Talk:You've Got a Friend

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Michael Jackson Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michael Jackson, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Michael Jackson on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Michael JacksonWikipedia:WikiProject Michael JacksonTemplate:WikiProject Michael JacksonMichael Jackson articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

R&B and Soul Music Mid‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unnecessary infoboxes

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for every single artist who has covered a song to then have an infobox on that page. There are more appropriate venues.Awotter (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing against an established practice on wikipedia. Please take a look at most major artist pages - everyone from Britney Spears to Mariah Carey to even now diminished artists like Brandy. They ALL have singles chronologies (infoboxes) on every one of their song pages which were released as singles. I don't think you understand how these infoboxes work. On every page devoted to a single by a particular artist - it offers on the bottom an infobox that links to the preceding (and following) single. Occasionally an artist may cover a song as a single and so the singles chronology will include a cover.

First off it's not that every entertainer who has ever recorded that song gets their own infobox - anyone who has recorded it of note should be mentioned, but ONLY THOSE WHO RELEASED IT AS A SINGLE should get an infobox as part of the singles chronology which again is an established practice on wikipedia. You say there are more "appropriate venues" to put those infoboxes without realizing that taking them off that page totally disrupts the singles chronology, thus for example someone who is on the single page preceding "You've got a friend" will be totally lost as you've broken the chain of singles which others have worked hard in a collaborative effort to establish (and I didn't even make it!)

Again, regardless of your opinion, it's an established practice on wikipedia: like I said take a look at other artists' pages. First take a look at non remake/cover pages to see the singles chronologies: example: Love Takes Time by Mariah carey (notice the infobox on the right which leads to her next singles, and also preceding single.

But now you want to argue about the covers? Well if you'll notice how the infobox works, by following the single chronology consecutively - it leads up single by single to her first remake/cover "I'll be there" which she covered from the Jackson 5. You can see that here: I'll be there <--- omg gasp, there's separate infoboxes for Jackson 5 vs Mariah! because it's NECESSARy. You can't put mariah's infobox elsewhere if she released that as a single as it's absolutely necessary for her singles chronology, otherwise you would disrupt the chronology and someone following it wouldn't have a link to go when they reached the single preceding her cover of "I'll be there", hence the entire chronology is useless!

You can check the pages of most major artists to realize they all have singles chronologies and thus all have infoboxes INCLUDING for covers/remakes, so regardless of your opinion you are arguing against an established practice on wikipedia, which in fact involves a huge exhaustive and collaborative effort. I invite you to go and look for yourself on major popular/recorded songs that have been remade by many artists. Everything from Right Here Waiting to Endless Love (song) or How Do I Live or on pages of artists still big like Madonna or Alicia Keys to more obscure artists or those whose careers have already diminished, you'll notice a similar pattern with singles chronologies. Thank you!Celinefanatictocorrector (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section Need Reworking

I think this section needs to be re-worked.

"Unquestionably one of the best versions, and perhaps even the best version of the song, was recorded in 1971 by the late Donny Hathaway, which was released posthumously on his album "These Songs For You, Live!". It truly captures the spirit and sentiment of what this composition is all about, leading a frenzied audience-choir through the choruses, he bridges Saturday-night revelry and Sunday-morning services as few performers ever have or ever will." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alec92 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of JT emphasis in intro

To me the intro needs a bit of restructuring. It rightly states that JT's is the most famous version, yet we don't get to hear about that until well into para 2. Suggest we should give the JT hit far more prominence, as being virtually the starting-point of the article, by adding a comma after "Tapestry" and positioning the JT stuff there. I can rework it along those lines if others are happy with this. PL290 (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've excluded the line about it being JT's only UK top 20 hit which I think is an unnecessary diversion here and really belongs in the context of his own career/discography articles rather than as an isolated fact. PL290 (talk) 07:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joni Mitchell harmony

Paragraph one says:

"You've Got a Friend" won Grammy Awards both for Taylor (Best Male Pop Vocal Performance) and King (Song of the Year). Joni Mitchell sings harmony.

Is this intended to mean that Joni Mitchell sings harmony on both Taylor's and King's renditions? --MetaEd (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Made Famous

This article claims that "You've Got a Friend" was made famous by James Taylor. Having been extant at the time this song was released, I find this a claim that would be difficult to verify. I suggest that the article rely on authorship, copyright, etc., rather than subjective findings, no matter how well documented such findings may be. Notably, this article does not record how the Carole King version fared in the charts. My recollection, imperfect as it might be, is that the Carole King version was very popular, at least in the Mid Atlantic region of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.59.64 (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carole King let James Taylor "cut the song first"

The sequence of recording & publishing isn’t quite clear to me from the article, and I’m missing one point I heard James Taylor say during a concert, namely that Carole King let him cut and release the song first.

This is a touching point, fitting perfectly with the song’s lyrics of course, because Taylor could use some help at the time. I just don’t know how to integrate that with the existing article text.

Wikipedia doesn’t allow me to paste the YouTube link where Taylor says this, so you’ll have to look for a video with the exact title "13 I feel the earth move" posted by Chucho Balderas. Taylor’s intro to the song starts at 3:30. --Geke (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]