Talk:One (U2 song)

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.

Contents 1 "Song that saved U2"? 2 Don't Merge 3 Automatic Baby 4 Merge 5 Should be merged 6 Merge tag removed 7 Bank of America 8 Mp3 Blog?

[edit] "Song that saved U2"?

Widely considered by fans and the band? That's a huge call, and one that I think is very dubious. Who said they were in need of saving anyway (they had just had two hit singles). Any reference?

[edit] Don't Merge

The two songs shouldn't be merged. It's not so much to do with the differences between the actual style of the songs, more about the fact that the Mary J. version is actually a separate single. This separate CD release is enough to warrant a separate page, rather than combining this with the original U2-only release.

I agree - for the most part becuase the Mary J version is very dissappointing and will be lost to history very shortly (no one will play or remember it). Let the single page stand alone until it is irrelevant and taken down.

[edit] Automatic Baby

There should be some mention of that one-off performance of the song with Michael Stipe/Mike Mills of REM and Adam Clayton/Larry Mullen of U2 in '93. [1]

[edit] Merge

I don't agree, these are obviously two separate songs. Same beat, different tone of voice, singing style, melody, rhythm and so on. Merging shouldn't be expanded on remakes or remixes like this one. From that point of view MJB Da MVP (from the same album) is the same song as Hate It Or Love It. Lajbi 13:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree with merging the song too. It deserves a page on its own simply because Mary dominates the song and it appears on her album. Its different to the original version the song is now associated with Mary rather than u2... Rimmers 14:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It is the same song, just not the same record. Wikipedia's song notability guidelines suggest that separate recordings of the same composition should not be given separate articles unless the main article becomes very large. With pages like Respect (song), I'll Be There and I Will Always Love You, information on two or more notable versions of a song is included within one article. I don't see why this shouldn't apply to this song. Extraordinary Machine 17:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. we could always put the two singleboxes in the article, if that is the problem. --Kristbg 17:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Song notability guidelines is not Wiki policy though. The song is shaping up to be a big hit single (as illustrated its charted at #19 on the UK singles chart one week before it was released!) - and therefore the association of the song will be linked with Mary J Blige. I disagree with merging the articles at this stage. I think it makes more sense to wait and see how big the song becomes - because it is shaping up to be Mary's biggest ever single in Europe at the moment (topping the European airplay and download charts for example). Also, merging the articles will ruin the U2's article in my opinion; the page is well written and is a great article as it stands. Rimmers 17:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I still think the articles should be merged, I wouldn't mind waiting a bit to see if the MJB article gets big enough to stand on its own. Now, about the song being more associated with MJB than U2... VERY doubtful. --Kristbg 21:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Imo its not doubtful lol; the song is set to become Mary J's biggest hit in Europe, so the song will obviously become closely associated with her...Rimmers 01:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should be merged

MJB originally performed this song ('One') as a tribute to Bono at his Music Cares Dinner honoring him as the Person of the Year

the song shouldn't be merged with bono's. basically it's two different singles and very different feels. mary's is soulful and pleading. a very classic singing style in the R&B mode of the early 70's and late 60's before disco.

[edit] Merge tag removed

Consensus shows that the articles should not be merged. I have removed the tags. SilkTork 21:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Gee, should we write an article for the Johnny Cash cover as well? -MrFizyx 02:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the second mention of Johnny Cash's version because it doesn't actually say anything about it or add to the previous mention.

[edit] Bank of America

I think the Bank of America section should be kept. Somebody removed it saying "irrelevant, non notable", which I don't think is the case. It's an internet phenomenon and the cease and desist letter and possible lawsuit by the music company against the bank was reported in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. To me, that seems notable. --AW 16:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This was removed again by User:Merbabu, who said "remove - it's irrelevant. it does not add to our understanding of the song at all. It's inclusion is simply stupidity. Please write about something worthwhile. Encyclopedia, not pop mag trivia section" All of which I disagree with. It's not irrelevant, it triggered a cease and desist letter and was in the NY Times and elsewhere. It was a internet phenomenon. Merbabu might think it's dumb, but it happened and it got news. I don't see how you can just call something stupid. --AW 20:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not about the song One. It is about some guy's prank or spoof or whatever. Ask yourself, is that actually providing readers with anything about the song One? It's like those idiotic pop culture sections in Fauna articles they explain that Orang utans appeared in some video game. This is a serious encyclopedia. So what if something makes the news. Dozens of things make the news every night. This is not a news service, rather an encyclopedia whose content is meant to stand the test of time. Not some dumping ground for trivial pieces of information. Remember, news coverage or "it's interesting" do not make notable. Wikipedia is not about stuffing every little bit of trivia into an article, it should be about quality, not quantity. Merbabu 12:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I still feel like it's notable, it's a spoof that triggered a cease and desist letter. Spoofs are mentioned all the time in articles here, and the controversy was subject to articles in the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal. Wikipedia:Notability says

“

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other. What constitutes "published works" is broad and encompasses published works in all forms, including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc.

”

--AW 14:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mp3 Blog?

"A chopped and screwed version has also been created for the mp3 blog Screw Rock 'n' Roll."

Is that significant enough to enter? Did the creator of the blog put it on? I mean, putting it under the "popularity" label seems a bit of a misnomer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.189.97.174 (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC).