Jump to content

Talk:Mercedes Benz (song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is there a hyphen in this song's name?

[edit]

On the back of the original Pearl LP (which I own and have just looked at), this song is listed as "Mercedes Benz". Similarly, in Joel Whitburn's reference book Album Cuts 1955-2001, the song's name is listed without the hyphen, and Whitburn is usually a stickler for this sort of thing. Unless someone has a good source with a hyphen, I recommend that we remove the hyphen. (I'm only talking about the name of the song, of course; this has nothing to do with how the car manufacturer spells the car's name.) Eric-Albert 15:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the page to what I believe to be the correct name, and fixed most of the links to it. Eric-Albert 23:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why did someone screw this article up?

[edit]

It was fine in the beginning. I'm thinking about reverting. It looks messy. PrinceCharming 22:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few good reasons to remove the "Jeppe opera" from the list of covers: There are 41 releases of this song according to http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=17:978117~T00G and I count the number of covering artists to 30. The Jeppe opera isn't even listed at allmusic as being released as a record so either it isn't recorded or it's not wide spread - can it really even be counted as a cover version then? I also note that the person who created the Jeppe opera page at wikipedia (Scottandrewhutchins) is the same person who added the information here on Jeppe.

I will not remove it though, I will just cut the information down to 1 line instead of 3, I think that's more than enough. Anyone with an interest in this opera could follow the internal link. DavidGGG 18:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This song is often misheard

[edit]

as "Mercy dispense" or something, especially from German listeners who don't realize how "Mercedes-Benz" could be pronounced by Americans. [1] [2] There is even a christian rock group "Mercy Dispense" in Austria. [3] --84.115.129.76 (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of that and even if so you'd need it to be more relevant. I mean, stick it on the mondegreen page but it's not notable to the song itself. Key word. Notable. 2.24.145.91 (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was This Song Always Going to Be A Capella?

[edit]

Janis Joplin died in the middle of the Pearl recording sessions. "Buried Alive in the Blues" is an instrumental because she died before a vocal track could be recorded. Is it possible that "Mercedes Benz" was an accidental a capella piece? (I would be accidentally a capella, if the vocal was originally recorded with the intention of adding backing tracks later.) It is interesting that a version with backing tracks actually was posthumously made and released 30-plus years after the fact for a compilation. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting speculation, but there's no real way to find out, is there. DS (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Button, button, who's got the real list of writers?

[edit]

Who's right? This article says the song was written by Janis Joplin with the poets Michael McClure and Bob Neuwirth, but according to metrolyrics.com, the writers were "Renner, Ruth Maria / Schlippenbach, Vincent Graf Von / Conen, David / Bugnon, Jerome". There is no overlap whatever between the two lists; no one is on both lists. How did this happen??? --Hccrle (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Metrolyrics is not a reliable source. BMK (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image within article

[edit]

I replaced the image of Joplin's Porsche with a photo of the artist because—although a Porsche is mentioned in the lyrics—the song is about a Mercedes Benz. A portrait of Joplin as songwriter is more appropriate as an image within article rather than a vehicle she owned. This edit was undone by User:Beyond My Ken with the summary "disagree". I undid the user's reversion with a similar explanation again in the edit summary, but User:Beyond My Ken again reverted my edit, reasoning that "the pic of Joplin is used on just about every article connected with her, this is better."

Joplin's personal vehicle has no relevance to this article topic. A Porsche is mentioned in the lyrics, but if an image of the single's cover is not available, a more appropriate image would depict the songwriter and original recording artist rather than a personal effect owned by the artist. AldezD (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image of Jopin this editor wishes to replace the car image with is the same image that is on every Joplin-related article we have. In this case, the car relates directly to the subject of the song, as the song is about the singer wanting an expensive foreign car, a Mercedes-Benz, and the car is Joplin's actual expensive foreign car, a Porsche. (That the editor can't see the connection is a bit strange.) This makes it a superior choice to yet another use of the same old image of Joplin. There's nowhere to put it "in" the article, since the article is essentially a list with some notes. I'm opposed to replacing the car image with the image of Joplin, I'm opposed to adding the image of Joplin, and I'm opposed to moving the image from near the top of the page down. BMK (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The artist's personal vehicle is not related to this song. Joplin wrote a song about a Mercedes Benz. In no way does she reference her own vehicle within the lyrics, and a Porsche being an "expensive foreign car" does not create relevance for her personal vehicle to this song. AldezD (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This remark is so incredibly literal that I'm almost speechless. You obviously can't see the way the image and the song connect, and there's nothing I can do about that, but there's also no reason that Wikipedia has to suffer because of your inability to understand indirect, suggestive and connotative relationships between things. BMK (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Song covers

[edit]

Nothing to discuss. Consensus is to follow WP:SONGCOVER which requires each entry to meet WP:NSONG. Retaining non-compliant entries is against consensus. The only path to follow for inclusion is to describe how a particular entry meets NSONG, ideally with a reference. Was the cover version a single? Did it chart or go viral? Etc. Binksternet (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but WP:SONGCOVER is part of a WikiProject, and, as such, is not generally enforceable except voluntarily. It is well established that WikiProjects do not WP:OWN the articles that they count in their purview, and that their internal rules cannot be forced upon the general Wikipedia editing population.

If you feel strongly about this, I suggest you bring it to WP:ANI, and we'll see if the local WikiProject consensus obtains, or the views of the wider community. BMK (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lennon birthday gift

[edit]

This page says it was recorded on October 1, 1970; the Janis Joplin page says it was recorded on September 26, 1970. Ulmanor (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The version of the article I just looked at doesn't say that. It says "The last recording Joplin completed was on October 1, 1970 – "Mercedes Benz". BMK (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janis Joplin Sessionography

[edit]

For those interested, I've started a discussion about the reliability of the above website at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Please feel free to post your opinions there. BMK (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A clarification needed about the first reference

[edit]

How is this song a rejection of consumerism when she owned as she said better or equal car (Porsche)?--Dixtosa (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been interpreted in many ways as ironic. Or a blues take on very modern ways.
What she said in private about a general topic is not necessarily so reliable that a songs interpretations are not verifiable.
It has been documented as an anti consumerist screed. If you don't agree you'd need a primary source actually dictating the meaning of the song as explicitly two dimensional. One doesn't exist and, I'd say, one take is as valid as the other. 2.24.145.91 (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]