Talk:You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'

Untitled

An infobox was requested for the 1981 Hall & Oates recording of "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'" at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/List_of_notable_songs/15.

What about a reference to this song being the most played ever on radio? http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_played.html http://www.classicbands.com/mostplayed.html

Sangin' Cowboys?

Don't know if this really rates mention in the Other Notable Versions section: however I've left it extant but tagged it "Citation needed".--Cherrylimerickey (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Top Gun

Why no Top Gun reference? The entire cast pretty much sang this song! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.0.201 (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's there now under "Other notable versions". Clarityfiend (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've got that OR feelin'

I've remove the following, which smells like WP:OR to me:

Several interesting features are: 1) The bridge is one of the longest bridges one will find in any genre of popular music and slowly builds bit by bit to the dramatic final chorus. 2) The lyric in the final chorus is cleverly, effectively and pleadingly altered to "Bring back that loving feeling" rather than "You've lost that loving feeling." And 3) In the Righteous Brothers version this is one of the rare songs which have no 4-bar, 8-bar, or even one note of instrumental intro, getting right to the point stating, "You never close your eyes anymore when I kiss your lips." Thus, it pulls the listener immediately into the drama of a relationship that has changed.

Clarityfiend (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

An error

Version of Tom Jones recorded in 1970 no appears.

Various recordings section needs to go

The Various recordings section seems pointless. None of the versions in that section charted which is why it should be removed. We already have a section called "Other versions" and it includes the notable covers that actually charted. What do you think? Caden ^cool 13:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Some would consider those non-notable, therefore would delete them. I have no problem whether they are deleted or kept, the only issue is people would keep adding them. As it is, they are unobtrusive and may be a better option when people would keep adding them. If those are to be deleted, a number of other version without citation may need to be deleted as well just to be consistent (except those by the writers and others involved in the song and worth mentioning). Hzh (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The various recordings section does not meet notability. Therefore it must go. Caden ^cool 22:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Versions

At the moment, a user (Caden) is using "version" to describe The Righteous Brothers's original recording, but offers no justification. If you look at the definition of "version" according to dictionaries:

• Oxford Dictionaries – 1A particular form of something differing in certain respects from an earlier form or other forms of the same type of thing
• Merriam-Webster – 3: a form or variant of a type or original
• Dictionary.com 2. a particular form or variant of something

The standard meaning of "version" carries a strong implication of something that is not original (the first two authoritative dictionaries definitely do say that it means a variant of an original or earlier form), unless you say "original version", in which case it would carry the meaning of "a particular form of something". In any case, the way it is written just reads wrong, implying that the writing of the song was only relevant for The Righteous Brothers' recording, and not necessarily for the other versions. Hzh (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The focus of the article is on the song and that includes all charting versions. Caden ^cool 22:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and they are mentioned under cover versions, so your entire point is moot. The point here is that the article should focus on the main and original one by The Righteous Brothers. There are a huge number of songs where there are cover versions, none of which may be particularly notable. You don't focus on all versions that are only of minor interest. Nowadays none of the other versions are played much, the only version that matters is the Righteous Brothers' one. You are distorting the perception of which is important. I have given you a few days to think about this, and you haven't address my point about "version" at all. Hzh (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No it is you who is distorting things here. The point of the article is the song and that includes all charting versions by all artists who charted with the song. All charting versions are notable. So no the Righteous Brothers is NOT the only one that matters and NO the article should not just focus on them. Just because you're obsessed with them does not give you the right to distort things. Caden ^cool 23:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The notability of different versions are certainly not equal. You will find minor charting versions of song everywhere, whichever chart you choose to use, and most of them are never heard again. There are only worth mentioning in a single line or at most a small paragraph, they are not of the same notability as the most popular one. Even now Cilla Black's version is rarely heard in the media even though it charted quite high, its significance now is only what happened in the chart battle in relation to The Righteous Brothers one. Hzh (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Just picking a random example - Poker Face (Lady Gaga song), Glee's version charted and sold well, but that is really of minor importance, so you don't turn Lady Gaga's original into just another version. Wikipedia article should give correct weight to something per WP:UNDUE, but giving the suggestion that the other versions are somehow as notable as The Righteous Brothers one, you are not editing according Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Hzh (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You clearly have no clue and you are the one not editing according to wiki rules and guidelines. I personally am done talking with you. One final thing, your personal opinions are of no value to me and have no business here. Caden ^cool 00:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm the one who is actually citing rules and guidelines, you are not. I'm really concerned that you think that a song that is commonly known by its original is of equal importance with a version recorded by a local artist in say, Bulgaria or Vanuatu if they had charted in those countries. If you are indeed thinking of changing songs likes Poker Face by Lady Gaga into just another version of equal importance with Glee's cover, then that is something that needs to be discussed by the wider community, because you have done that on many articles. Hzh (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Your obsession with the Righteous Brothers has no business here. I seriously wonder if you are in some way connected to them. Your biased POV in regards to them affects your editing and goes against wiki rules and guidelines. Caden ^cool 00:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no interested in your accusations, and I have no idea why you think I have a biased POV. Discussion is not productive when you give assertions not based on rules and guidelines. What happens in this article doesn't matter that much in the greater scheme of things, however I think there is an issue here that needs to be addressed by the wider community, and that issue I will raise another day, which will be soon. Hzh (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion here - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Song versions. Hzh (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Later versions of songs are often more commercially successful and thus more "notable" than the original. In this case I'd have no particular problem with using "Original Righteous Brothers version" as a section heading. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no other version more notable than the Righteous Brothers one. As I said, even Cilla Black's version which charted quited high is rarely heard in the media such as radio and television (although there was a little spike in interest recently after her death). Hzh (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see that you accept that the Righteous Brothers' was the "original version". And yes, I'm sure it remains the most notable one. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why you said that, given that it was me who use the word "original" many months ago when someone else changed the section title for no apparent reason. I also have no idea what relevance it is with what you said, "Later versions of songs are often more commercially successful and thus more "notable" than the original." It is irrelevant here. Hzh (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You seemed to be questioning the use of the word "version" in a section heading? And I was suggesting that notability might in some way have a bearing on the appropriateness of the use of the word "version." Why is that irrelevant? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Because it wasn't modified by the word "original". I question the use of "version" by itself (not "original version" which Caden later used after I objected), that is very apparent at the start of the discussion. Hzh (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you could have made it much clearer. While I'd disagree that "writing of the song was only relevant for The Righteous Brothers' recording", I think it's perfectly fair to argue that it is more or most relevant to that recording. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, some wire got crossed and I'm sorry it wasn't clear. I did not argue that "writing of the song was only relevant for The Righteous Brothers' recording", in fact, I tried to change it to this form here because I thought the writing should be relevant to all versions, but it was reverted by Caden. Hzh (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

But do you agree that the writing of a song is generally most, or even just more relevant to the first recording? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Not necessary. It is only most relevant to the first recording when the writing process is focused on the person/persons performing it. For example here, we have no indication that the writers were thinking of the Righteous Brothers per se while writing even though it was meant for them (indeed the Righteous Brothers first thought the song unsuitable to them). However they did change the key to suit Bill Medley and and slowed the tempo in the recording. The finished form of this recording do set the standard how the song should be performed, but other people need not follow it, and how individual performer modified the song can be mentioned in the individual section on various versions. For the most part, the tune and lyrics are usually the same (although some may change a song quite a bit, e.g. Dazed and Confused (song) in lyrics and arrangement). Hzh (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm considering putting the Background and composition separately as a main section, and then have another section titled The Righteous Brothers' recording, under which you can have reception, charts, etc. Hzh (talk)

In cases where the song wasn't written by the first recording artists, that seems quite sensible. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Even where the song is written by the initial performers, the original version would still be relevant to all cover versions because the tunes and lyrics do not changed significantly unless someone makes a radical re-arrangement. Even so, a very different cover is still based on the original. Hzh (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the whole inclusion of a "Righteous Brothers version/original" heading is unnecessary. Looking back through the article history, this arrived in October 2015; the structure before that, here, was good. The point is, none of the subsequent hit recordings would exist without the elements discussed at the start of the article: the composition, Spector's production, and the fact that the song was an immediate hit. The original release is still the most notable version, as far as I can see: [1], [2], [3]. I've made a similar point about "Ticket to Ride" and "Heart of Glass (song)" after they were also cited as examples in the discussion at WP Songs. JG66 (talk) 05:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

In regards to the one editor who stated that the other cover versions is rarely heard today on the radio....sorry but that is totally NOT true. Just this past week I heard the Dionne Warwick version twice on my car radio and I heard the Hall & Oates version once on my car radio. Not once did I hear the original played. So yeah you are wrong. Caden ^cool 11:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• @HzH. Could you please point me to these so called policies and guidelines at WP:SONGCOVER and at WP:SONG, that supports your preferred versions on all of the articles you reverted me on during your busy time of stalking me? Caden ^cool 20:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

May be you don't realize it, but I think we might have seen the source of your problem. If others need to see it, then go to Talk:Johnny Angel (song). Hzh (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop with your distruptive little games. It's growing old. Please point me to these so called policies and guidelines at WP:SONGCOVER and at WP:SONG that supports your preferred versions on all of the articles you reverted me on during your busy time of stalking me? Thanks. Caden ^cool 21:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• @HzH. I'm still waiting for you to reply with policies and guidelines that support your preferred versions on all of the articles you stalked me on and reverted me on. Your explanations await you at Talk:WP:SONG (where I left you 5 separate posts and which you have failed to reply), and at Talk:Emotion (Samanthat Sang song), at Talk: Money (That's What I Want) and at Talk:Johnny Angel (song). Please do the courtesy of replying back with full explainations supporting your preferred versions, through guidelines and policies. Thanks. Caden ^cool 21:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@User:Hzh why haven't you kicked up a fuss regarding the word “version” over at The Tide Is High and I'll Be There (The Jackson 5 song)? I do not see you at either of those two talk pages nor do I see you edit warring over these two articles over the use of the word “version.” I wonder why? Oh wait, I know why. It's because I never edited those pages and since you are only interested in stalking my edits,harassing me, and reverting my work, you ignored “Tide Is High” and “I'll Be There”. You were aware of both articles as far back as March 13 when I linked both articles in a post on your talk page. Yet you never bothered to be distruptive at those articles, nor did you say a single word on its talk pages either. How interesting. And you claim you are not stalking me? Yeah right! Caden ^cool 16:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'. 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/20160101163252/http://www.didyouwatchit.com/bbc4/bbc4-the-worlds-richest-songs/ to http://www.didyouwatchit.com/bbc4/bbc4-the-worlds-richest-songs/

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) 14:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Cover versions

Yes, there are certainly hundreds/thousands of cover versions of this song. The vast majority of them are trivial. A list comprised of whatever versions someone who happens by adds and/or wishes to defend is indiscriminate. Lists on Wikipedia need sourced, objective selection criteria. Listing the governors of Iowa? List them all. Listing restaurants in Iowa? Limit the list to the blue link notable ones.

For songs, the default is for cover songs is WP:COVERSONG. Essentially, versions which would meet WP:NSONG independent of the original version are included. In general terms, that would be versions which charted or are the subject of substantial coverage in sources about the song. Yes, a source about Jane Blow might discuss her cover of the Beatles' "Yesterday", but Blow's little-known recording would not be discussed at any length in a reliable source about the song, so we would not include it. Thus, we do not include a list of the thousands of recorded versions of "Yesterday" in [[Yesterday {Beatles song)]]. Whitney Houston's charting version of "The Star-Spangled Banner" would be one of the few to make the cut for that song. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You are making up your own criteria. WP:NSONG say that it is notable if the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song it does make any assumption on what the book is about. Here a book mentions the song albeit briefly [4] describing Joan Baez's rendition as "bizarre", The New Yorker described it as "painfully labored" [5], although the LA Times described her rendition as "brassy" and that it was the show's best moment - [6]. It is not a random cover but one that has received some attention. Hzh (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

A reliable source "on the subject of the song" is a source about the song and a "brief mention" is not discussion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:GNG never considered that a source needs to be devoted to the subject only (if you only consider sources being devoted only to a subject as being notable and significant, then you can likely delete half the articles in Wikipedia). There's a paragraph of it in LA Times. Hzh (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

FlightTime, WP:COVERSONG and I all disagree with you. Were we arguing that the song is not notable, GNG might apply, but more to the point GNG demands "significant coverage...addressing the topic directly and in detail...more than a trivial mention". I do not see "brief" mentions as reaching that. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

It's for FlightTime to come and argue the point. Given that the editor deleted entries that charted which would suggest notability per WP:NSONG, I fail to see how his or her view is relevant. There is no indication that any search had actually been conducted to show that those songs aren't notable. Those source I gave could be considered reviews of the song, the mention in LA Times is certainly not trivial. Hzh (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I cannot prove a cover is not notable, but there is nothing presented here to demonstrate that the cover meets WP:COVERSONG. The LA Times source is not "on the subject of the song" and no, half of a sentence is not "significant coverage...addressing the topic directly and in detail...more than a trivial mention". - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure which part are you are arguing against. The reason I mentioned checking is that some of the songs that have charted, therefore are likely notable, but were nevertheless deleted based on WP:COVERSONG which is dependent on the notability guideline WP:NSONG. The fact is that if you want to use the notability guidelines, then you should note also that there are plenty of other guidelines about notability, for example, lack of sources in article does not indicate lack of notability, but an absence of sources in a search is. The fact is that in deletion discussions (the only reason WP:NSONG would be invoked), a check is required per WP:BEFORE. The onus is on you to check before deleting when there is already indication that the song might be notable by charting. Hzh (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not suggesting using notability guidelines. Notability guidelines determine whether or not there should be an article on a subject. This song is clearly notable.

NSONG is not being applied here as a notability guideline, but as an inclusion test under COVERSONG. Cover versions which would be notable under NSONG are generally included. That would be versions which have charted (as detailed in NSONG) and those which have received "significant coverage...addressing the topic directly and in detail...more than a trivial mention" in reliable sources "on the subject of the song".

This version does not pass COVERSONG. It neither meets NSONG by itself nor does it have the coverage. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

You are still applying the same criteria same as that for NSONG. That is in fact precisely the problem with WP:COVERSONG. People (like you and FlightTime) who used it to delete songs are demanding the criteria required for an article to be used for a cover, to the extend that a single sentence requires the same level of sourcing as that for an entire article. FlightTime (who you said agreed with you) deleted songs with chart entries, therefore presumably you also agree with his deletion of songs with chart entries. It is of course arguable that NSONG does not consider chart entry as a definite proof on notability, therefore they may require additional sources. What you are doing is in fact demanding a high level of notability for a single sentence entry using same notability guideline NSONG for an entire article, but ignoring the rest of the notability guidelines (of which NSONG is part of) that serve as a check on indiscriminate deletion. I see it as a problem for WP:COVERSONG because of the way it is being misused for indiscriminate undiscussed deletion as FlightTime did (and you apparently considered him agreeing with you, suggesting that you agree with his deletion). WP:COVERSONG might need to be completely rewritten and deleted because what is demanded and how it is used by editors like you and FlightTime is unreasonable. (And I do considered what you demanded of the Baez cover unreasonable, especially when you turned a paragraph into "half a sentence" when everyone can see that what is written in the entire sentence is about the song, and that it is not a trivial mention). Hzh (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am applying the criteria in NSONG. That is what COVERSONG specifically calls for.

If you'd like to argue that the first half of that sentence tells us something specific about that song...whatever. It's one sentence. If that's "significant coverage...addressing the topic directly and in detail...more than a trivial mention", I'm the pope. (Spoiler: I am neither straight, male nor Catholic.)

Again -- because it's still a problem -- none of those sources are reliable sources "on the subject of the song".

At this point, I don't see us agreeing at any point. I'd suggest an RfC, but I fail to see how that's going anywhere: I'm quite certain you're not likely to have many people seeing this passing COVERSONG and an RfC will likely draw responses from the Music project (which crafted COVERSONG), so they aren't likely to dismiss it out of hand. The only thing I see left is some form of special pleading where this particular cover somehow should be exempted for some reason. Your call. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I will ask for WP:COVERSONG to be rewritten or deleted first, as you haven't answered the point made about songs with chart entries (although you seem to imply that they should be deleted), which made indiscriminate deletions using WP:COVERSONG inevitable. It would need wider participation rather than just those from Music project, as it appears to be a misuse of the notability guidelines. It needs to be resolved first, and I will make the request in a day or two. Hzh (talk) 06:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I have not said that songs with chart entries should be deleted. I've been discussing one song you want to include indiscriminately. COVERSONG provides criteria for inclusion in the list here.

You accuse my removal -- based on COVERSONG -- of being "indiscriminate" but don't seem to recognize that adding a version (that clearly violates the widely used Wikiproject) based on what I can only assume is your opinion is verifiably indiscriminate.

Of the thousands of released covers of the Beatles "Yesterday", what criteria are you using here that would select from that list? How about the thousands of appearances of "Happy Birthday to You"? Is a single sentence in an article about the videogame Fortnite sufficient there as well? - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say you are deleting indiscriminately, just that you said that FlightTime (who deleted all the songs with chart entries) agreed with you, therefore you appear to agree with what he did. It doesn't matter, because the issue is the same, you both are applying notability guidelines for song articles to delete single sentence entries, and that how COVERSONG is stated and its application may be a misuse of notability guideline, and it would need to be discussed and clarified. We have tended to leave covers with valid sources and chart entries alone, but given that some are more aggressive in deleting, a clearer guideline is necessary. I would need to think about how to phrase the discussion, so it may take a while, but expect it within the next couple of days. (BTW, many of the entries in "Happy Birthday to You" are worse sourced, happy deleting.) Hzh (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Of the hundreds of covers of this song that have been released, what are your selection criteria that includes this one extra cover and the few that pass COVERSONG, but not the others? What is the source for your criteria?

(Mine are the consensus criteria outlined at COVERSONG.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

You don't seem to have paid any attention to what's said, but never mind, you can have your say later in another discussion. If you are successful in that discussion, then you can delete all you like, including those with chart entries if you or anyone else wants to. In the meantime, there are List of cover versions of Beatles songs and List of songs covered by the Beatles where you can prune away all the unsourced cover entries. Hzh (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there are other articles on Wikipedia. Some of them are nearly perfect, others should be deleted. Point to as many of them as you would like. If they go against Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and consensus, they should be changed. If the policies, guidelines and consensus are "wrong", you will need to change them first.

For this article, WP:COVERSONG certainly seems to apply. You've tried to jump through numerous hoops to show the song fits:

* not seeing COVERSONG's requirements for sources on the subject of the song; arguing 1/2 of a sentence is substantial, detailed coverage

* arguing it's really a full sentence (a distinction without a different)

* calling that one sentence a paragraph (another distinction without a difference

* arguing we shouldn't use NSONG in any way (as COVERSONG states)

* arguing we should look at other notability guidelines

* arguing another editor's apparently over-zealous deletion means there is some kind of controversy over what COVERSONG plainly says, etc.

Now you seem to believe that 1) COVERSONG is defective and 2) until your belief is satisfied, it should not be applied. That's an interesting theory, but makes no sense.

If, despite reality, we assume COVERSONG does not apply here, we cannot have an indiscriminate list of some covers. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". WP:CSC suggests several possibilities, which should be applied evenly (i.e., we cannot have List of people from Tinytown, Iowa include everyone who ever lived there while limiting List of people from New York City to notable individuals. Here are the three basic possibilities for list inclusion criteria:

1) List every verifiable member. This works quite well for characters in a novel, presidents of a country and similarly reasonably short lists.

2) Lists of members of a discrete set who are excluded from another list. This tends to be used for lists of minor characters when major characters are listed elsewhere.

3) Lists of verifiable members who meet objective sourced criteria. This is the only one that can reasonably apply to songs. We can't make it a list of cover songs that anyone argues to keep, covers by notable acts would result in thousands of entries in several articles (and perhaps one hundred or more here), we can't just throw up our hands and say we'll decide case-by-case. The result is COVERSONG: covers that would be notable on their own essentially get their own article, but those articles are merged into the article about the song. Yes, many of the entries end up being brief stubs because the rest of the article already covers the basic info on the song (authorship, year, composition, lyrics, etc.) and there's little else to list other than chart history.

You want to throw it all away. While I disagree whole heartedly with that, it still leaves the simple fact that COVERSONG exists and applies as written and you do not have a suggestion for alternative criteria to apply.

Long story short: Given that this cover clearly does not meet COVERSONG, what criteria do you feel should be used to limit the list of hundreds of covers? - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion has moved on, contribute if you want to here - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#WP:COVERSONG violates notability guidelines. Hzh (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

One Edit made

I just removed the phrase "Basso Profundo" from this entry. The referenced link never mentions Basso Profundo. Secondly, I can tell you that Bill Medley never sings Basso Profundo on this song. Basso Profundo is called Basso Profundo because it's a profoundly low bass voice. This voicing's highest note is "D" 2 octaves below Middle "C". Bill Medley never goes that low. Examples of Basso Profundo are typically found in the works of Russian or Eastern Bloc singers , for example, here's a quartet performing "The Volga Boatmen" , Basso profundo is used at the end when an very audible "A" (A2) or "A" 2 octaves below Middle "C" is sung, or in "We Bow before thy cross" Yuri Vishnyakov starts off the song on a very audible "D" 2 octaves below middle "C" and near the end, very audibly sings the "G" below the prior "D".

I'm adding this in because I realize music knowledge is somewhat specialized and I wanted to point out why the term "Basso Profuundo" is was being used incorrectly in this entry. Necromonger...Arbs were wrong, Resysop BHG! 11:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Accident

Sorry, was just preview and accidentally misclicked publish and was going to undo the edit. Thanks to who undid it.

Also I only used it for an pretend song by an fake artist, and I apologize for what I did2601:406:4200:8E90:894A:215A:3268:3D86 (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)