Talk:Heart and Soul (Frank Loesser and Hoagy Carmichael song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The Incredibles? Where did it show up there? 75.16.63.238 02:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All piano players?[edit]

the article states "Virtually all beginner piano students can play this song". Really? Even in China? This sounds incredibly ethnocentric, not to mention it's unsourced. Joliefille 09:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They probably can, even in China. It would be more ethnocentric to say "virtually all beginner students in the west can play this song." There is no ethnic or geographic reference at all in the original statement, and no-one would find anything ethnocentric about it unless they were looking really, really hard to find it. Koro Neil (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider it just plain false, not ethnocentric. CheeseDeluxe (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huey Lewis?[edit]

Is this the same Heart and Soul played by Huey Lewis and the News? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.218.179 (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, the Huey Lewis song is different. We don't currently have an article for the Huey Lewis song, but see Sports (album) for the relevant album. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Orton[edit]

Completely different lyrics and rhyming scheme. Beth Orton did "Heart of Soul" - Not Heart and soul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.231.8 (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debate[edit]

There is disagreement over the correct version of the song. Some people, probably purist, believe it should be CADG, while most people play it CAFG. Hoagy Carmichael wrote it as CADG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdmitch16 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too much 2000s pop culture?[edit]

It seems that this article is lacking in some fundamental substance -- the song is one of America's most recognizable 1930s standards, and half of the article is a list of movies it appears in. It's good that the I-vi-IV-V progression (but isn't it I-vi-ii-V??) gets mentioned, but it seems under-discussed (I think?). I'm not a jazz scholar, but I was under the impression that this progression is often taught as the "Heart and Soul" progression (or "Blue Moon" progression), and that the B-part is typically used as THE example of a circle-of-fifths composition. If so, there should certainly be a bit more music-theory-history mention in there.

Also, the "I love the mountains" lyrics should get their due citation. Does anyone know who wrote them? I think they appear in Girl Scouts songbooks from a few decades ago, and I believe they are also in "Rise Up Singing," but again, I'm not sure. The Discovery Channel ad is not really a parody of "Heart and Soul," but actually a re-writing of "I love the mountains," and yes, I know everyone on WP is just itching to say that there's an XKCD comic that plays off of the Discovery Channel ad, but really that's a play-on-a-rewrite-of-a-rewrite, and getting a little far-removed from the subject at hand.

Any jazz students out there want to lend a hand? --Dgianotti (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, rewrote some of the intro section, but it could still use some work. The "I like the mountains" stuff should go somewhere else. The paragraph on the 1939 charters should really go in the "recorded versions" section, and that section should become less of a massive list. Someone should add a music theory/history section that at least mentions the I-vi-ii-V progression (although I think the A-section is really I-vi-ii-V | I-vi-ii-V | I-VI-II-V | I-VI-II-V ) and the circle of fifths B-section. --Dgianotti (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yes, to the horror of XKCD-ians out there, I removed the "internet comics" blurb, because really that has almost nothing to do with "Heart and Soul," but fear not, someone made sure to mention it in the pop culture section of the "I Love the World" article, which is just one click away from this article. --Dgianotti (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

There was consensus to merge. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal that Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) be merged into Heart and Soul (1938 song).

WP:NSONGS says, Most songs, it does not say, most recordings, it does not say most covers, it does not say most versions and it certainly doesn't say there are exceptions. It therefore acknowledges one article per SONG. This is further supported by WP:NMUSIC and WP:SONGCOVER and precedent and here's a short list of those I have seen in the past few days where there are two or more notable versions of the same song on the same page: (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction, A Groovy Kind of Love, After Midnight (song), All Along the Watchtower, Baby, Please Don't Go, Because the Night, Blue (Bill Mack song), Blue Suede Shoes, Boom Boom (John Lee Hooker song), Can't Help Falling in Love, Dancing Queen, Don't Cry for Me Argentina, Downtown (Petula Clark song), Eloise (Paul Ryan song), Emotion (Samantha Sang song), Feeling Good, Fever (Little Willie John song), Fire (Bruce Springsteen song), Freedom! '90, Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (A Man After Midnight), Got to Give It Up, Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song), Harlem Shuffle, Higher Ground (Stevie Wonder song), Hound Dog (song), Hurt (Johnny Cash song), I Heard It Through the Grapevine, I Want Candy, I Want Your Love (Chic song), I Want Your Love (Transvision Vamp song), I Was Born This Way, I Wonder (1944 song), If I Thought You'd Ever Change Your Mind, If Not for You, If You Asked Me To, I'll Be There (The Jackson 5 song), I'll Be Your Baby Tonight, Invisible (Jaded Era song), Iris (Goo Goo Dolls song), It's Raining Men, Jesus Is Just Alright (song), Lady Marmalade, Let's Spend the Night Together, Light My Fire, Little Red Rooster, Love Don't Live Here Anymore, Mamma Mia (song), Me and Mrs. Jones, More, More, More, Mr. Tambourine Man, Not Fade Away (song), Oh, Boy! (song), One of Us (ABBA song), Perfect Day (Lou Reed song), Roll Over Beethoven, Shake, Rattle and Roll, Shame, Shame, Shame (Shirley & Company song), She's Like the Wind, Slow Hand, Somethin' Stupid, Spirit in the Sky, Step by Step (Annie Lennox song), Super Trouper (song), Sway (song), Take a Chance on Me, The First Cut Is the Deepest, The House of the Rising Sun, The Loco-Motion, Theme from Mahogany (Do You Know Where You're Going To), These Boots Are Made for Walkin', Tumbling Dice, Venus (Shocking Blue song), War (Edwin Starr song), When Will I Be Loved (song), White Lines (Don't Don't Do It), Wild Thing (Chip Taylor song), Paint It, Black, You Can't Hurry Love,You Keep Me Hangin' On. Although some have been merged, many have NEVER had separate articles. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as an initial issue, merging a 1961 topic into a 1938 topic doesn't seem like a good fit. Also, before thinking about your request above, everything to me was "a song" (songs/music is not an area I typically write about, but I just happen to be at the moment). What I previously thought was that if someone sung it, it was a song. After a little reading, I now see what you mean by "a song" topic and version/covers/renditions/rearrangements/etc. subtopics of that song topic. So that we can bypass the merging into a 1938 topic issue and discuss the actual merge proposal, lets first rename Heart and Soul (1938 song). Based on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs#Naming, this search, and looking over the Category:FA-Class song articles and the Category:GA-Class song articles, I think the name Heart and Soul (Carmichael and Loesser song) would be a good choice. If you agree, we'll be bold and move it and continue the merge discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP guidelines and precedent the name should be Heart and Soul (Larry Clinton song), which doesn't excite me in the least. I see your objection to 1938 song, but that is the year of creation and many older songs are disambiguated that way. I do like disambiguation by writer, but there are objections to this (imagine a song with 7 writers!). So, all in all, I must say I prefer the present title, but would not object to a move, including your suggestion. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How a song is stylised is totally irrelevant. If you or I don't merge it it's bottom dollar somebody else will. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A rule that all song rendition subtopics must be treated only in the song topic article and "never in a separate article" goes against how Wikipedia generally treats topics. For example, Wikipedia:Summary style supports fuller treatment of any major subtopic in a separate article of its own. I looked through some of the song articles you cited. A reason that the subtopic song versions detailed in the above cited song articles is because none of them have enough reliable sourced material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Can you explain why WikiProject Songs has an absolute ban on a song rendition subtopic being treated in a separate article of its own? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Simple. An article about a song is about THAT song (And certainly not about a recording of that song!) the aricle would include information about the music, the lyrics, the writing and recording history. There is no benefit to separating except under WP:SIZE. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So why haven't you proposed to merge Somewhere over the Rainbow/What a Wonderful World mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs into Somewhere_Over_The_Rainbow#Israel_Kamakawiwo.27ole_version? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is a medley and that creates something different. Not that I necessarily approve of separate articles for medleys, but that's the consensus! I don't understand your objection, I am not asking for anything to be deleted, quite the opposite, I am asking for all the information about the song to be in one place (although much of the stuff about the Cleftones should be moved to their article). BTW There are numerous examples above where 2 or more versions are extremely notable. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a loss here, Uzma. Heart and Soul (1938 song) is a tiny article. This article and that one are the very kind of articles that WP:SONGCOVER is trying to avoid. On the one hand, you've built a nice article about the Cleftones version, but you claim that it isn't the same song, that it simply shares the name with the original. On the other hand, we have an article about the original song which barely contains any information about one of the most popular renditions. What's the point in having two incomplete articles when we could have one good one?—Kww(talk) 19:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, a merged version would look about like this.—Kww(talk) 23:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kww, that looks great, an improvement on both articles. Irrespective of which version brought the reader to the page, the whole history is in front of the reader. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kww - Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) meets the Wikipedia guideline Recordings and the Wikipedia guideline WP:NSONG, so there's no reason to override the Wikipedia guideline with WikiProject WP:SONGCOVER, particularly when WP:NSONG gives express instructions for merge targets, none of which is an omnibus song article. When the relevant literature wrote about The Cleftones' cover song Heart and Soul, they did not write about the music composition effort of Hoagy Carmichael or the lyrics effort of Frank Loesser. Rather, they wrote about the efforts of those working with The Cleftones to create the cover song and the impact and effects the cover song had after the cover song was created and released. Merging the information from Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) into Heart and Soul (1938 song) would remove the cover song subject from the context in which the reliable sources wrote about The Cleftones' cover song. Also, merging the information from Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) into Heart and Soul (1938 song) would not provide a representative survey of the relevant literature because much of the information provided by the relevant literature is pertinent to Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) but is not pertinent to Heart and Soul (1938 song). In other words, fuller treatment details provided in the Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) article would be unnecessary details in the Heart and Soul (1938 song) article topic. The proposed merge would leave the encyclopedia with a redirect and either a widely imbalanced, unfocused Heart and Soul (1938 song) article or an article in which information about The Cleftones Heart and Soul cover song is lost from Wikipedia. There is no reason to merge since editors can use summary style in the Heart and Soul (1938 song) article to add information about the cover song to the Heart and Soul (1938 song) article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same song, Uzma. Your own sources discuss that the Cleftones song was a rework of the earlier piece. It's keeping that separate that destroys context. All [{WP:SONGCOVER]] did was document best practice. There's nothing "wildy imbalanced" about the merged article: it covers the Cleftones and Jan and Dean version a little heavily, but not ridiculously so.—Kww(talk) 14:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are avoiding addressing my specific arguments regarding Wikipedia guideline and do not cite any Wikipedia policy or guideline to support your position. Your claim that the main topic of each or any reliable sources cited in Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) is of the cover song being a rework of the earlier piece is not based on fact (you can conclude this by reading the sources via the links provided in the Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) article). You do not explain what you mean by the "same song". Merely because the original song and the cover song have a music composer and the lyrics writer in common does not mean that the Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) topic is the same topic as the Heart and Soul (1938 song) topic. Sources for the Heart and Soul (1938 song) omnibus article are the ones whose main topic discuss the Heart and Soul song in the collective - sources that discuss the Heart and Soul efforts of Carmichael and Loesser, Larry Clinton, The Cleftones, Jan and Dean, etc. as a connected effort. The reliable sources used in Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) are specific to The Cleftones' Heart and Soul cover song topic. Can you cite even one reliable source used in the Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) article having a main topic directed towards the connection of The Cleftones' cover song to the Heart and Soul omnibus song topic? Along with no Wikipedia policy basis to merge Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) into Heart and Soul (1938 song), you have not provided any reliable source basis to merge Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) into Heart and Soul (1938 song). As for best practice, best content practice is contained in Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding content, not in a WikiProject interpretation for which only a few editors actively try to use to bypass policy and guideline content practice. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote on in the article for the Cleftones version, "The groups manager George Goldner additionally convinced the group that their future resided in re-recording existing songs that already had an established popularity.[1] By this time, Charles James had become more proficient on the guitar, and the group and Goldner used that to develop an arrangement for the 1938 romantic-pop music standard Heart and Soul" My bold.
However, your arguments above are contrary to what your words in the article say. Carmichael and Loesser wrote the song, without them there would not be ANY version by ANYBODY. Who wrote and recorded the song is part of the history of the song, why segregate because there was a bit of plastic in 1961? We are writing about songs, not bits of plastic. You have dragged this argument everywhere, from Jimbo, to CfD for Category:Songs by songwriter because you didn't understand WHO wrote the song, to DRV on non-existant articles, notability, MfD and probably elsewhere. The majority of editors do not support you, you have ignored the recommendation how to further pursue your case, so perhaps it's time to merge per kww and move on? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about to do so, and will unless I hear some cogent outside objection. It's apparent that Uzma has a stubborn misconception about what a song is, and it's hard to talk with him through that. The idea that WP:SONGCOVER contradicts WP:NSONGS is extremely strange, as WP:NSONGS notes the existence of covers as being a justification for writing an article about the song.—Kww(talk) 15:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how a merge discussion works. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge - Reliable sources are used to determine what a topic is about. Sources for the Heart and Soul (1938 song) omnibus article are the ones whose main topic discuss the Heart and Soul song in the collective. Reliable sources for in the Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) article are specific to the efforts of those working with The Cleftones to create the cover song and the impact and effects the cover song after the cover song was created and released in 1961. Those are specific to Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) topic. The sources cited in the Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) do not discuss Larry Clinton, Jan and Dean, or even Carmichael and Loesser to anything more than a passing mention. No one has yet cited any reliable source in the Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) article that discuss the Heart and Soul efforts of Carmichael and Loesser, Larry Clinton, The Cleftones, Jan and Dean, etc. as a connected effort so those sources have little to no information to offer to the Heart and Soul (1938 song) omnibus article. As Richhoncho notes above, the connection between the Heart and Soul (1938 song) article and the Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) articles is limited to the fact that they have a music composer and the lyrics writer in common. Two discrete articles having one overlapping fact is not a basis to merge the entire Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) article into the Heart and Soul (1938 song) article. With so little in common, there is no background material or context from the Heart and Soul (1938 song) omnibus article needed for readers to understand the Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) article. The argument presented to support the merge are not ground in policy, guideline, or reliable sources or other objective basis and instead is based on a subjective belief of how to determine the topic of a Wikipedia article. The notability guidelines WP:GNG, Recordings, and WP:NSONG, the editing guideline Wikipedia:Summary style, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines support treatment of the Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) topic in a standalone article. There's no basis to override Wikipedia policy with WikiProject WP:SONGCOVER. Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) about the 1961 cover song should not be merged into Heart and Soul (1938 song). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it alone, Uzma. There is a consensus that different versions of the same song belong in the same article, no matter where you have dragged attempts to overturn this consensus we are still left with WP:SONGCOVER which does not contradict WP:NSONGS in any way shape or form. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the connection between the Heart and Soul (1938 song) article and the Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) articles is limited to the fact that they have a music composer and the lyrics writer in common" is simply a false statement, Uzma, and that's what I refer to above as a "stubborn misconception". They don't just have the composer and lyrics writer in common: if that's what was used to decide how articles were grouped, we'd have one combined article about every song written by Lennon and McCartney and one combined article about every song written by Jagger and Richards. We don't, and no one is arguing that we should. These two recordings are of the same song. That's a lot to have in common, and standard procedure is to include all recordings of the same song in one article. As for whether my merge was correct, it's obvious that you are the only person arguing for separate articles. You have discussed this topic in multiple places, and no one but you is arguing that our normal practice is wrong, and no one but you is arguing that this would be an exception to normal practice. It's been two weeks, and no one is taking your side.—Kww(talk) 15:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My conception about both topics is based on what the reliable sources write about the topics, not on a personal, subjective belief. The merge request needs to be supported by policy and/or guideline and reliable sources, not the personal opinion that the two songs "have a lot to have in common". As for your merging Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) into Heart and Soul (1938 song), it was premature since their is an ongoing discussion about this merge. Also, you expressed an opinion in this merge discussion. Please return the two article to their unmerged state. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your own reliable sources state that it is the same song, as Richhoncho already quoted and you have apparently ignored. It's not my, or anyone else's, "subjective belief." It's the description from reliable sources. No, I will not undo the merge, and, so far as I can tell, this merge discussion is complete: it has reached the point where there was a clear indication based on guidelines and general practice as to what the result was, one lone dissenter that was ignoring all discussion, and no influx of new discussion. That's a really good sign that discussion is complete.—Kww(talk) 19:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uzma Gama continued comments are now becoming disruptive. I note that the Cleftones recording that the editor wishes to keep separate is still not named according to WP guidelines. I also note that by this edit the editor makes it patently clear he does not understand music and the component parts of music. On top of this failure to understand WP and music generally (which he confirms above), the editor has dragged his argument to the following places, inter alia,

  1. User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 126,
  2. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs Cover-versions and multiple-renditions,
  3. Wikipedia_talk:Notability#What_does_notability_attach_to.3F,
  4. Wikipedia:Help_desk#Help_bringing_participants_to_a_talk_page_merge_discussion
  5. Wikipedia:Proposed mergers
  6. and following his failure to comprehend the term songwriter created the following Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_6#Category:Songs_by_songwriter.
    During all these appeals he has garnered little or no support, having only been recommended to start a RfD if he still felt a song article should not include all notable recorded versions - the only action the editor has failed to do. These continued edits should be considered disruptive and now ignored.--Richhoncho (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS. There several assumptions made by User:Uzma Gamal above that are patently untrue. The two main ones are,

  1. There must be a separate article for everything that passes WP:GNG. Patently untrue.
  2. That a song article cannot reach FL, FA-class articles if two notable versions of the same are in the same article. Again patently untrue.--Richhoncho (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two editors disagreeing with a third editor does justify merging the articles while the merge discussion is going on. Please stop merging the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have dragged this discussion everywhere and nobody supports your view. There is a consensus that you are wrong. Get over it and move on. For pity's sake. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read what others posted in the discussions you linked above?

I can kinda see Uzma's point. can certainly see the argument for why the latter should have separate articles for each unique version.--Coin945. Uzma Gamal makes a reasonable point. -- Herostratus. Article content policy should be deleted from WikiProject Songs; Sufficiently notable cover versions of songs should have separate articles. -- Surturz. The absolute ban makes little sense given that there are some song cover versions for which a lengthy article could be created with reliable sources. -- Fuhghettaboutit.

Those discussions were directed at the validity of a WikiProject having an absolute ban on cover song articles being treated in a standalone article. In any event, WikiProject WP:SONGCOVER is a different issue than the one in this present discussion - whether Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) is to be merged into Heart and Soul (1938 song). Kww and Richhoncho urge merging because WikiProject Song has an absolute ban on cover song articles being treated in a standalone article. The detailed arguments I provided above as to whether Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) is to be merged into Heart and Soul (1938 song) are based on Wikipedia policy, guideline, and how the reliable sources treat those two topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My merge was based on the fact that they are the same song. Your arguments have repeatedly made no sense, and seem to be based on denying that your own sources describe them as the same song. As for the merge discusion "still going on", it's really not: the only reason that it is still being discussed is because you won't let the topic alone. You are the only person arguing that this song should be split into separate articles.—Kww(talk) 02:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The merge discussion is open because it has not been closed. See close the merger discussion and determine consensus. Where you write "describe them as the same song", that is not the same as asserting that the main topic of each of the sources is in describing them as the same song. It makes no sense to propose "the song" as the merge target when the main topic of each of the reliable sources for the merge source article is The Cleftones and their efforts regarding the cover song and peoples reaction to The Cleftones' efforts. I honestly don't understand what is keeping you from seeing this. Even WP:NSONG does not list "the song" as one of the potential merge targets. Each of your replies contains the same conclusion without and new details as to why you believe what you do about songs and how they should be treated in Wikipedia. There are only two editors taking the position that "the song" is the correct merge target and that merge is appropriate under reasons for merger. Two editors against the weight of policy, guideline, and reliable source treatment of the topics is not a basis for merge. Since you are not neutral and are directly involved in the merge proposal discussion, it is improper for you to just go ahead and perform the merge while the merge is open merely because I have a different opinion than you. I opened a dispute resolution request to see if they can help us resolve this content dispute. If an admin who is neutral and not directly involved in the merge proposal discussion makes a determination as to whether consensus has been established and closes the discussion, I'm fine with that. Until then, the articles should remain in the unmerged state and I would appreciate your not interfering with my efforts to bring in opinions from additional editors to this discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the follow quotes from Wikipedia talk:Notability
  • 99.9% of the time these should not exist as a separate article - North8000
  • ...does it really make sense to have one when the the topic can be included in the more general article about all renditions of the song? -Blueboar
  • the community believes that a more comprehensive article is made by keeping cover versions of songs together with the original -MASEM
Hint: You took the discussion to notability, not me! Richhoncho (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability aside, WP:NSONG indicates that the Cliftones Heart and Soul cover song topic is appropriate for a standalone article and no one in this discussion disagrees with that. While Wikipedia:Merge#Reasons for merger notes that there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept, that does not mean that prose articles meeting standalone article requirements of WP:NSONG are to be merged into list articles. WP:NSONG's merge guideline is to merge prose articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs into other prose articles about an artist or album, not into lists such as this List of Heart and Soul covers. All three of us participating in this merge discussion agree that Cliftones Heart and Soul cover song article is more than a stub. WP:NSONG supports it being in a standalone article. Neither WP:NSONG nor Wikipedia:Merging support this request to the detailed prose provided in the Cliftones Heart and Soul cover song article into a list article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Uninvolved editor) The discussion hasn't been formally closed, but discussions don't necessarily have to be formally closed to be over. It certainly looks like it's reached the point where it's going round in circles and not getting anywhere, and probably ought to be over. However, if not everyone is willing to leave it at this, perhaps a request for closure might be the way to go? CarrieVS (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I listed this discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure as you suggest.[1] Until that closure happens, the articles should be returned to their unmerged state to give notice to other editors about this merge discussion to help the discussion move forward. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to closing, I would like to point out there is now a discussion directly related to whether different versions of the same song should have separate articles at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#WP:SONGCOVER. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

  1. ^ Jay Warner (2006), American Singing Groups: A History from 1940s to Today, Hal Leonard Corporation, p. 119, ISBN 0634099787, retrieved February 2, 2013 {{citation}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Heart and Soul (1938 song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Popular Culture[edit]

Should there be a new section about this song's impact on popular culture? The statement about many new piano students being taught to learn it can be moved here, as well as its inclusion in the "American Graffitti" and "Big" motion pictures. In fact, many people first learned about "Heart and Soul" when they watched "Big" as a child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.247.193.93 (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 March 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heart and Soul (1938 song) → Heart and Soul (Frank Loesser and Hoagy Carmichael song) – There are "Heart and Soul" (Huey Lewis and the News song), "Heart and Soul" (T'Pau song), "Heart and Soul" (Kenny G composition), "Heart and Soul" (AAA song) or "Heart & Soul" (No Sweat song). However, the least identifiable "Heart and Soul" main title header is "Heart and Soul" (1938 song) although it was written by two top-tier names in the history of songwriting and popular music, as depicted here, on the original music sheet. If consensus skews towards other forms, such as Heart and Soul (Frank Loesser – Hoagy Carmichael song) or Heart and Soul (Loesser – Carmichael song), I would support any form that includes those two renowned names. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 10:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support any form that includes the names, per WP:DABSONG "If ... the lyricist(s) and/or the composer(s) are not well-recognized ... the year of publication will be used". This is an "exception that proves the rule" inference: that using years is the exception, using the names of well-recognized writers is the rule. The "rule" is nowhere more positively stated (that I could find). 85.238.91.68 (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I-vi-ii-V[edit]

Should there be some mention somewhere of version with a ii, rather than a IV. Does anyone know if that is the original version? Squandermania (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the Hoagy Carmichael Greatest Hits LP the bass is clearly playing I-VI-II-V, just like every kid who played the bass part on piano. 174.247.253.81 (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, wikipedia's own Doo Wop entry references Heart and Soul as formative to the genre and specifically says it is a i-vi-ii-v progression. 174.247.236.10 (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heart_and_Soul_(Frank_Loesser_and_Hoagy_Carmichael_song)&oldid=1202646274"