Talk:Higher Ground (Stevie Wonder song)

Merge from Higher Ground (Red Hot Chili Peppers song)

There is no guideline that suggests that either all singles have their own page or that multiple versions of the same song receive separate articles. The guidleline that applies here, WP:MUSIC#SONGS, instead states that "Most songs[footnotes 5] do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." As a result, this song is notable because it has been "performed independently by several notable artists". Also, note above the previously deleted images from this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a closer examination of the two shows that the existing sectin in the target article is virtually identical to the from article. Nothing to merge. It's a simple redirect. I'll briefly await comments before going ahead. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The Chili Peppers cover of the song fulfills the guidelines, given it has "ranked on national or significant music charts" and there's quite a bit of secondary source material available on it. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"Higher Ground" is a popular rock song only because of the Chili Peppers. It is commented upon by numerous music publications (Total Guitar named it the best cover ever) and charted on both the Modern Rock Tracks and Mainstream Rock Tracks charts in '88, as well as various international charts. This song is far deserving of its own article and redirecting it would breach Wikipedia policy. NSR77 ^T 19:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Yes, Higher Ground (song) is a notable song. Higher Ground (Red Hot Chili Peppers song) is the same song. WP:MUSIC#SONGS says, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." The song (not "songs") is notable. The song has been "performed independently by several notable artists". The section in Higher Ground (song) follows guidelines. Higher Ground (Red Hot Chili Peppers song) is redundant. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparably, Layla was notable on Derek & the Dominoes alone. Clapton's solo ("unplugged") version won the Grammy for Record of the Year. It's a section of the same article. With a Little Help from My Friends, a song by the obscure group "The Beatles" was covered by Joe Cocker, taking it to #1. It's a section of the same article. Ditto his covers of She Came in Through the Bathroom Window, The Letter (song), Cry Me a River and Midnight Rider. All notable without his top ten cover. His top 10 covers are all in the song's article. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Really notable covers like that could support their own article (except for the "Layla" one, since the same guy is involved and the Dominos were just a back band for him). It's really a matter of if the amount of content for each version supports creating a separate article. I'd say it's definitely worth creating a separate article for Joe Cocker's "With A Little Help From My Friends" cover, given how highly notable it is. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that Derek and the Dominos were not a backing band - stating otherwise is simply ignorant. I mean, for heaven's sake, Layla is mainly written by Derek and the Dominos' Jim Gordon, not Clapton himself. That is maybe beyond the point but the fact remains that the song in question (Higher Ground) is Stevie Wonder's and simply having an article entitled "Higher Ground (Red Hot Chili Peppers' Song)" reflects poorly on Wikipedia; the point being that it is not their song, but simply a cover (however good said cover is). Let's merge this. Nazionale (talk) 09:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And lets not overload articles with multiple infoboxes. I've removed the duplicated stuff in this article except for a brief mention of the existence of the Red Hots' cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indopug (talk • contribs) 13:56, 3 January 2009

Merge (again)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus for merge. Jafeluv (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I tried to merge Higher Ground (Red Hot Chili Peppers song) here since it was requested at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, but apparently the merger isn't uncontroversial so it should be discussed here first.

I believe the two articles should be merged. They are both about the same song, performed by a different artist. The Higher Ground (song) article already discusses cover versions, such as those by Ellen McIlwaine and Alicia Keys.

Other similar songs (songs with a notable cover version and notable original) are included in one article and work fine that way. All Along the Watchtower has ten individual cover versions listed (including Jimi Hendrix's, arguably one of the greatest rock covers), with two infoboxes and three music samples. In my opinion, the article works much better that way than if it was split into All Along the Watchtower (Jimi Hendrix song) and the main article (which would discuss all the other covers as well as the original), or into 10 tiny cover song articles. We have no Live and Let Die (Guns N' Roses song), no Whiskey in the Jar (Metallica song) and no The Man Who Sold the World (Nirvana song). Cover versions should be listed in the article about the song – in my opinion the only reason to fork the content into two articles is article size. Of course, article size is no issue here. Jafeluv (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This is all very true, but WP:MUSIC notes that "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I could very easily grow this article to FA status since there is an incredible amount of information in both of the two Red Hot Chili Peppers books that I use; one being Anthony Kiedis' autobiography. That said, we must keep in mind that there is no set guideline in terms of cover songs. Nowhere is the phrase "cover songs must be kept to one page" mentioned in any of Wikipedia's policies. It is my belief that when a cover song has outgrown the original and becomes tangible all its own then that song warrants its own article. NSR77 ^T 15:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be using slightly different terminology: you talk about "cover songs". I prefer "cover versions", since it's the same song, just a different version. "Higher Ground (Red Hot Chili Peppers song)", for me, sounds like it's a different song with just the same name – much like Moonchild (King Crimson song) and Moonchild (Iron Maiden song). Therefore, I would prefer the name "Higher Ground (Red Hot Chili Peppers version)" if it's decided that the rendition deserves its own article.

I agree that the policies and guidelines don't say anything about whether cover versions should have their own article or not. The guideline you cite talks about the notability of songs rather than different renditions of a song ("[songs] that have been performed independently by several notable artists" doesn't really make sense if you're talking about one cover version).

It seems there's a convention (if not a written one) that usually cover versions of a song are included in the main song article instead of having separate articles. (I did find one exception, though: "Inside and Out".) Even if this isn't agreed on, there are other covers that, in my opinion, deserve their own article more than this one (one that comes to mind is "All Along the Watchtower" by The Jimi Hendrix Experience, explained above). I suggest that different versions are kept in one article unless there's a very good reason for them to have their own page – for example the song article becoming too long, in which case I would support moving the most notable cover version(s) into their own article and making the main article a summary of the different versions. That, however, would require the article to have a lot more material than it currently has. Jafeluv (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that they should be merged, for all reasons mentioned above. Luminifer (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but I've always been against Wikipedia's tendency to shove all versions of a song into one article. I've seen up to three or even four infoboxes in one article; that's just way too complicated and unsightly. I can barely navigate through the article despite the fact that I've been here for over three years; can you imagine a newcomer who is simply reading for pleasure be able to comprehend any well-devised information? No, because there are infoboxes jumbled from here to high heaven. Just because many other cover versions are listed in the same article as the original is not indicative of guidelines. I simply don't understand why you feel that shoving everything into one article is beneficial when there is no harm done in keeping it where it is now. NSR77 ^T 16:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

One reason to shove them together is dead tree tradition: If you look at any paper encyclopedia and look for a song with a lot of cover versions, you find one article explaining the different versions in some logical order (whatever that is: chronological, alphabetical, importance...). Some of the information will of course be duplicated or scattered in different articles nevertheless: in this case, information on the song will probably be found at least at Innervisions, Mother's Milk and probably Red Hot Chili Peppers as well. However, the reader will expect to find the information about a song and its versions in one article. (This is how I think, at least, and how I as a reader expect things to be found – of course it's a matter of opinion really.)

I agree with you that excessive infoboxes can make an article hard to read, especially if there's not enough prose on the page and the infoboxes make up the majority of space in the article. The cure for that, however, is to expand the article. If possible, the article should contain enough information in the text so that the infoboxes only complement the text instead of making up the most part of the article. Look at All Along the Watchtower: There are two infoboxes and three music samples, but I would hardly argue that a casual reader would have difficulties navigating the page. There's about one screenful of text on Dylan's original, and a little less on the famous cover version by Hendrix. Either text alone would make a rather small article. This way, the article on the song contains all the information the reader needs in an accessible way: anyone looking for just the Dylan version will have all the information he or she needs in one section; anyone looking for the Hendrix cover will have just the same in the next section; and anyone looking for information about the song in general will have the information on the original, the most notable cover version, and other cover versions in the same article without needing to open another article to find information on the same topic.

I don't want you to think that I have strong feelings about where this page should be, I'm just stating my opinion about how I as a reader would expect things to be. I love both versions of the song, but I don't expect to be contributing much to the article itself. If there's consensus either way, you should stick with that. If there's silence and you still disagree with my views, you should do what you find is best for the article. I'm sure it'll develop into a great article regardless of what the result of this merger proposal is :) Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I look at it very much in the same way that film articles are done; "cover" films are not in the same page as the originals despite being theoretically small. For example, M (1931 film) is large where as the remakes from 1951 and 2007 are barely stubs. They could theoretically be merged together according to your reasoning, but they are not because they are two distinct versions of ideally the same story. That is, ultimately, what a cover song is. Like I mentioned before, I could grow the Red Hot Chili Peppers' version into an FA but my time is restricted at the moment and I am no longer able to contribute to Wikipedia as vigorously as I once did. NSR77 ^T 16:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge - round 2

I think the two pages need to be merged. There's no reason why we should have separate articles about the same song. It's different from film adaptations of books being separate from the books themselves because they are different mediums. 2 different versions of the same song are the same medium, and even more. FMAFan1990 (talk)

I can think of several reasons why these two articles should be merged, but the primary reason is that the articles are about "the song" (this article is called "Higher Ground (song)"!!!), not the people who have recorded it, which is actually a by-product of the song. Anybody with an interest in the song will want to see all the information about the song that's available and in one place. If anybody thinks the performers are more important let's merge both articles into the relevant albums and have done with it! --Richhoncho (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Merge, per common practice on Wikipedia (see "Baby, Please Don't Go", among many others), favoring comprehensive treatment of a song within one article. At 3,836 bytes, the Chili Peppers article is barely more than a stub, so this is special pleading, and there is certainly no reason to delete information about the cover from the main article. Incidentally, the Chili Peppers cover article is being cited by editors creating article stubs for cover versions, so the existence of this article is creating a disruptive precedent. I am very interested in the outcome of this merge discussion, and hope it is resolved in a way that doesn't spur more cover stubs. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Merge. Cover versions are part of the history of a song. Wonder wrote and recorded it, RHCP covered it - it's still the same song, which should be the focus of the article. - eo (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• My reasoning can be seen in the above section. I've notified NSR77 of this discussion. Jafeluv (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• I don't have much to add but an example: I also think that multiple infoboxes are unsightly, and that a notable cover (that is, anything worth more than a mention in a single sentence) should have its own article. My personal example is Only Love Can Break Your Heart, where I had split the two versions only to be reversed ([1]). I did not reach a satisfactory decision discussing the matter with another editor (see User_talk:Drmies#Only_Love_Can_Break_Your_Heart), so I'm interested in this discussion--though I think "no consensus" is looming. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • My words above, I see now, can easily be misread: I do not mean to say that User:Ericorbit, with whom I had the disagreement over "Only Love," acted incorrectly or anything like that. We had a disagreement, that's all, and I let him have his way, haha.

    Back to the topic at hand: I do believe that Higher Ground (Red Hot Chili Peppers song) is a misnomer, since it's a Wonder song, and the fact that about half the article is taken up by tracklistings of various releases only reinforces the idea that that article is not so much about their version of the song but about the release. I personally think that too much "release information" isn't even relevant (WP:NOTDIR--WP is not "a complete exposition of all possible details"), and I would not be opposed to a merge here. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Merge - it is misleading and confusing, and non-wikipedia-standard, to have two separate articles for the same song. Luminifer (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think the "standard" is that easily defined--two different versions are sometimes so different as to be a different song, in a way, and there may well be cases in which it is really difficult to speak of "the same song"; I'm thinking of Hendrix playing the "Star Spangled Banner" at Woodstock, for instance, or at Monterey, where he says something like, "And the flag was still there--big deal." That's not the same intention, it's not the same words, there's so much differenc that one could speak of two songs (whether his playing it warrants its own article re: WP:N is another matter). Drmies (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • That may (or may not) be true, but it does not really apply to this song. Luminifer (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • "Star-Spangled" by Hendrix is ONLY notable because it is so different from other versions we are familiar with. For me a very good reason for single articles for songs. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note : The is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions with the purpose of trying to establish a standard rule for merge/separate different version of the same song. Please make known your feelings on the matter. Regards. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

I want to know the year of the Toots & The Maytal version, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.247.111.215 (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Subject

Is this a WP:RS: [2] ? I'm sure that NYT source can also easily be located. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Higher Ground (Stevie Wonder 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020025459/http://australian-charts.com/forum.asp?todo=viewthread&id=21533&pages= to http://australian-charts.com/forum.asp?todo=viewthread&id=21533&pages=

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) 07:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Higher Ground (Stevie Wonder 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130920064608/http://infodisc.fr/Bilan_W.php to http://www.infodisc.fr/Bilan_W.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206002037/http://redhotchilipeppers.com/timeline to http://redhotchilipeppers.com/timeline

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) 18:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)