Talk:Regina Spektor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Regina Spektor article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Commercial the new Target commercial that shows dorm room changes very quickly. Does anyone know what song they are playing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.127.19 (talk) 00:07, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Possible Pictures

Here are some pictures I took of Regina Spektor at a recent concert in Manhattan. Because the new picture might be deleted soon, I am posting these for all of you to choose from. Jeffhardywhyx 18:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

  • You should put them on Commons so they are available to all other Wikis too. Funkynusayri (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Regina Spektor BW.jpg Does anyone see a problem with this one?--St.daniel Talk 23:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Forgot to log in before adding this*

[edit] Vocal style/comparison to other singers

Regina Spektor's alternation, in her songs, between the pure-sounding high register of her voice and her jazzier low register reminds me most of the singing of Jewel, but I hesitate to add Jewel's name to the article for fear of comparing her to an artist who she doesn't otherwise resemble. Does anyone else notice this similarity? Badagnani 18:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth I don't think Jewel should be mentioned in the article. Might as well toss Tori Amos in there as well if you do :) Blogbourri 05:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The two names which do come up most frequently in critics' discussion of Spektor are Fiona Apple (I guess because she is female and plays the piano, maybe the only similarities!) and Bjork (maybe because of her playfulness and the unpredictability in her voice). I'm not sure they should be mentioned here either, though, unless to help people who don't know Regina's music to have a frame of reference. Badagnani 05:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually... go to reginaspektor.com and listen to the tracks from her out of print first album, 11:11. Her early stuff sounds TREMENDOUSLY like Fiona Apple at times (perhaps why Spektor has said 11:11 is the album she's most embarassed by!). She's developed her sound quite a bit since then though, and I could only see mentioning Fiona Apple being relevent if it were framed like: "Regina Spektor's earliest material can be described as akin to Fiona Apple in sound, but with subsequent albums she's gone for a more diverse, playful sound that incorporates influences such as trip-hop, jazz, blah blah blah." Blogbourri 04:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

How can an artist be both "folk" and "anti-folk"? That seems like a contradiction. User Badagnani, please explain how this artist is both folk and anti-folk. Just because she emerged from the same movement, does not mean she represents that style. [1] Review noting she came from the anti-folk movement but is vaguely anti-folk Another source Kevinh456 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early recordings

I tried to get 11:11 but CDBaby tells me it's unavailable. I assumed (I guess, correctly) that, like many artists, she decided to disown her first recording due to embarrassment. I did, however, just get the second one, called "Songs," and am finding the songs to be excellent--almost miraculous in their sophistication. By all means, add any text to the article that you see fit. I'll add the recent WNYC interview, which adds to the scant biographical information that is out there. Badagnani 06:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Songs is wunderbar :). And yeh, 11:11 is basically impossible to get on CD. I haven't even seen one pop up on Ebay. Spektor mentioned rereleasing it at one point, but that was almost 2 years ago and it doesn't appear to be a high priority for her. I'll thumb through this article see if I have anything else to add to it, but so far it's looking pretty good. Blogbourri 17:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey ya'll, I just checked this page out for the first time and noticed that a bunch of you were looking for 11:11. Believe it or not, you can get it on iTunes!! I bought it a few months back, and while it's not my favorite of her albums, it does have some killer songs. Check out "Buildings" for sure.

Do you have to buy the individual tracks as MP3s and burn them onto a disc (this is too much trouble for me) or can you buy the actual disc? Badagnani 16:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you can't get the cd from iTunes. I buy most of my music on cds, but I find iTunes handy for getting hard to find albums and tracks, and even though it's a pain to either burn it to disc or listen straight from my computer, it's better than not having it at all, especially in this case. Sorry, that sounded like an advertisement for iTunes.

11:11 hasn't been disowned, it is just out of print. It might go into another print, but at current the market for Regina's older stuff does not exist. They would have to make alot of albums, and probably couldn't sell that many. Only the die hard fans would purchase it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eedo Bee (talk • contribs) 07:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC).


She also references to the novel Ethan Frome in her song 2.99 Rachelle Wilson 1:15, April 19 2007

[edit] Literary references

What album is "Baobabs" on? Badagnani 18:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

For Any unreleased or live songs such as Baobabs, or Apres Moi, visit
www.reginaspektor.net http://www.angelfire.com/folk/gretalizabeth/
http://www.sogoddamnyoung.org http://regina.seconddesign.com/
or http://www.ragette.org/Reginology.htm
These are all excellent sites created by fans to host live recordings of the dozens and dozens of unreleased songs regina has played.
  • Unbelievable. Thanks, I've added to "links." This will be of interest to very many people, I think. Badagnani 16:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

um, i noticed that some of you are looking for songs... just go to her web site reginaspektor.com (:luv2read:)

[edit] "Après Moi"

I can't find this song on any of her albums either. Badagnani 08:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This is on the new album, corker it is too. Baba Alex 21:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It is track 7 on Begin to Hope, and was also around as a unreleased demo that floated around the internet for a while before hand. Eedo Bee

[edit] Discography

Sorry to sound a bit pendatic, but the copy interupting the discography read like reviews. In my opinion it takes away from the nature of the section, if not the page, does anyone else think that this could be deleted or removed? Baba Alex 21:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right about this. BTW what does "corker" mean? Is this some kind of slang term we don't know here in the States? Badagnani 22:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
'a corker' is something that is really good, it's British slang. If nobody else has any objections I'll do something about the discography.Baba Alex 07:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citizenship

I don't think we know her citizenship (re: the changes in the cats to say "American singer-songwriters") but I assume she now has U.S. citizenship since the nation of her birth no longer exists. So it makes sense to call her "American." Does anyone have more detailed information? Badagnani 19:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The successor state to the USSR was Russia - She has Russian Citizenship if she had Soviet citizenship. HawkerTyphoon 00:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- though not every country allows dual citizenship. If she became a U.S. citizen since her move to the U.S. (which is likely), then it's possible she doesn't also still have Russian citizenship. I'll have to ask at the Respekt bulletin board, as those people seem to know everything.  :) Badagnani 05:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

People who emigrated from the former Soviet Union before February 4th, 1992 were stripped of their Soviet/Russian citizenship. Since Regina moved to the USA in 1989(as a refugee), her family was stripped of Russian citizenship and she was stateless until she got her US citizenship (which was at least 5 years later). --—Preceding unsigned comment added by OmegaGX (talk • contribs)

Thanks for this good info. May I ask what is the source where you found this, so we can provide a citation? Badagnani 02:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Has she been naturalized? I was wondering that before I came in here.Sposato (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regina's views on websites containing MP3s and lyrics of her songs

As requested, here are Regina Spektor's publicly stated views about the presence of MP3s of live performances of her unreleased songs, as well as printed lyrics appearing on websites:

[edit] First interview

Quote from http://www.reginaspektor.net/xfm/2004-11-16_Interview_w_-John_Kennedy_Pt_3.mp3 (scroll to approximately the 4 minute mark, or about 2/3 of the way into the interview; sound quality isn't very good so the transcription below is approximate):

Interviewer: ...and we don't know where to go to get them, because most of them haven't been released, really.
Spektor: I mean, actually, I think that playing these songs at live shows is what really like helps me stay sane, because I write all this, and I want it to go to the people. And really...so far, the only way I can get it heard is at live shows. So to me it's really great that I get a chance to play them...somehow get them out to people. I know there's a lot of people that record stuff on their own, and, just for the record, I am totally pro-that, and I love it. I think the Internet is a great thing, and people communicate and trade, and I'm all about free music and, you know, stuff like that, and so... Then, for now, that's...just keep doing that
Interviewer: That's the best way to get hold of all of those different songs.
Spektor: Yeah, definitely. Get in touch with other people, and there's tons of shows, and [?] exposure showing me a lot of people have heard that. And it's cool that in America people get to see it on the Web, and stuff.
Interviewer: That's good. I like that idea.
Spektor: Yeah.
Interviewer: It's a worldwide thing.
Spektor: I know--it makes me so happy! It's kind of comforting.

[edit] Second interview

"[T]here are a lot of [my fans] who ... have tons of unreleased demos, and know songs from tapings, by other fans, of live shows. Those are the very active fans. It's amazing, there is a site I found called reginaspektor.net which has one of the most complete listings of my songs I've ever seen; over 120 songs with transcribed (sometimes incorrectly) lyrics, and some recordings. So, when I would get to Glasgow or South France and have people yell out a song I wrote a month before and only played once in NYC, I'd thank the Internet." PDF file of full interview --Badagnani 02:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rebuttal

Unfortunatly, her website does not provide free downloadable music, and her recording company are against copyright infringement. If you can get legal permission from her record company, as well as her, even then it'd be unlikely that the lnks could be included. HawkerTyphoon 16:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a pity that a record company would disallow the distribution of live music, especially when sharing of unsold music has been shown to help sales. This is particularly true of artists outside the mainstream. However, I think HawkerTyphoon is correct that we should exercise caution. If Spektor's record company plans on selling the live tracks, then we should not encourage interference with a future market for the tracks by posting links to websites that host them for free. Do also remember that artists, even those as wonderful and beautiful as Regina Spektor, do not always remember the fiscal interests of the music world in interviews. And although your efforts are greatly appreciated, Badagnani, do remember that what she says in interviews is of course not legally binding.
I've sent an email to Sire Records asking for assistance. I'll post their response here.
Hawker, just a question: Why, even with legal permission from all involved, would the links probably not be included? Omphaloscope » talk 00:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
There were so many links, all from fan sites that all offered much the same thing. WP:EL doesn't really allow for links to ootleg sites, and it might just set a precedent for other artist's bootleg sites to be included on their pages. I'm extremely wary of links like this spreading. Just to let you know, I love Regina too. I was at her recent Birmingham concert, at the Bar AcademyHawkerTyphoon 00:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Regina's live performances are not controlled by her record company. Only the specific recordings made for Sire Records are copyright controlled, as everything from her current catologue dates back to before she signed with Sire. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyC! (talk • contribs)

[edit] Lyrics link

The lyrics link needs to stay. It does not violate anything at WP:EL. As far as I can see, the lyrics site does not violate copyright; if you believe otherwise, you need to help us out with some proof. I agree however about the bootleg recordings clearly being copyright violations. The Crow 22:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have a look at WP:EL in 'links normally to be avoided', the linking to copyrighted material is only allowed if you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page is not violating copyright per contributors' rights and obligations., and no effort has been made!
The lyrics are copyrighted to both the artist and the label, and I sincerely doubt that the site has permission from all of the artists involved. In any case, surely the links should be left out unless proof can be provided that they are not copyrighted. Be assured I'm not doing this out of spite - if you see my contributions, I'm all about reverting vandalism and copyright violations. All I'm saying is, that per contributors' rights and obligations, proof has to be provided that the site isn't violating copyright, not the other way around! HawkerTyphoon 22:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
HawkerTyphoon is correct: lyrics are copyrighted. Some lyrics sites are illegal; see International Lyrics Server. Fortunately, some lyrics sites have been granted permission to display lyrics. Have a look at LetsSingIt's disclaimer. If Regina and her label have granted permission to LetsSingIt (or some other site), we should be able to link to that. So (if I'm not making this up) the correct next step would be to find a decent-looking lyrics site, check that it has been granted permission to display Regina Spektor lyrics, and link away. Omphaloscope talk 00:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I have asked LyricsDir for their disclaimer, but haven't recieved a response yet. Please be assured that I'm not trying to break WP:DICK, I just feel very strongly about legal issues. We can't link to Lets Sing It, though, I wouldn't have thought - it's too commercial. A tricky one, is external linking. HawkerTyphoon 00:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Response posted: here! HawkerTyphoon 01:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
They don't seem to want us to link there, but it's not their choice. I can't find a disclaimer anywhere on the site regarding copyrights, so I'm assuming it's copyrighted material that they do not have permission to repost - is this a fair assumption? HawkerTyphoon 01:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
How about SongMeanings.net | lyrics | Regina Spektor? The site hosts lyrics, and users post interpretations. I've sent them an email. Omphaloscope talk 02:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, they're not for profit, so that's an excellent start. As long as they have a half decent statement on copyright, or the like, it should be fine? I can't find any statements anywhere on links to lyrics directories, so I might take it to RFC or something like that - It's an odd one. HawkerTyphoon 02:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a frequenter of the lyrics plugin forum and was directed here from there. I can't speak for the admin personally but I would agree with you that he probably does not have "permission". However, it easily is the best lyrics site for its incredibly clean interface, so I can see why you're interested. I would honor his request of not linking because I'm sure he wants to remain as far out of view of the RIAA as possible, as I believe they're starting to crack down on lyrics sites. (I'm Greg on the lyricsplugin forum) Hansamurai 14:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven't recieved any further communication from Badagani, who is the main supporter of the lyricsdir link, so I think unless anyone else has anything to add, it can stay out? HawkerTyphoon 04:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Certainly not. This manner of editing (removing a simple, important link to the lyrics of an artist whose music is strongly lyrics-driven and in full support of the wide dissemination of her music) is extremist and robs our readers of invaluable context about this artist. No one beside such extremist editors could possibly object to such linking. I did not respond because it is clear that this editor will continue to obstinately remove links no matter what any other editor says, or what proof is given that the artist is in full support of such circulation of her music and lyrics. Badagnani 17:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Badagnani, I understand completely your point of view, and in princciple, I agree with you. But unfortuneately, it's not just Regina's opinions that matter, it's her record comapnies views too. Regina is in it for the music, we all know she is, and she's by far the best artist I've heard for a long time. But Sire Records are in it for the money, and we can't risked being sued by them or the RIAA, Wikipedia simply can't afford it. HawkerTyphoon 17:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
My name is not spelled that way. Please be realistic: you know and I know that we are talking about links to lyrics, not the reprinting of lyrics. If requested to remove the links to such lyrics sites we could decide to do so (or not) at that time. Probably the lyrics site, not Wikipedia, would first be asked to remove the lyrics if some record company objected. But they have not done that, and lyrics sites flourish across the Internet. They serve to promote the artists' music and fans' knowledge of them, something that is beneficial to such companies. I hope you won't continue to argue about nonexistent threats, and restore the link so that our readers will have easier access to the lyrics. Badagnani 17:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the mispelling, it's not intentional, and I'll correct it from now on :-). Policy says that we can't link to anything that's a copyright violation, and lyrics sites are almost always either a violation, ro they're advert-oriented. But I do want as many links on there as we can get that are going to be helpful. Do Regina or Sire Record's sites have the lyrics? We can happily link to those! HawkerTyphoon 18:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you're not aware of the normal way things work as regards popular artists' lyrics as they appear on the Internet. Most artists' official sites, whether major label or otherwise, do not include lyrics sections. It's too much work and generally neither the artist nor the label has the wherewithal or inclination to sit and type them all out accurately (or, in the case of bands like The Ramones, to even figure out their own lyrics). This job is usually left to the fans. Thus, fan sites are almost always the sites that have the best compilations of lyrics. The commercial lyrics sites often scavenge lyrics from such fan sites and reprint them on their own (often with the same mistakes across the entire Internet due to this process). So every element of an artist's public is involved in the process: the artist creates the music and lyrics, the record company sells the CD and lists their tour schedule, and the fans figure out and put the lyrics up on the Internet. It's all part of a continuum or community, and it's worked that way for at least the past 10 years since I have been using the Internet. Badagnani 18:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
That's as maybe, but policy is against the links. I asked you three or four times to link me to the 'policy' you quoted, and you didn't. Having read everything I can find on Wikipedia about this, I conclude that there was no policy on it, and that the policy you quoted was a mistake on your part. I am willing to have any and all sorts of external links, so long as they conform to policy! HawkerTyphoon 18:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I feel I need to clarify some things. WP:L&P addresses the use of lyrics within Wikipedia articles, and makes no assertions either for or against links to external lyrics sites. WP:C states that we only need to ensure that a reasonable effort is made to establish that copyright hasn't been violated; we don't need absolute proof. That said, if a work is shown to be copyrighted and express permission has not been granted for a particular use, that use is unambiguously a violation according to the law, whether or not the law is enforced.
As I had mentioned before, knowingly assisting another in actions that infringe on another's rights constitutes contributory infringement. If someone is distributing or publishing copyrighted material online without permission or a fair use justification, merely providing links to the material can be considered illegal. BitTorrent sites get plenty of heat just for providing "harmless links".
The "way things work" on the Internet is not a sufficient justification for actions on Wikipedia. It does not keep anime distributors from cracking down on fansubs, and does not keep the RIAA from cracking down on file-sharing or lyrics sites, even though it is often argued that these things are actually positive contributors to the market ecosystem. At any one time, Wikipedia is involved multiple legal disputes, and its reputation is not something to be taken lightly. We strive to be an upstanding participant in the world community. We do not wait for a cease-and-desist before we start complying with the law. By then, some of the damage is already done.
Having said this, I believe that lyrics that aren't part of a current or planned record don't fall under the purview of a record label, and are probably acceptable to link to in this article, considering that it has been shown that the artist approves of the practice. Dancter 19:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I won't put it back. But I wouldn't say the discussion is closed. If anyone wants to further discuss external links to lyrics, read what's been written so far and feel free to contribute. Omphaloscope talk 15:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • On a related note, although I don't necessarily recommend linking to it in the article, editors here may find the following resource useful as one of the more reliable sources for Regina Spektor lyrics available online: http://lyricwiki.org/Regina_Spektor . Although a few of the pages are still under construction (since it's a wiki, anyone here is welcome to help improve it as well), it is especially valuable for its comprehensive listing of unreleased songs and their lyrics. -Silence 05:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further Leno/Daly appearances?

Tonight Spektor appeared on Jay Leno ("Fidelity") and Carson Daly ("On the Radio"). The Leno was a repeat but I'm not sure about the Daly. Do either of these performances represent performances over and above the two performances we have listed for her on the Leno show, or the one performance on the Daly show? Badagnani 08:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New photo

The newly added photo is not representative of Spektor and her work, as it illustrates her playing an instrument she doesn't use in many songs. Please replace with an image of her playing the piano, as the previous image did. Thank you. Badagnani 04:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Would any of these be more acceptable? —Chowbok ☠ 19:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
If they're free-use, then one or two of them might be better, though all of them have problems. Of the ones on that page, http://www.flickr.com/photos/sam_ford/198710482/ is probably the best aesthetically, but doesn't provide a clear view of her actually playing the instrument, unlike http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrewdill/159032515/ (which would probably require some cropping if we use it).
By the way, I posted a comment about the previous photograph (which was quite visually informative, much more so than its replacement, which is prettier and more free but much less useful to our readers) to its image talk page, but it was ignored and the image deleted:

I've replaced this photo on the article page with a cc-licensed one. —Chowbok ☠ 02:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should replace this with an equally informative non-fair-use image if possible, but I don't see that Image:Regina_Spektor_(2006).jpg is altogether satisfactory, on the grounds that it much less effectively and informatively illustrates the article's subject matter: it demonstrates the subject in a very atypical situation (playing the guitar, which she only does for a couple of songs, did not do in the past, and is not well-known for), whereas the previous image demonstrated the subject in a very typical situation (playing the piano, which Spektor is famous for—and the image of the piano itself is very helpful to our readers).
The guitar image also, while quite nice aesthetically, does not really provide a very accurate idea of what Spektor actually looks like, due to (1) a low camera angle, (2) unusual and distracting lightning effects, and (3) a microphone obscuring part of her face. The guitar image is quite nice, but it doesn't really render the piano image obsolete (because it doesn't provide the same value to our readers as that image does), so unless there's some specific and/or immediate problem with that specific image (as opposed to with fair-use images in general), I'd suggest that we simply use both images on the article (perhaps the fair-use one lower down, so it is less likely to be problematic), at least until a more representative free-use image becomes available as a superior replacement. -Silence 04:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
-Silence 05:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
You mean the red piano image was summarily removed without any meaningful discussion, response to your comment, or post to this discussion page? And it was deleted in favor of the guitar photo? That doesn't make any sense and I feel is indicative of the culture of disrespect to the community of editors that has developed in recent weeks with the epidemic of such summary deletions without serious consideration of discussion justifying fair use. Would the editor who did this please explain themself here? Badagnani 05:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I had nothing to do with the deletion of the piano photo (although I do support that decision). I just found the guitar photo. The piano photo would have been deleted in any event. —Chowbok ☠ 07:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not see why the need for her to be performing is of such necessity. Rather we should try to get a clear photo of Regina Spektor herself, as many of the photos of her playing are blurry or distorted, or in some other way unsuitable. I think a good option would be the cover of Begin To Hope, though to be honest I'm not sure that would be an option because of copyright. At the moment however, I find the cat hat image quite amusing.

An image of her performing is not necessary, but it is certainly preferable, considering that she is a musician. Wouldn't you rather have an image of George W. Bush politicking than golfing? The hat cat image is cute, but will be deleted shortly because it lacks any source or copyright information. I also fail to see why the last image was removed, rather than moved to another part of the article; it was a highly valuable free-use image. But it will be restored in any case as soon as the hat-cat image is deleted from Wikipedia (which it will be unless someone shows up soon to tag it). We cannot use Begin to Hope to illustrate Regina herself, obviously: not only is it fair-use, but it's a terribly uncharacteristic photo of her which gives next to no information on what she looks like because of stylization. Besides, candids are always preferable to album covers. -Silence 05:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that a performance image is preferable by definition. I think that the Bush example is actually a good one: the picture on George W. Bush is just a portrait, not a shot of him doing any one thing. In this respect, I actually think I prefer the current photo. I think it is most important that the main photo illustrate what Regina Spektor looks like, rather than that she plays piano. That said, a high-quality public domain photo of her at a piano would certainly be appropriate for the article. Croctotheface 05:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Despite the above comments, the fact is that the photo depicting Spektor playing her red Baldwin piano (which was deleted without comment, an extremely poor thing to have done) illustrated this artist and her work better than the "cat hat" photo or the "electric guitar" photo. Badagnani 19:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I have uploaded this picture to wikimedia commons. Perhaps it could be cropped, and scaled down - if anyone wants to do that they are welcome. I am going to go ahead and put it in the infobox.--Macca7174 14:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of cyrillic

The addition of cyrillic "инспектор" without romanization and removal of "Spektorski" goes against what the Spektor article states. Is, thus, the Spektor article incorrect? "Spektorski" sounds like a name to me (with the surname "-ski") but why would the surname omit the first two letters, "ин"? Whatever the case, these edits should be explained to make sure that they are completely accurate. Badagnani 05:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Spektor article is incorrect, as far as I know, yes. "Spektor" and "Spektorski" are both names, and both derived from the Russian word инспектор (which has essentially the same romanization as translation: "inspector"). To say that Spektor is derived from Spektorski is potentially misleading, as it may lead people to believe that "Spektorski" is the Russian word for "inspector", rather than just another form of the same name (much like "Spector" is another romanization of it). -Silence 05:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I'd say please edit the passage so that it's as factual and clear as possible. I don't know if the Cyrillic is necessary in the first place, as it can be easily romanized. Badagnani 05:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Covers?

The article states that she has done covers of songs by Leonard Cohen and Madonna. Does anyone know which songs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cornesy (talk • contribs) 13:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC). Leonard Cohen: "Chelsea Hotel II" and "Hallelujah"; Madonna: "Love Profusion". Visit http://www.ragette.org/Regina/regina%20shawn/Jewish%20Heritage%20Festival%20-%202005-09-13.htm - this is a link from Regina's forum: http://reginaspektor.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/454107688/m/6471088071?r=7491088171#7491088171 . 67.86.197.149 03:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Style" section and POV

I had added the advert tag to this section. Another user has since removed it, claiming that he doesn't see anything that qualifies as POV. I'll reiterate what I said in the edit summary: I consider myself a fan, but this section is written in glowing tones and reads like publicity material for an album, or, at best, a glowing review. As adding the tag did not succeed in inspiring others to rework the section, I'm going to proceed with removing a fair bit of it for POV and tone concerns. Croctotheface 10:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Badagnani stated in an edit that the cuts were unjustified and needed discussion. So here goes. The Style section is extremely POV. Wordings like seemingly simple, strange noises and a breathy, angelic high register are obviously not objective. Also, the article makes claims like Unlike the songs of many singer-songwriters and The impression is that very little was done to tracks in the production phase, giving a general raw feel. How is a raw feel NPOV? I imagine that my interpretation of raw may vary wildly from yours or any other reader. I think the cuts that were made were justified and I hope someone reverts the article back to the more POV status. Lunapuella 20:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Lunapuella and Croctotheface that this section is nowhere close to objective... as one example, she sounds like Billie Holiday? Says who? I completely disagree with that opinion. But the disagreement isn't why I'd remove it... the reason for removal would be that it's just a matter of opinion, completely subjective. I think Lunapuella did a good job with the edits and I will restore them. The Crow 22:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
If someone believes those phrases are POV they can be altered to make them not POV, while retaining the descriptive quality. Several sentences were blanked entirely, for example changing the detailed description of the timbre of her vocal instrument in various registers and changing it to "she sings both high and low," which would essentially be true of any singer. That was the sort of edit I objected to. There's a fine line between being bold and ruining detailed description created by editors who came before. Badagnani 22:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem is what you call "detailed description" is simply a matter of opinion. "Utilizes high and low registers" is a neutral description. "Angelic, breathy upper register" is entirely a matter of opinion. Notice that 3 other editors now disagree on it. Wikipedia should not include such easily disputable opinion. The Crow 23:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to point out the fact that 3 other editors disagree with you here on the talk page, and you're flirting with violating the 3 revert rule. The Crow 23:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing a bit more cleanup... specifically I'm removing the reference to "vibrato" because this is an incredibly common technique, and the reference to "timbre" because it also is not meaningful without examples (which are not given). What the author is grasping for is "vocal range" and I've made reference to it. The Crow 14:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Changes of timbre is one of the instances that make this singer unique. In fact, several concrete descriptions of such timbre shifts existed in the article, having been carefully written, but they were blanked approximately 1 week ago. The text was as follows: "Spektor also explores the various timbres of her voice, including a breathy, angelic high register and a Billie Holiday-like lower register that she often allows to break into a trumpet-like tone quality." While there is always room for improvement at Wikipedia, simply blanking is not the answer. We should respect one another's contributions. Don't try to use such deletions as a self-fulfilling prophecy, okay? Badagnani 16:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
They were not simply "blanked". They were deleted after 4 editors discussed it, and 3 of them agreed that these characterizations of her style were not objective, sourced fact, but rather one individual's personal opinion. Opinion does not belong in Wikipedia, what will it take for you to understand this simple matter of Wikipedia policy? Please have a read of WP:V and WP:OR. The Crow 18:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see you have brought in quite a number of sources. That's great. I hope they are reliable sources but at least we've got something behind all of these claims. The Crow 22:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The removed text, such as the bit that you have quoted, was not written from a netural point of view. You do not have ownership of this article simply because you created and contributed heavily it. Opinionated statements, no matter how "carefully written," are against Wikipedia policy. The only way to improve opinionated statements such as the ones you wish to include in the article is to REMOVE THE OPINION, which is what was done. There was no "blanking" involved. Croctotheface 03:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review?

When an article starts getting thoroughly sourced, I start thinking about FA status. Croctotheface 04:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. Let's start by having a photo of her playing her primary instrument (maybe the one with her playing the red Baldwin piano, which was deleted despite comments stating that it more accurately represented her work)? Badagnani 04:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bug in references

See reference 12 for a serious bug. This reference code is so thickly incomprehensible, keeping simple single-bracket references would make things much easier for everyone (except FA nitpickers, who I can do very well without!). As the designers of WP believed, and I do as well, simpler is almost always better. Badagnani 04:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of consevatory

The words "conservatory", "conservatorium" and "conservatoire", although spoken in English dialects, may have different semantic meanings. This is not a mere stylistic mistake based upon a preference for a local dialect. The fact is that, in British English, a conservatory is a glass room attached to the back of a house.

In order to remove ambiguity, I have opted for the use of the more universal term "college of music" Shortstraw 21:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If we can get the name of the conservatory at which she studied, we can use that name, and this will solve the problem entirely. It doesn't matter that "conservatory" has different meanings; many words do. There are numerous institutions of higher music learning around the world that are called "Conservatory" both in English as well as in translation. Badagnani 21:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spektor's Billboard chart positions

I think it's best to use the *highest* chart position each song has attained rather than keep changing the numbers from week to week. Badagnani 19:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rumors

Quote: "Recently rumors have circulated that Regina and the rapper Eminem have begun dating..." - I think, first, that is false, and second, Wikipedia is not the place for rumors anyway... What is the source of these rumors?.. Please, remove!.. 67.86.197.149 20:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC) .

[edit] Literary allusions/reverting good faith edits

I recently removed the mentions of Fitzgerald and Hemingway because, first of all, she's not referencing the works, just the authors, and second, because there are too many literary items mentioned there. It reads like a laundry list, and it's not really particularly informational to just say that certain authors are referenced. Additionally, my edit was made in good faith and explained by an edit summary. The reversion had no edit summary and was marked as minor, which really isn't in the spirit of collarborative work that WP endeavors to have. Croctotheface 06:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary read exactly as if the two authors were being removed simply and precisely because the editor believed the paragraph to be too long. If the allusions are there in the songs, the text and mentions are valid, and deserving of mention, giving a complete picture of this artist, specifically as regards her lyrics and the lterary influences shown therein. Badagnani 06:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. In the first place, the idea that the references set Spektor apart from mainstream folk is an opinion. Even if the interviewer or Spektor advances this opinion in the NPR interview, that does not pass WP:NPOV. At the very least, the opinion should be attributed. It's not necessary to list any and every mention of a novelist that Spektor makes. It seems like you want to include this because it somehow is flattering to Spektor to say that she's read X and Y and has mentioned them. That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article. In the future, please do not continue to revert other editors without comment and mark the edit as minor. Instead, you should mention the issue on the talk page and try to gather an consensus. You do not have ownership of this article. Croctotheface 06:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I did not write that text and certainly do not have any of the motivations you impute. Badagnani 06:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
You'll have to forgive me if I misinterpreted your motivations--they may have carried over from the last time you insisted on your version of the article. One or two examples are sufficient to illustrate the concept of "she makes literary allusions." Attempting to create an exhaustive list of such references is really not the business of an enyclopedia article. I'm going to wait to see if anyone else has an opinion on this issue before paring the list down. I am, however, going to remove the opinionated part now. Croctotheface 07:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Literary allusions that exist in songs and are verifiable (and which have been noted as a distinctive stamp of the artist's output in several notable publications) do not represent something "opinionated." Regarding your previous blanking, a thorough description of the artist's voice and specific vocal qualities is something that does benefit a complete understanding of this artist, but was essentially gutted in favor of the very strange and hardly descriptive text that exists now. It would be best if you showed some command and deep knowledge of the subject at hand and, rather than simply blank or delete text, actually replace text you find to be overly POV or opinionated with equally descriptive or more descriptive text. You haven't shown an ability to do so up to now, but I do of course hold out hope for this. Badagnani 07:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Civility is important on Wikipedia. I suggest you read up on what "blanking" actually is before you level such charges over a content dispute where the consensus is against the version you favor. Regarding this content dispute, I'm not opposed to mentioning the literary allusions, so I'm in no way attempting to avoid noting it. However, the idea that it is a "distinctive stamp" IS an opinion, so I'm glad the article doesn't say anything like that. What I am opposed to is listing NINE references from SIX songs as a way of illustrating that concept when listing two references from two songs would suffice. Also, I'm not sure what "several notable publications" you're talking about, since the only citation relating to this section is to a single public radio interview. Croctotheface 07:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hi

does anyone know if she is working on anything new... you know for the article --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.173.9.11 (talk • contribs)

[edit] the recoding of "Real Love"

I think correctness here is appropriate. Spektor's recording of John Lennon's "Real Love" was for the Darfur Project, in response to the Darfur Crisis.

1967ramrods 05:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So say that, then. It's a CD sponsored by Amnesty International, is that correct? Badagnani 05:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music Box

So, her tune Music Box is now on a JC Penney's commercial (see http://tunesontv.com/feed/). I was surprised no one jumped on this yet. After reading this article, I would say Music Box is an excellent example of her style.

I saw this last evening. Would you add it to the article? Badagnani 20:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] videos for better?

ok. i noticed on youtube theres a new vidoe for better. its loads of reginas in a field and stuff. but the song wasnt released as a single. why are there two videos? is it going to be released as a single? anymore info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.216.61.163 (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


The original "Better" video (with the mirrors) uses the original album recording of the song. The new VH1 video of "Better" is a re-recorded "Radio Recut" version of the song. If you listen to both songs back-to-back you can immediately tell the difference in the instrumentals (particularly the guitar), even though the lyrics and song length are identical. ~ Slicknick1986 (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pic

I have obtained a higher quality picture. I'm going to post into the talk page. If anyone has an objection than please voice. If their are none I'll put it up on several days. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/198710482_ffa7061ecf.jpg--St.daniel Talk 22:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoever put the new photo up top, it would be much preferable to have a photo showing her actually playing an instrument while singing (preferably a piano), and not straining in such a strange way. Badagnani 05:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I have never seen a longer list of externally-linked articles for a single person, no matter how notable. If they're important, use them for references and link them that way. The way it is now is just ridiculous. Trying to make someone look notable by listing/linking scads of articles about them isn't the way to do it. I'll strive to come back and do something about it, but it won't be today. Salamurai 14:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regina's Guitar

The article mentions Regina's piano, but her guitar is not mentioned. Regina plays an Epiphone Wildkat, with a Sky-Blue finish. However, I don't have any references for that information, other than my own knowledge of guitars, so I won't be adding it to the article myself. If anyone can back me up with legit references, please add it to the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.72.105 (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Badagnani (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of media appearances

Such removals should be substituted with a summary rather than simple removal. Badagnani (talk) 06:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article image

This seems to have been discussed before, but why doesn't this article use Image:Regina Spektor black and white.jpg or even Image:Regina Spektor Tel Aviv 2.jpg? They both show her playing the piano, and I much prefer either of them (especially the first) over the image currently in use, which, while nice, is taken from a rather awkward angle. Mr. Absurd (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)