This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Shallow (Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper song) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Shallow (Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should the article mention Gaga's performance of "Shallow" in Enigma?
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Have put this back as it is a common feature on ‘singles’ pages, and can see no reason why it was removed. If anyone disagrees, we should discuss reasons here. BenBowser ( talk) 13:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Woah, ok calm down. Whoever that IP is, it isn’t me, so you don’t need to be so abrupt. :) I came to the talk section to ask why it had been reverted, since it is a useful table to have, especially for a song such as this which is performing unusually well with accolades. It is helpful for giving information quickly, without having to read the paragraphs. Quick information after all is what most people use Wikipedia for. BenBowser ( talk) 14:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
In the past week there has been a lot of coverage of different strategies utilized by Lady Gaga's fans to generate more streams for the song.
https://www.thefader.com/2019/03/01/lady-gaga-shallow-starbucks-twitter-scam-shallowbucks-spotify
https://www.altpress.com/news/lady-gaga-shallowbucks-shallow/
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/starbucks-shallow-lady-gaga-scam-shallowbucks
not sure how credible these articles are but it's certainly noteworthy enough to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukestepford ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Guys I am having a bit difficulty in thinking where this particular source about the song's popularity. An impact section maybe? — IB [ Poke ] 14:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Why is there an infobox for one of the covers? There are at least 10 other covers mentioned in that section. Putting an infobox for just one of them seems WP:UNDUE weight to the Keiino cover. Schazjmd (Talk) 21:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Was the alleged cover ever posted by a primary source? The chart website linked in the upload is not a reliable source for artworks. A reverse image search only reveals usage on fan pages and unreliable secondary sources. We need to remove it unless proof of it being official is provided.-- N Ø 12:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I have done more research on this topic, and found this GagaDaily thread, which attributes it to the Twitter account artfloozyyedits. This checks out with their watermark, which is clearly visible on the piano on the artwork. The twitter account itself has claimed to create the artwork: [1], [2]. With that in mind, I am formally disputing the copyright status of this image and nominating it for deletion.-- N Ø 07:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The new lawsuit. Here are a couple of sources for those who wish to add to the article. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 13:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Shallow occupies the 3rd position in digital song sales decade-end chart shallow-- 179.56.154.81 ( talk) 22:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Shallow (2019) - '#40', source: https://www.promusicae.es/documents/viewfile/198-top-100-canciones-2019
A Star Is Born soundtrack (2019) - '#43', source: https://www.promusicae.es/documents/viewfile/197-listas-anuales-albumes-2019
X2franklop ( talk) 19:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to include so many obscure covers in the Cover versions section? It seems unreasonably overlong for me... I think it needs major cleanup. Sricsi ( talk) 18:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
There was a description of the song as being written in G major. This is at best debatable or just wrong. If the published music has one sharp in the 'key signature' it could indicate G major as the key but it could equally indicate e minor as the key. Equally a one sharp 'key signature' could refer to various other modal scales. The 'key signature' of the published piece does not define what the key is. Rather it defines a group of keys/modes. Only analysis of the piece will tell you what the key actually is, and this is slightly subjective. Sometimes it will seem clear whether a piece is in a particular key, but sometimes there may be room for debate, especially since a piece is not compelled to stay in the key of the 'key signature'. Since this piece starts and ends on an e minor chord, there is a strong case for suggesting e minor (natural) as the main key. You would have to do some serious analysis to be certain, which is probably beyond the scope of this article. I believe there is a problem because many of the online sheet music sources are not bothered about accuracy and if a piece has one sharp they just describe it as being in G major. The academic debate as to whether it is in G major or e minor or a mode is of no interest to them. It is simpler for them to ignore the issue. I think contributors are copying this erroneous source rather than analysing the piece to check the key. Alansrobinson ( talk) 14:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Shallow (Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper song) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Shallow (Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should the article mention Gaga's performance of "Shallow" in Enigma?
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Have put this back as it is a common feature on ‘singles’ pages, and can see no reason why it was removed. If anyone disagrees, we should discuss reasons here. BenBowser ( talk) 13:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Woah, ok calm down. Whoever that IP is, it isn’t me, so you don’t need to be so abrupt. :) I came to the talk section to ask why it had been reverted, since it is a useful table to have, especially for a song such as this which is performing unusually well with accolades. It is helpful for giving information quickly, without having to read the paragraphs. Quick information after all is what most people use Wikipedia for. BenBowser ( talk) 14:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
In the past week there has been a lot of coverage of different strategies utilized by Lady Gaga's fans to generate more streams for the song.
https://www.thefader.com/2019/03/01/lady-gaga-shallow-starbucks-twitter-scam-shallowbucks-spotify
https://www.altpress.com/news/lady-gaga-shallowbucks-shallow/
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/starbucks-shallow-lady-gaga-scam-shallowbucks
not sure how credible these articles are but it's certainly noteworthy enough to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukestepford ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Guys I am having a bit difficulty in thinking where this particular source about the song's popularity. An impact section maybe? — IB [ Poke ] 14:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Why is there an infobox for one of the covers? There are at least 10 other covers mentioned in that section. Putting an infobox for just one of them seems WP:UNDUE weight to the Keiino cover. Schazjmd (Talk) 21:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Was the alleged cover ever posted by a primary source? The chart website linked in the upload is not a reliable source for artworks. A reverse image search only reveals usage on fan pages and unreliable secondary sources. We need to remove it unless proof of it being official is provided.-- N Ø 12:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I have done more research on this topic, and found this GagaDaily thread, which attributes it to the Twitter account artfloozyyedits. This checks out with their watermark, which is clearly visible on the piano on the artwork. The twitter account itself has claimed to create the artwork: [1], [2]. With that in mind, I am formally disputing the copyright status of this image and nominating it for deletion.-- N Ø 07:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The new lawsuit. Here are a couple of sources for those who wish to add to the article. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 13:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Shallow occupies the 3rd position in digital song sales decade-end chart shallow-- 179.56.154.81 ( talk) 22:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Shallow (2019) - '#40', source: https://www.promusicae.es/documents/viewfile/198-top-100-canciones-2019
A Star Is Born soundtrack (2019) - '#43', source: https://www.promusicae.es/documents/viewfile/197-listas-anuales-albumes-2019
X2franklop ( talk) 19:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to include so many obscure covers in the Cover versions section? It seems unreasonably overlong for me... I think it needs major cleanup. Sricsi ( talk) 18:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
There was a description of the song as being written in G major. This is at best debatable or just wrong. If the published music has one sharp in the 'key signature' it could indicate G major as the key but it could equally indicate e minor as the key. Equally a one sharp 'key signature' could refer to various other modal scales. The 'key signature' of the published piece does not define what the key is. Rather it defines a group of keys/modes. Only analysis of the piece will tell you what the key actually is, and this is slightly subjective. Sometimes it will seem clear whether a piece is in a particular key, but sometimes there may be room for debate, especially since a piece is not compelled to stay in the key of the 'key signature'. Since this piece starts and ends on an e minor chord, there is a strong case for suggesting e minor (natural) as the main key. You would have to do some serious analysis to be certain, which is probably beyond the scope of this article. I believe there is a problem because many of the online sheet music sources are not bothered about accuracy and if a piece has one sharp they just describe it as being in G major. The academic debate as to whether it is in G major or e minor or a mode is of no interest to them. It is simpler for them to ignore the issue. I think contributors are copying this erroneous source rather than analysing the piece to check the key. Alansrobinson ( talk) 14:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)