in this case seems to be "Top 40", which Clint Eastwood didn't manage, reaching #57 in the US charts. I agree though, I definitely found out about the band by CE. There was a big American tour for the original album, which still has yet to happen. There's supposed to be a world tour in '08 but it might not turn out so. See the main Gorillaz article LIVE section.

Hung Up/Feel Good Inc. performance

The track can be distinguished by its piano sounding bass lines and the De La Soul voices instead of gorillaz.

...What?? Not trying to offend, but I really don't get what they're saying. First of all, I've watched the live performance and the bass never struck me as sounding like a piano in any way, but that's not important. More importantly is "the De La Soul voices instead of gorillaz" phase. Taken literally, it means De La Soul does the vocals for this song in place of Gorillaz. Obviously, this isn't true, so my next thought was that they meant De La Soul raps in place of Gorillaz, as in: this person thought Del (who essentially was a member Gorillaz) did the rapping in the recorded version of the song and De La Soul replaced him in the live performance. Not true again, so at this point I was thinking maybe it could just be deleted entirely.

Then I thought maybe this person meant you can distinguish between the album version and the live performance because the bass sounds different AND De La Soul is performing live, whereas 2D (or 'gorillaz') sounds like his vocals are mostly taken directly from the recorded version. That's definitely true, but I wasn't so sure if it's something worth noting, so I thought I'd just put this whole thing up for discussion.--Foot Dragoon 09:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Del (as in Del the Funkee Homosapien) is not on this track at all, he was on 'Clint Eastwood', and De La Soul are 3 people. thats all. - 69.47.132.138 00:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The live version sounds mostly like the version performed for the US radio tour, Demon Detour. But, that person didn't make any sense. It's been deleted hasn't it? Taylor 11:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Quote from the Trivia section: The melody of the chorus borrows heavily from that of U2's Staring at the Sun, bordering on plagiarism. The chords used, however, remain basic to music and not distinctive enough to warrant a lawsuit.

Is there a published source for this claim, or is it original research? MFNickster 22:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't really hear/see the similarities. Is the general melody that was copied or was it actually sampled? Either way, no source is provided so it's fair game to delete. ka1iban 13:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it was sampled, and the tablature transcriptions show different chords. I'll remove it anyway, even though some other bloggers have noticed similarities, "my friends and I think so" is not exactly encyclopedic! MFNickster 06:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because it's different chords means nothing. Most songs played live can often have completely different chords from the studio version, all about the key. But yeah melody and key are once again also completely different. I agree with the fact that it needs to be taken down. But the fact that you guys know nothing about music irks me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmedge (talk • contribs) 06:50, 13 June 2007

I meant a different chord progression, regardless of the key. MFNickster 06:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That would also mean a different key. And if it is a different progression in the same key, than its the same. And its not the progression its sampling it the melody and harmony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmedge (talk • contribs) 06:11, 19 June 2007

Uh, no. You can play the same chord progression in any key, and play any number of different progressions in a given key. They're totally independent. Oh, and the chords determine the harmony, so if you copy one you copy the other. You're right in that the original statement says the melody is borrowed, but I was addressing the "chords remain basic to music" statement which is essentially meaningless. MFNickster 23:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Another thing about plagiarism or sampling: the bass line(and title) are, I'm pretty sure, sampling or inspired by Motley Crue's "Dr. Feelgood." Should this be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.167.137 (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Only if you have a source, per Wikipedia policy on no original research. MFNickster 01:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hah, I don't care if it's actual plagarism, but I sure am glad I now know why that windmill section sounded so damn familiar! Thanks! Dredwolff (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

One hit wonder? I don't think so

The article currently claims that Feel Good Inc. is a one hit wonder. This is a pretty big statement to make. Most people wouldn't call the song a one hit wonder, since it was followed up by DARE. Dirty Harry and El Manana/Kids With Guns less so, but they still acheived a fair bit. The edit was made by a (new) user, Mynameismud. The difference can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feel_Good_Inc.&diff=67434372&oldid=67264564

Also, just because other Gorillaz songs didn't get into the US Top 40 doesn't mean it's a WORLDWIDE one-hit wonder. DARE reached #1 in the UK, which is actually 1 place higher than Feel Good Inc. Australia has also had a fair response to Gorillaz tracks. I think that the statement should be deleted but I'd like to ask some other people before I do delete it. Taylor 11:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

you can't forget their other hit songs they had before hand such as clint eastwood 19-2000 and rock the house.

Video section

I like some of the interpretations in the video section, but as contributor interpretations of the video, they don't belong in a reference article and need to be removed ka1iban 13:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The references/research are from this site[1]. someone put this as a reference in the El Manana article and someone should do the same thing here. Also, someone should put the limited edition album disc as a reference because the commentary offers explanation on the themes(mental freedom), plot, and making of the video. Albarn talked about mental freedom as a theme during an interview (from the El manana article). I don't know how to put up references, but if i did i would've put it up by now. Frankly, the Dirty Harry article is a reference article and it has interpretations without references. The El manana article also is the same thing. If you want the interpretation shortened and to sound less "out there" i'd be glad to do it. Tsurugi 21:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the thing, though: there really shouldn't be any kind of psychological or thematic analysis of the song or the video on Wikipedia, whether or not it's original research or copied from somewhere else, because that stuff isn't suited to a reference document. We should be reporting the facts about the song, how high on the charts it went, who wrote it, and *maybe* a piece of trivia or two. The DARE (song) page is a good example to go by; nice summary of the song and its performance on the charts. But this whole English-Lit breakdown of the archetypes and themes is like the earlier edits about subliminal messages and posting the lyrics: speculative and superfluous[2]. Having a link to that site is fine if people want to read about the Gorillaz beyond an encyclopedic format, but this section needs to be brought in line. I'll take a crack at it today. ka1iban 13:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not mad or anything, but why haven't you complained about or tagged the same thing on the el manana article? It's full of more theories and interpretations that sound more original than the ones here. In fact, there are a bunch of music video articles on Wikipedia that contain interpretations of there own, one example being "Californication.Besides i'm not trying to spread some message around to the public, i just wanted to find out the videos' meanings instead of just simply looking at them as videos with cool animation. But overall, is the thing you're trying to say is that you just don't want any type of interpretation on a song or video, but just the facts? Tsurugi 9:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't even been to those pages yet, but maybe I should look at them. It's not that I don't WANT that stuff or have some crusade against it, it's just that it's totally against the point of Wikipedia. Check out this page...

• OR

#3 of this section is a good example of what's going on on pages like this. A statement like "The main themes of the video involve mental freedom and the “dumbing down” of mass culture by a powerful “corporation”, which seems to be a reference to the media" is completely interpretive by the Wikipedian and counts as OR. Now if Damon Albarn was quoted in a magazine saying verbatim "The main themes of my video involve mental etc etc...", then we could put that in the article as what the author has said it's about. Otherwise it's just speculation. I could write "Bill Gates contributes extensively to charity because he is plagued by guilt of the rich" or some such but the only real verifiable fact there is that Gates is a philanthropist. Also, words like "seems", "appears" and "the impression given" are Weasel words and emphasize that the facts in questions aren't facts. Hope this helps. ka1iban 18:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm already tired of arguing about something this petty. You can edit those things to make it sound better or delete the things on the pages if you want, but the reason why i'm not doing it is because i don't want to piss anybody off. Frankly, you should listen to the commentary on the limited ed. album dvd if you or your friends have it, see if it's good enough as reference, or whether the info on there is useful at all. Do what you think is right after you looked at some of those pages and talk to some people. But if the stuff you said above is what you think, then you should seriously take a look at the El Mañana page and see what's up. Tsurugi 14:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, I think the "Music video" section can be shortened considerably. In the absence of a quote from Albarn -- which, btw, I think it would be wonderful to include -- the "interpretation" section does seem to, well, run on a bit. I'm going to shorten it if I get time today. --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 14:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't cut as much as I originally planned, but I did rearrange and streamline a bit. Whether any of the interpretation material belongs in Wikipedia at all I will leave to others to decide. :) --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 18:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Bootleg" version?

This added section seem not real. I have not seen any confirmation that there WAS such a bootleg version that was sold anywhere; chances are that the author illegally downloaded it from the Internet. Also, the "distorted beginning" of Feel Good Inc is on the album: it's made to crossfade from track 5 (Dirty Harry) to Track 6 (Feel Good Inc.). Can I get any support to delete it?

StormBreaker

When I was in Moscow in summer '06 the movie StormBreaker was released. In the scene where Alex is training in a military camp parts of the song are played in the backround. Should this be noted in the trivia? --[[User:Yossi842| Yossi842]] 00:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Misc.

When 2D is singing Noodle isn't mouthing words to him, she is singing along with him. If you watch very carefully you can see she is singing the chorus windmill windmill for the land.

--- One of De La's lines (actually mentioned in the main article 'music video' section): 'Don't stop get it, get it' seems to be directly transferred in Fifty Cent's song 'ayo technology' when fifty mutters the exact same line with the exact same emphasis and syncopation.

Could someone confirm the origins of that line, whether they do actually lie in 'Feel Good Inc.' or whether De La tipped their hat to someone else? Copied, used, whatever. It is all too reminiscent of the 2 live crew 'birthday' furore, for me. I don't think it is an actual rip-off to be covered under copyright (that significant of one) but if someone could find the basis of that line 'Don't stop get it, get it' with the exact lyrical tonal shifts it would be much appreciated. Maybe this is obvious to some but i've scoured my brain and can't trace the phrase back any further. 203.164.47.68 22:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

the Editors have a cover version of this song.

I have added this information and although I know it's true (you can listen to it on Youtube here, and it's included on the List of Live Lounge cover versions) I can't find a reliable source. Please add if you find one. Supervegan (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Feel Good Inc EP.jpg

Image:Feel Good Inc EP.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism, again (Kinks)

The windmill section of the song sounds an awful lot like the main theme of the Kinks song Sunny Afternoon. Yes, it's original research, but it's clear as day if you listen to them side by side. 76.178.247.180 (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I am very surprised that no one has mentioned the glaring similarities between Feel Good Inc. and Cake's 'Never There'. The entire song is in Cake's signature style from start to finish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.206.77 (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You can hear how close they are in this cool cover cross version: https://thomaslafond.bandcamp.com/track/sunny-afternoon-x-feel-good-inc-with-nicolette-andres — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.171.192 (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

And the Polkarama???

This song is shortest covered in the Polkarama, by Yankovic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_by_%22Weird_Al%22_Yankovic

P.D.:I not speak english —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.216.237 (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Copy edited

Copy edited this page on 29/05/2013 for clarity and spelling, have condensed the introductory paragraphs of article as they were waffling and too long. I think the section about the music video could be shorter still and if anyone wants to edit the article to include critical reception and/or more info about the music and lyrics of the song that would be great! Supervegan (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Feel Good Inc.. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515023850/http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-singles-2005.htm to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-singles-2005.htm

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) 14:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Feel Good Inc.. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140713070802/https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/feel-good-inc-ep/id425900716 to https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/feel-good-inc-ep/id425900716
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071227205258/http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/page/track_reviews?id=36449-feel-good-inc to http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/page/track_reviews?id=36449-feel-good-inc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070404014938/http://fans.gorillaz.com/mm_vids.php to http://fans.gorillaz.com/mm_vids.php

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) 10:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Improperly credited?

The text in the article says:

This is the only song in Damon Albarn's career to reach the top 40 on the Billboard Hot 100.

However if you scroll down under "Personnel", Albarn does not show any credits for this song. He's not listed anywhere in that section as a performer, producer, engineer, or writer. If he's solely taking licensing fees, this doesn't really qualify as "his" song. -Rolypolyman (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• He's the main person behind the musical aspects of the Gorillaz band, so anything that says it's written or produced by Gorillaz basically just means Damon Albarn. ArojamDharkon (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Disregarding the fact that this information is most likely true, it appears to violate WP:SYNTH by combining various sources, i.e. the Billboard entries of Blur, Gorillaz, etc., to reach a conclusion that isn't explicitly stated. (If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.) Unless there's a source out there that states "Feel Good Inc." is Albarn's only top-40 work, the information would probably be better off not being in the article at all. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 21:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Personnel

@ResolutionsPerMinute, well the changes are simple:

• I added the other 2 De La Soul members (Kelvin Mercer, Vincent Mason)
• I added Damon Albarn.
• Neither European CD lines or ”YouTube version” include Morgan Nicholls, because he only played it on Demon Days Live tour, so I removed him.
• I changed Zombie Flesh Eaters to Video personnel.
• I accredited Jamie Hewlett as a writer too.
• Other minor changes in Song personnel, as the order of the names.

Basically those are the changes. I think we should consider both notes (European CD lines and ”YouTube version”). --Furawi (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Furawi: Firstly, here are the liner notes cited, which you should review carefully:

• "Feel Good Inc."
• Demon Days

The main problem here is that you aren't citing the changes you make, but citing YouTube is another issue entirely. We don't know exactly who added the personnel listed in the description, even if it is the band's official page. The first thing you need to do is look for more reliable sources that list personnel. If you can't find anything and do decide to cite YouTube, then you actually need to add this citation in, because if you don't, you're either adding in original research or misusing primary sources (i.e. the liner notes). That's why I keep reverting you—you're not supporting these claims.

As for Nicholls, the source backing up his contribution does not mention him playing bass on tour. It just says he played the bass line. I can guarantee that if you remove him, someone's going to add him back in, because I've dealt with this issue in the past. It's why I rewrote the entire Credits section in the first place. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 22:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute: I checked those exact Discogs links before, but we exactly know who added the personnel listed in the description, Parlophone UK, that's why I said to consider both notes. Anyways, the personnel included on YouTube isn't exclusive to YouTube, you can find it in other streaming platforms as Deezer or Spotify, but for style reasons doesn't appear Howie Weinberg, Stephen Sedgwick, Kelvin Mercer and Vincent Mason, but the source is the same: Parlophone UK, that's why I think we should consider YouTube description, I don't see a problem citing YouTube since other song articles cite the streaming platform Tidal.

You can see Nicholls as the bassist for the Demon Days Live tour article. Parlophone UK notes never mentions him as the studio bassist. --Furawi (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Furawi: Fine, cite YouTube if you want, but only remove/change personnel if keeping them in would be redundant. As for Nicholls, the article says nothing about him being a live-only bassist, so I'd just keep him in until we find out for sure, lest the IPs lose their minds all over again. If anyone else is interested in this topic, please feel free to comment. ResPM (T🔈🎵C)