Talk:Think break

Proposed merge

I think the article on this break should be merged with the article on the song it comes from, "Think (About It)". InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The sample is more popular than the song. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Article title

Would it make sense to change the title to "Yeah! Woo!" by switching the order of the words? Because if you listen to the beat from the start, "yeah!" comes out first. But if you suddenly listen from the middle, it could feel like "woo!" was first. UD34 (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed an editor has changed the title from "Woo! Yeah!" to "Yeah! Woo!" Thanks for the approval. UD34 (talk)

Switched it back per https://books.google.com/books?id=kYrHBwAAQBAJ&pg=PT38 czar 18:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding because both "Think (about it)" and "It Takes Two" which are most closely associated with this article start with "Yeah." Even "Go On Girl" which the book mentions starts with "Yeah." You can easily find the official recordings of these songs on YouTube.UD34 (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

This move was done again and undiscussed. The source material is "Yeah!" then "Woo!". The sample that is popular, and the subject of the article, is "Woo!" then "Yeah!". This shouldn't be moved and reversed in article text, without discussion of why the source is more important than the subject. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Both the source material and the sample that is popular start with "Yeah" then "Woo." Listen to the audio that is on the article page. Also search both songs on YouTube and check. UD34 (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Wooo! Cut!

That's what it sounds like to me. I can't hear "Wooo! Yeah!" or "Yeah! Wooo!" in this. 66.25.177.117 (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The list is unnecessary and permanently incomplete

A complete listing of every song to sample "Think (About It)" would list over 2,000 songs, if WhoSampled is any indication. It doesn't add anything to the article and seems more like a trivia section than anything else - notable examples of the break can be (and are) listed in the article itself. I've removed the list because of this. The main relevant article I can find on this is WP:PLOT. Jokullmusic 16:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokullmusic (talk • contribs)

• • Disagree, the best known ones should stay, with refefences if necessary; it does not have to be a complete list but a selective list, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
    • The current list is not selective though, which is the issue. It lists a huge number of songs, not all of which are notable, and notable uses of it could easily be worked into the actual article. The list is totally unnecessary and unhelpful to readers of the article who will just see the huge list and be overwhelmed. Jokullmusic 19:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokullmusic (talk • contribs)
      • The list is not huge, instead of editwarring start an rfc as you have no consensus for your edit which has been challenged, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Should we just include all notable songs which have articles (not just artists)? Too many non-notable songs listed which do not have own articles. Hiddenstranger (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on list inclusion

The consensus is that the "Songs that use either all or part of the song" list section should have criteria for inclusion but there is no consensus about what the inclusion criteria should be.

Cunard (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article include a dynamic, 100+ entry list of tracks that use this break, or incorporate notable uses of the break into the article itself? Jokullmusic 19:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment perhaps the list should be limited to songs that have charted on a national chart, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Avoid indiscriminate inclusions. There should be some sort of criteria but primarily needs editorial discretion. I don't think a hard set of rules could (or should) be defined except avoiding indiscriminate inclusion. For example: a song in the list may not be notable by itself, but represents the first use of the sample in a genre. Or a comedic use of the sample. There should be a reason for any song to be listed, but I'm unwilling to define a pre-determined set of reasons. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • that's too vague, it's easier to have a simple inclusion criteria such as songs with an article and/or songs that charted on a good chart as defined by Wikipedia, thanksAtlantic306 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
    • No, it isn't. THANKS! SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• I suggest a combination of notable uses and use in notable songs. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It's "Yeah! Woo!"

The yeah comes first, then the woo. Clearly heard in the sample. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.253.186.82 (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism?

This page was moved and retitled "Woo! Yeah!" a few years ago. Why? It's definitely "Yeah! Woo!" in the sample, in that order. Was this a sneaky sort of vandalism which has gone unnoticed?

I wrote the original article at the current "Woo! Yeah!" title. It was moved without discussion several years ago, then moved back to the original title. The sample, not the source, is most commonly used in Woo! Yeah! order. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 8 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to "Think break." (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 18:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Woo! Yeah! → Think Break – "Woo! Yeah!" feels non-descriptive, when amongst producers and writing it's pretty much referred to as the Think Break. ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 19:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment. It seems like this should be Think break (capital T lowercase b) in the text and in the title if it's moved, or even "Think" break as found here. It is a break named after the song "Think" so should be formatted per MOS:POPMUSIC (I think? Not sure what the policy is for that with titles). The other source switches between capital b and lowercase b but mostly uses the lowercase form. --Cerebral726 (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Move to Think break, consistent with Amen break's capitalization. The current title is not supported by the cited sources and appears to be WP:OR. 162 etc. (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Move to Think break, per above. I'm not seeing significant coverage for the break, so it might be better off merged somewhere else entirely, but I do see more Google Books hits for the proposed name[1][2][3] than for "Woo! Yeah!"[4]. The article's current sources are not reliable. czar 06:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not the only "Think break"

There is another notable sample taken from the same song - at about 1:34 in the original - that is popular in genres like Liquid DnB, Breakcore or other Breaks subgenres, and is sometimes also referred to by the name "Think break". This is especially notable, as like with the "Yeah, Woo!", there is a little vocal tick, that is very characteristic in the tracks that use this sample. An example would be Solitary Native by Alix Perez & Sabre (first heard at 0:46, a bit low in the mix). There are probably more notable examples, but I'm not an expert on the genre. You can also find the loop under the name "Think break" in online databases like on https://samplefocus.com/samples/think-original-break-loop . A reliable citation is https://www.whosampled.com/news/2017/08/29/a-brief-history-of-the-think-break-the-funk-classic-sampled-2000-times/ , which lists the specific sample in question as ocurring at 1:37 in the original song. --LonleyGhost (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, but we'll need reliable secondary sources to cover this. Whosampled can't be used as a source on Wikipedia as it's based on user-generated content — see WP:USERG. Popcornfud (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I found a better citation with a credited author, describing this specific loop and even linking to an audio sample hosted on youtube: https://www.edmprod.com/drum-breaks/ .

Other articles exist that talk about the influence of a "Think Break" on genres like breakcore (e.g. https://ra.co/features/1974 ), but it is impossible to verify which exact sample is meant, since they don't describe anything about it. (Judging by the absence of a mention of "Yeah! Woo!" it is probably some other sample, but that probably counts as WP:OR.) --LonleyGhost (talk) LonleyGhost (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)