Talk:How Soon Is Now?/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposed merge

Why not keep the singles separate? It may be the same song, but it's two different bands doing it. I guess that in many similar cases, the pages are combined, but I'd prefer to see them not. If putting them together is WP policy, then that's alright, but otherwise, I'm against the merger. Folkor 15:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the question of merging or not merging a cover version with the original's article (or in some cases, not even the original but simply the 'most famous' version) has to be done on a case-by-case basis. I'm not against separate pages for different versions of the same song per se but in this case the t.A.T.u article is so slight I don't think it adds much to Wikipedia by being on its own. If someone wants to flesh out the t.A.T.u single article and show that it really deserves to stand by itself, I'd look at it again and perhaps say leave it separate. Based on how it is now, I'm more in favour of deleting the t.A.T.u article and adding stuff about its chart position and music video not to The Smith's song article but to 200 km/h in the Wrong Lane. After all, it wasn't even a big single for t.A.T.u - compare with "All the Things She Said" off the same album. Cheers, Ian Rose 04:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the greater question then should be should the t.A.T.u article even exist? Merging that single with this one would end up adding nothing to the article (since it is already stated that they did a cover of the song, and that appears to be the only thing notable about that single, including the chart performance). I just don't see anypoint in merging those articles. Perhaps we should question whether or not it should be deleted. Not every single is notable, especially a single that really do well on the charts or would be known by the common public. THollan 23:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm against merging as I don't think it would add anything to the article about The Smiths song. It already mentions who covered it etc. Englishrose 23:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I find no justification to merge information on the t.A.T.u remake with the original. I have no ill will towards t.A.T.u; I have not heard their cover. But, I am generally not in favor of artists in today's consumerized and conformist music industry having to remake songs with substance, meaning, originality, and in general, overall value, from the Retro/New Wave/New Romantic era. To give space to here for such info would serve to credit any modern artist on simply adapting an excellent original song to the likes of today's indolent, ignorant, and media/commercial driven society. anonymous 16:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, we certainly seem to have consensus on not merging the t.A.T.u article with the Smiths one. None of the above have suggested adding anything from t.A.T.u to this article. As I said earlier - and there appears some consensus on this too - the next question is should the t.A.T.u article even exist? (My own position is still to merge it with 200 km/h in the Wrong Lane.) However, its proposed deletion or merge is something for that article, not this one. I suggest there's been enough discussion on the subject to at least remove the merge proposal notice from here. Cheers, Ian Rose 06:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree - merge the t.A.T.u single article with the album page, not the Smiths single article. Folkor 16:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No! It would be madness to merge Barbara Osgood 12:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I know this is like really old but i think it should be merged because the t.A.T.u. article isn't really that big. Lillygirl 06:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Have culled a great deal of the t.A.T.u. portion, which has swelled to 22% of the total article, which is a disproportionate value placed on this cover. Like others say above, perhaps all this detail can be reinstated on the t.A.T.u. album page, not on the Smiths song page? I've informed the original wikipedian ericorbit on his talk page. I hope that any reverts to my edit will be discussed here and supported by a manual of style link. Just trying to "be bold" here and retain the relative importance of the original single upon which all cover versions build. JGray (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Have just had my edit reverted by Kww. Not because my edit was too severe but because "cover versions never get independent articles". That's fine, I get that, but I didn't create a separate article, I just slimmed down the t.A.T.u. proportion. I spent 2 hours studying this article before making my edit, Kww spent, at most, 4 minutes. Kww, you're the admin, I'm not saying that I'm right, but can you please help me understand your position? Can you link to the manual of style or discuss here or on your talk page or on my talk page? Your revert seems a bit hasty, unmeasured, and unsubstantiated. For the record, I'm using weight and not indiscriminate as my guide in culling, what are you using, Kww? You name a mandate, but do not cite it. As an admin I think you have to be held to higher standards, both in your edits (which, in this case, you very well may be correct) and in your helping the rest of us understand how best to improve wikipedia (which in this case, you are clearly deficient). For now I'm undoing your revert, although I'm sure you'll revert again. If you revert again, hopefully you'll be more helpful. If you're not, so be it, at least I've tried. JGray (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not hasty, unmeasured, or unsubstantiated. That t.a.t.u. single would normally warrant its own article, as it clearly passes WP:NSONGS. However, versions do not receive their own articles. This article is not "How Soon is Now? (Smiths single)", or anything of the like. It's about the song, "How Soon is Now?", which has two notable versions. What you removed from the t.a.t.u. section is the material that would normally go into the article. Take a look at The Climb (song), which has a Joe McElderry version included, or Last Christmas (with multiple versions), I Want to Know What Love Is (with multiple cover versions), or any other notable cover. 22% is not at all an unreasonable percentage of the article. With two notable versions, it could reasonably be argued that the t.a.t.u. version should be closer to 50% of the article. Ericorbit's edit was fully in line with standard procedures and article construction, and it seems that your argument hinges around the idea that the article should focus on the versions by the Smiths. There's no precedent for that.—Kww(talk) 23:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, some dialogue. Apologies in advance for the length here....I can tell you like to work fast, so I'm sure this is a challenge, Kww. I understand your merging point, always have. A better way to phrase my position is, "why is all of this detail necessary?"

If the "merging project" folks (and I think you folks do good work) would spare some focus on whether the detail you're merging is notable, you'd be much more effective. As it is you're taking the cover versions of monumental songs (in most cases) and giving the cover articles (which are, more often than not created by fickle teenagers who will lose interest in 6 months) disproportionate weight in the merged article. You get the risk, right? Massively bloated articles that obscure the relative importance.

I've checked the talk page on The Climb (song) and my recommendation for How Soon is Now is the same as yours for The Climb; "remove the ridiculous level of bloat". Reduce the Tina Arena portion of I Want to Know What Love Is and it seems to be a good weighting between Foreigner and Mariah. This is just one man's opinion but Last Christmas is a great example of what happens when the merging project people merge without editing for notability. That article is less effective because of its indiscriminate collection of information.

That's what I'm talking about Kev, weight. This talk page has 7 contributors devoting 31 lines of support for a Smiths-focused article and 1 contributor devoting one line of support for a t.A.T.u. balance. Are you familiar with both versions? Do you really want to make the case that a cover that had a peak position of #6 in Chile (pop. 17M) should consume 22% of the article length, or even further, 50%? Yes, I would love for you to make that argument, Kevin.

Again, I'm not making the case for a separate article, just for proportionality. If you really feel strongly about 22%, I'll revert it again. But please consider that one version inspired 8 covers, the other version's article was created by 14 y/o kids who have long since moved on to another fascination. Let's recognize appropriately instead of muddying the waters. JGray (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like it made 8 charts, not just Chile (and Chile should be removed, as it is listed on WP:BADCHARTS). If you didn't restore the t.a.t.u. track listing or remix lists, I wouldn't be upset, as I think those sections are always superfluous. You should note that the discussion you are referencing above is 5 years old: an interesting historical data point, but not much more.—Kww(talk) 03:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I see what JGray is doing, I would be opposed to a separate article, so a "pruning" doesn't seem so bad to me. However, I'm wondering if any of these other versions have chart statistics or track lists or cover art? Like Kww I'm not big on a comprehensive "track list" section, but perhaps the addition of some extra info on other cover versions would help to kind of even out the weight given to non-Smiths versions. That said, the Morrissey quote in the t.A.T.u. "reception" section is fucking priceless - how could we leave that out? - eo (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Totally endorse KWW comments above. The article is about the song, the performers are secondary to the song and I dislike performer-segregation. Let's keep all the information about the song together, which, to me, is a logical state of affairs! --Richhoncho (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad Kww and eo get my point at last. Unfortunately I will, for the last time, state that I think that the restoration of most of the t.A.T.u. section is a step in the wrong direction. Respectfully, I really believe you folks are shooting for the War & Peace version of song articles when The Sun Also Rises would be so much more elegant and powerful. It is a waste of people's attention spans, that is to say. But I've just spent too much time at this point to continue on....I'll lose this battle and hope someone else will pick up the war where I left off. Richhoncho, sorry buddy, you didn't read deeply enough to understand what I was saying.JGray (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

quicksand cover

I have quicksands "slip" on cd and its not there..although it is an first issue disk...Its not available on the I-tunes version either and I can't find any other mention of it other than on WIKIPEDIA

First Commercial Use?

At least in the London region:for many non-Smiths fans, he use of this track to advertise Pepe jeans (with a memorable image of two youths sheltering from the rain) must have had a lot to do with its subsequent popularity, Plutonium27 00:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Tremelo guitar

This doesn't seem to be accurate:

The tune is built around a guitar chord that rapidly oscillates in volume. As to how the distinctive resonant sound was achieved, the following was offered by Patrick Frawley on a fan site:[5]

"There is a 'vibrato' or 'tremolo' twist knob on certain guitar amplifiers; some Fender models come to mind. It specifically produces that unmistakable wooga-wooga sound, originally intended to emulate a skilled stringed instrument player's fingered tremoloing (think concert violinists, cellists, etc). It's basically an electrically induced volume oscillation; one can hear the chord being played, bouncing back and forth on the volume scale, but Marr's good enough to mask the changes. Early guitar rock god Bo Diddley used it extensively on his Fifties singles, which have influenced generations of guitarists, including (obviously) Marr. The distinctive drumbeat of the track is also a blatant/loving Diddley nick".

A couple of years ago, there was a programme on channel 4 in the UK (something like "Top Ten Guitarists") where Johnny Marr described how this was done. The guitar part in question was actually sampled and looped backwards. it would be great if someonw could find the quote. --88.111.32.112 19:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've found an account by Marr. it seems that a sampler is not involved. I've included it in the article. --88.111.32.112 19:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that and for all your other additions (on which I've done some copyediting). Having a quote from the horse's mouth re. the guitar part is far superior to what we had before - well done. Cheers, Ian Rose 13:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Used in The Craft & Charmed...

The article mentions it 3 times... shortly twice is enough? 203.35.135.136 (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean "surely"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Quirk (talk • contribs) 08:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)