User:R. fiend/Thoughts on songs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Songs

(Getting my thoughts in order on articles about songs, hopefully to later be discussed in some forum eventually.)

Obviously many songs are included in wikipedia, though there are millions (millions?, maybe not that many, but certainly more than there are current encyclopedia articles) that are not. Wikipedia should not have an article on every song clearly, so what should the guidelines be?

I'm thinking there are several criteria, and any song should ideally meet a few of them (in no particular order, numbered only for reference)

  1. Major controversy (eg Me So Horny)
  2. Iconic song (eg American Pie)
  3. Historical significance (eg Sir Patrick Spens, Battle Hymn of the Republic)
  4. Old song that has never gone completely out of circulation (eg many Beatles songs, Every Breath You Take, etc)
  5. True phenomenon, not simply currently popular song (eg Macarena)
  6. Significance outside of music (eg Rock the Casbah as the unoffical anthem of the first gulf war), very closely related to historical significance
  7. Groundbreaking song (pretty subjective but examples might include Smells Like Teen Spirit, others that aren't coming to mind)
  8. Interesting lyrical content (eg We Didn't Start the Fire, many ballads that tell stories)
  9. Interesting story behind the song (eg Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite - taken from a poster)
  10. Has been covered/performed by others extensively (eg Louie, Louie, Yesterday)
  11. Has received a high ranking on an important list, such as Rolling Stone's 500 greatest songs of all time, but not some blogger's "my favorite songs" list (eg Like a Rolling Stone, Over the Rainbow)
  12. popularity, not necessarily mainstream

Songs should really meet several of these, depending on what they are. Certainly just "interesting lyrical content" in itself is not a great criterion (I've written some songs of interesting lyrical content), but ideally one should be able to write more about the lyrics than "the author of the song loves his baby so, yes he does, when she's gone his heart aches so bad". Just about any of the ones mentioned above fit 2 or more categories (nearly all of them should at least touch on number 12). Me So Horny: 9; American Pie: 4, 5, 8, 9; Sir Patrick Spens: 8, 9; Battle Hymn of the Republic: 2, 9 (I suspect); Every Breath You Take: 9 (sort of); Macarena: 7?, 9 (if you count the dance); Rock the Casbah: 4, 8; Smells Like Teen Spirit: 2, on its way to 4, 5; We Didn't Start the Fire: not much other than 12, (4??); Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite: 4, 8.; Louie, Louie: 2, 3, 4; Yesterday: 4, 5, 9.

So here's stuff to think about, if nothing else, before you go off writing an article on any song you just heard on the radio. Most songs included in WP should at least partially stand "the test of time". The time involved need not be great, however. And one thing to keep in mind is "X is a song by Y" is not an article. One criterion that should not be dismissed is whether an interesting article can be written on the subject. Sales figures alone do not make for an interesting article. Those songs/singles templates are nice and all, but should not be seen as a replacement for actual content. For example Hollaback Girl I would generally consider much too new of a song for a Wikipedia article, but I have to admit it's a pretty good article when all's said (particularly for a song), though it could use a slight subtrivia-ectomy.