Talk:Giant Steps (composition)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.

<<talk moved from Giant Steps (song)>>

The article is currently entitled "Giant Steps (song)". Why "song"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it much better known as an instrumental number than sung? How about we move it to something like "Giant Steps (tune)"? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 04:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are there other pages that have "(tune)" in the title? The word is rather non-encyclopedic in feel. Perhaps something like "(melody)" would be better? But then it isn't strictly the melody--the associated chords are very important. "Head"? "Leadline"? I think it's okay to leave it as "song", even if it's not sung (at least not originally), just to keep things simple. - mako 22:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I object to having the article at an inaccurate and misleading title, and think that has a more pronounced "non-encyclopedic" feel. I fail to see any way that calling something that isn't a song a "song" in any way promotes simplicity. I am certainly open to other options than replacing the description "song" with "tune". Possible options that come to mind include having the tune at "Giant Steps" and the album at "Giant Steps (album)". Other thoughts? I'm sure we can do much better than the current dubious title. -- Infrogmation 06:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Calling this article "Giant Steps" is a good solution. - mako 03:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. - mako 04:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The dab pages are setup to help people find what they are looking for the first time around. Due to this change, a user searching for Giant Steps will be brought to an article about the composition, not the album. The correct dab would to leave Giant Steps as the album with the term pointing to that album, and dab the song as Giant Steps (composition). Currently there is no need for a separate article on the tune, so there should only be one link to the album. --Viriditas | Talk 04:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this article should go back to Giant Steps (song). The fallacy in the original reason for moving the page, is that "songs" refer to music that is sung. I can come up with a myriad of 'songs', that are refered to as such, that have no lyrics. Even in the opening line of this article, Giant Steps is refered to as a 'song'. Lachatdelarue (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Infrogmation's arguments that "song" is a misleading label. "Composition" is a much more accurate characterization of the nature of the work, as "Giant Steps" was indeed composed with certain aspects of theory in mind. The opening line of this article should be amended to "track", probably. - mako 22:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have heard some people sometimes casually say "song" when talking about instrumentals. This is not something a musician or someone with music education would be likely to say. For encyclopedia articles I think we should try to use precise and accurate language. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 18:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)