Talk:Kansas City (Leiber and Stoller song)

Changes regarding lyrics

I was under the impression that this song is an entirely different song from the Fats Domino version (as per Kansas City (song)), but this begs to differ. Comments? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 13:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've heard many different versions -- but not the Fats Domino version. If I were a betting man, however, I would assume that it was the same song as the Leiber-Stoller-Littelfield version which was recorded by Littlefield as KC Loving and Wilbert Harrison as Kansas City, and was later rerecorded by Haley and the Comets. The Little Richard/Beatles song is the same tune, except with altered lyrics and the Hey Hey Hey add-on. 23skidoo 13:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the tunes are vaguely similar, but they are not the same song. That's like arguing that "Surfin' USA" is the same song as "Sweet Little Sixteen". The tune is pretty much the same, but the words are different. Or that "Bah Bah Black Sheep" is the same song as "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star". Again, same or similar tune, different words. Wahkeenah 23:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't the one doing the splitting on the original article, but I was under the impression that the Wilbert Harrison version had the same lyrics as the Little Richard/The Beatles version, especially because the new disambig page told me so. A quick lyrics search tells me that's not true. Plus, I just tried to sing the Wilbert Harrison lyrics over The Beatles's song, which has a much faster tempo, and while they're close at times, they're not completely the same. Are we sure that the Wilbert Harrison version was an R&B song? According to the disambig page, it actually has the same lyrics as the Fats Domino version. I'm thinking we should now separate the Wilbert Harrison version from the Little Richard/The Beatles version. (The disambig page I'm referring to, by the way, is Kansas City (song).) Thoughts? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 23:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My initial fix was to re-distinguish the songs on the disambiguation page. I don't quite see why separate articles are needed for songs that merit one or two paragraphs each, but if you're going to have one for (R & B song) you should also have one for... well, is it R & B, or is it "Pop"? That's kind of a fine line. Seems to me like the Beatles version is more like rock, actually. Wahkeenah 23:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the way to settle this -- IMO they are the same song, only different arrangements -- is to check the songwriter credits. If both Little Richard/Beatles and Harrison/Littlefield are credited to Leiber-Stoller (or alternately to Littlefield since some sources credit him, not L/S) then that settles it that they're the same song, only with drastically different arrangements. And it's not uncommon for this to happen. Listen to Bill Haley's 1956 original version of See You Later Alligator, and then listen to the version of See You Later Alligator he recorded in 1966 for Orfeon Records. Technically they're supposed to be the same song, but they are substantially different arrangements. 23skidoo 01:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, in one of the books I have here, The Beatles' version is credited to Leiber-Stoller. I'm not sure what that means with regard to the other songs, but there you go. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 01:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding to the confusion is the fact that the Tony Sheridan version (which didn't involve the Beatles but is still related because of Sheridan) appears to be a mixture of both arrangements. 23skidoo 02:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Some clarification is in order. The version of "Kansas City" recorded by The Beatles on Beatles For Sale should always have been credited as a medley of Leiber & Stoller's "Kansas City" and Little Richard's (Richard Penniman's) "Hey, Hey, Hey, Hey." The omission of Little Richard's song title and writer's credit was an error. That error has since been corrected (including the restoration of money to Little Richard that was incorrectly paid to Leiber & Stoller), and all subsequent official issues of the medley have the correct credits. Pstoller 02:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is not supposed to be about the Medley. It is about the original song "Kansaa City" and to list Penniman as writer is incorrect since he is not credited on the versions recorded by Littlefield, Harrison, Haley, Fats Domino, etc. Perhaps a way to get around this in terms of creating an article on every song recorded by the Beatles, is to create a separate article on Kansas City/Hey Hey Hey. The Beatles infobox shouldn't be here at all.. there should be an infobox for the original recording of Kansas City. I've started a thread at the Beatles wikiproject page here suggesting that a separate article on the medley be created. 23skidoo 03:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Beatles

It appears to me that the song has very little to do with the Beatles, other than they sang it on one of their albums, much like others mentioned on the page. However, for some reason, The Beatles are prominent in the information about this page, complete with a picture of the album. This shows a disservice to the song, and others who sang it. Furthermore, as mentioned by the article, the version of "Kansas City" by the Beatles isn't even similar lyrics, much less arrangement, so I would argue that it really shouldn't be considered the same song. Wit that said, I would argue that the Beatles infobox be removed from this page, or an infobox for all major artists that have covered this song be added to the page. As such, and in accordance with other comments on this page, I am removing it from this page about a great, non-beatles song.Jon Thompson 00:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of information for other versions is not a good reason to delete info on the version by the Beatles. Also, the version by the Beatles is just that—a version—and it's performed in a medley. I don't think it's a separate song, certainly not legally and not by WP standards either. John Cardinal 09:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As others and myself have pointed out, this article is not actually about the Beatles' version of the song, it is about the song itself, which is a classic Blues song, and _not_ a pop medley, as appears in the infobox. The copy of the article is sufficient in mentioning that the Beatles' version, without prominently displaying a picture of the album that it resides on, which incorrectly puts an emphasis on a derivative version of the song, rather than the song itself. The original song has different lyrics, different style, and different arrangement. The only thing similar between the two are the words "I'm Going to Kansas City". This issue seems to me to be rather binary- the infobox is there or not. Adding more info boxes for other versions would be silly, as there are so many versions of this song. I have two versions on my iPod from James Brown alone. If you can think of a compromise, please let me know, as I certainly cannot. Jon Thompson 18:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

how about this song being part of the Wikiproject Beatles? is every article about a song covered by the beatles part of the project, or should it only be about notable singles released by the beatles?(mercurywoodrose)66.80.6.163 (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Notable by definition

Any song that has been a hit three separate times, is considered a standard, has been recorded by the Beatles and Little Richard as well as "hundreds" of others, is notable by definition, so I removed the concern-troll whine marker. Ortolan88 (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculously notable. regarding the troll: instead of him worrying about kansas city, send him back to arkansas.(mercurywoodrose)66.80.6.163 (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Image

we can take the image of the single from this site and add it in as fair use:[1](mercurywoodrose)66.80.6.163 (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization of "the Beatles" in mid-sentence

MOS:MUSIC#Names (definite article) makes it quite clear. They even use the Beatles as an example:

Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.:

• Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues.

Again, see Beatles (FA) and Sgt Pepper (GA) for the currently accepted practice.

The rest of the edit follows MOS and guidelines. Discuss your specific objections, rather than a wholesale revert. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"The Beatles" is the name of the group, and should be capitalized wherever it appears and is used as a noun. As an adjectival form, "the Beatles" (as in "the Beatles song "Hey Jude") is correct. If the MOS says otherwise, the MOS is wrong, and since the MOS is a guideline and not policy, and therefore not mandatory, we are allowed, and should indeed, follow the proper rules of grammar until the MOS is corrected.

If the MOS is so obviously wrong, why is it followed in Featured Articles and Good Articles? You should be taking up this argument there, not here. Unless you have a reliable source for your position, the MOS should be followed until it is changed. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The remainder of the edits are silly. An infobox should be removed because it drops down into another section? As for the list of musicians, I think it's better in than out, but to say it violates WP:WEIGHT is ridiculous, it's just giving additional information to our readers and isn't prejudicial to anything else on the page. BMK (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Silly? Ridiculous? Try assuming good faith first and drop the histrionics.

1) Infobox — see WP:LAYIM: "Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in" and "Generally, if there are so many images in a section that they strip down into the next section at 1024×768 screen resolution, that probably means either that the section is too short, or that there are too many images." The James Brown section is very short and can't support any infographics without pushing down into and taking up most of the next section. Plus it immediately follows the Beatles' infobox and therefore is not "spread evenly".

2) Personnel list for Beatles — no other section has a separate personnel list (the earlier version that I removed had a separate subsection for Personnel, which I see you changed). Adding one for the Beatles places undue emphasis on their version. Why not one for Harrison (#1 hit) or Brown? The Beatles section is rather short; adding a separate list takes up a disproportionate amount of space within the section and makes it unbalanced. Plus, it appears to be detail for details sake. There are links to the Beatles and several albums, just in case the reader needs to be reminded of Dirk, Nasty, and what's-him-name. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Try considering what's best for the article, and not what some rulebook tells you to do. So the infobox goes into the next section, so what? So no other section has a personnell list, so what? You're raising consistency over informational value, and that's not conducive to presenting our readers with the best article we can. BMK (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

we are allowed, and should indeed, follow the proper rules of grammar: grammar is irrelevant in a discussion of whether something ought to be capitalised or not, since in either case it does not alter how the words sound in speech.

Nuttyskin (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

A big mistake concerning the Little Richard/The Beatles version of song: it is not a medley of two songs!

The version of "Kansas City" performed by Little Richard and next covered by The Beatles was mistakenly called "Kansas City/Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey (a medley)". The title announcing this non-existent medley did appear only on a later pressings of Beatles_for_Sale, due to an intervention of Venice Music, being an interested party (see Notes here). But actually nor Little Richard, neither The Beatles did never perform this so-called medley, them did perform "Kansas City".
There is the chronology of recordings by Little Richard and their releases:
September 13, 1955: "Kansas City", at least two takes. This first version was very close to the original song by Leiber & Stoller, but was first released only in 1971 (take 2 of this version, which runs 2:16).

November 29, 1955: "Kansas City", at least eight takes. This second version, very different from the first one (in particular, including a refrain starting by the words "Hey, Hey, Hey, Hey") was first released in March 1959 (it runs 2:37).

May 9, 1956: "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey", at least eight takes. This song, having not to do with "Kansas City" (except a title and verse similar to the refrain of "Kansas City" 2nd version) was released in January 1958.
So none of versions of "Kansas City", both recorded by Little Richard in autumn 1955, can be a medley with "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey", recorded a half of year later.

January 1958: Single Specialty 624 "Good Golly Miss Molly" backed by "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey" is released.

March 1959: Album "The Fabulous Little Richard" (Specialty LP-2104) including "Kansas City" (2nd version) is released.

April 1959: Single Specialty 664 "Kansas City" (same 2nd version) is released.
No "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey" on title of song, no "medley", the title is simply "Kansas City".
However, as "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey" was released more than a year before "Kansas City", it was considered as preceding "Kansas City". That "inverse chronology", together with a similarity of the word "Hey" repeated four times in both songs, created a mistake.
This second version of "Kansas City" issued in 1959 was covered by The Beatles. No medley here.

1971: Album "Well Alright!" (Specialty LP-2136), including the first version of "Kansas City", called the same way as the first issued second one: "Kansas City".

This obvious mistake, being created accidentally or intentionally, should be fixed.

RocknRollArchivist (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kansas City (Leiber and Stoller song). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.rockhall.com/exhibithighlights/500-songs-by-name-km/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kansas City (Leiber and Stoller 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/20110122042616/http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame to http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame

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) 03:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)