Jump to content

Talk:Perfect Day (Lou Reed song)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

"Sequels"?

Um, just wondering... sure these projects by BBC might have been inspired by the success of the 'Perfect Day' charity single but what do they actually have to do with the song? Was Lou Reed even involved with these other projects?--Lairor 00:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Gotta agree. These should be on their own page - with links going both ways, of course. — Catherine\talk 05:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge reopen

Articles are about songs, not singles. I can link many, many articles here which have multiple versions within the same article. The fact that a song was released as a single is secondary, a good description of both (or all) versions of a song and their respective histories, etc. enhances the article. I'm supporting a merge and I'm happy to give good examples if anyone wants 'em. - eo 21:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Loureedtransformer.jpeg

The image File:Loureedtransformer.jpeg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Lou Reed and Luciano Pavarotti

Luciano Pavarotti was obviously one of the performers of this song too:

--Popski (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


Merging/Separation of song articles

Please note : There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions with the purpose of trying to establish a standard rule for merge/separate different versions of the same song. Please make known your feelings on the matter. Regards. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

While I support a guideline (though definitely not a rule) for merging of several small articles about different versions of the same song, the two articles in question here are in my view too large to be comfortably merged, so I would recommend keeping these two as separate articles.--Michig (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Having given it further consideration, I'm not convinced about the need for a guideline.--Michig (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with Michig about the articles in question: I don't believe they are all that long and most people (IMO) would be interested in the whole story. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge Perfect Day and Perfect Day (Duran Duran song)

I don't know the Duran Duran song at all so the main focus of the entry, I think, should be the original artists song.

I agree that the Duran Duran article should be merged into the Lou Reed article. If the Children in Need version belongs there, so does Duran Duran - or neither. --Chapwithwings 19:52, 7 September 2006

I've seen enough persuasive arguments that in general all covers of the song belong on the same page; I'm just not sure how well it will work in this case, where the cover was a reasonably successful single in its own right, and there's more to say than "it was covered by this band in this year on this album". Would this article end up with multiple infoboxes, like Blue Monday (New Order song), or Make Me Smile (Come Up and See Me)? Anyone have other examples of multiple-cover-version song articles that handle this dilemma well?
The Perfect Day (Duran Duran song) article is relatively long, and is formatted in parallel with the other Duran Duran singles articles (see any of the others on the {{Duran Duran}} template) -- it's just one part of the long DD singles chronology. On the one hand, I wouldn't want the Duran info to take up a disproportionate share of this article, as relatively speaking their version's not very important to the history of the song, but I'd also hate to lose the info that's already there for those who are interested in DD. What's a good solution? — Catherine\talk 18:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Opinion

Neutral - if you discuss Duran Duran, then you must also discuss Indigo and others who have covered the song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.36.35.40 (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Support. See also talk at White Lines. –Unint 03:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Neutral - see above. — Catherine\talk 18:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. These are both pretty sizable articles. Leave 'em be.--Hraefen Talk 16:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. The articles seem very different in tone and style. I'll agree with that "leave 'em be."
Oppose. As was said in the other discussion, I don't think they should be merged. Especially in this case, the DD section is much larger, so it would make Lou Reed's page either very cluttered, or DD's entry would have to be parsed down, which isn't very fair as it's deserving of its own discussion too. I think the small blurb about the cover on Reed's page is fine. KhanadaRhodes 04:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. 9 different track listings take up 3/4 of the article. The other pertinent info can be simply merged. --Wolfer68 (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Support. The article is about the song, not the performers. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Why the move?

So why has it been moved? Unless there's going to be a disambiguation page at Perfect Day, there's no reason to have '(Lou Reed song)' added to the title.--Michig (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Musical Analysis

The musical analysis in this is way off. The chorus isn't clearly in a "straight forward major key". Although the chords fit into A major, the tonal center is more ambiguous (e.g. no strong dominant-tonic movement) -- it feels more like it resolves to D. As that entire section is unsourced (and reeks of original research), it should probably just be removed entirely. —Torc. (Talk.) 06:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the whole "From a music theory point of view, the song is complex..." section is painfully bad. I think the music is somewhat interesting and probably deserves an analysis section, but not like this... 76.24.115.139 (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Romance?

The main article says: "The song's lyrics suggest nothing more than conventional romantic devotion." Yeah. Right. It's about smack. Most of Reed's songs are about smack. Except the ones about kinky sex.

]Comment: 'Most of Reed's songs are about smack'. Really? A few are, most obviously aren't. ]

'You just keep me hangin' on' - you reckon that he's just waiting for his girlfriend? 'You're gonna reap just what you sow' - strangely unromantic thing to say to a girlfriend :) [Comment: surely an even odder thing to say to a drug?] I once approached Cale after a concert and asked him if Perfect Day was about heroin or about a day in the park but he just gave me a withering look and walked off without a word. Takes all sorts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.112.17.12 (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC). It's Heroin,Junk,Boy,Horse,Dope,diesel no way it is a women that is what makes it such a damn good song not that I would ever think of use my own opinion on Wikipedia. I ask what is Venus Furs about furs come on "You just keep me hanging on" "you made me think I was some one else someone good" it's about addiction maybe we all can agree on that a woman a man or more likely juunk. I know I used dope and would listen to it as I well...OK just wanted to add my $0.2 And the fact I used sign my comment F!@# that sorry my IP is the best you will get —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.116.58 (talk) 20:13, August 24, 2007 (UTC) Until I read this article I had listened to PD many times, but it never occurred to me that it was anything to do with heroin. Not being a smackhead myself, I don't know whether the song accurately reflects the experience of a smackhead, but I don't think 'drinking Sangria in the park', 'feeding animals in the zoo', or 'maybe watching a movie too' make up the typical daily life of a smackhead. Lou's own song 'I'm Waiting for the Man' would be a more convincing portrayal.92.8.78.214 (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

really? maybe it is the normal day of a smackhead - you wouldnt believe who besides the rotten punk junkie is a smackhead. and actually i clearly see heroin in the song (no i am just a dopehead but i really "feel" the meaning of the song). besides this the sentence

"Critics of this view assert that Reed never tried to conceal his drug use, so the song does not have concealed meanings of this nature." is deeply un-scientific - who can know the meaning of a song??? not even lou reed himself know the "meaning" of the song. i suggest to delete this statement --91.17.193.4 (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there's no way this is a straightforward love song. Look at the last line: "You're going to reap just what you sow." That's ominous. It's like saying, "You made your bed, now lie in it." The expression comes from the bible, and it's usually meant as a warning. On the other hand, it doesn't make sense to say that the song is addressed to heroin itself, either. How can heroin reap or sow anything? Clearly it's addressed to a person. You can't say for certain who it's addressed to, because it's not that specific - like all good art it's applicable to many different people and situations - but the inspiration was most likely his first wife, who loved him despite all his drug and/or mental health issues, and whom he repaid by abusing her. So as I see it, the narrator is a messed up person addressing a lover whose kindness is helping him hang on (to life), and he's grateful for that, but at the same time he knows himself all too well, and he knows he's going to hurt her.
Another thing. I don't know if it's worth mentioning, but a Vatican tweet about this song made the news last year. Of course the cardinal only quoted the nice, happy-sounding part, but that's not the whole song. Reed was into subtlety and irony, pairing ominous lyrics with happy-sounding music. E.g. "Sunday Morning" sounds like a nice, happy little song, if you're not paying close attention, but it's really about paranoia.
Anyway, after all that, I doubt I can find any published materials to support my interpretation of the song (alas), but I will add a sentence about the tweet. --Rosekelleher (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Perfect Day (Lou Reed 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Perfect_Day_(Lou_Reed_song)/Archive_1&oldid=1137079404"