Talk:Viva la Vida

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeViva la Vida was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 10, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed

Catholic comicazis?[edit]

Not the right spelling, but you get the idea. All I want to say is that the quote about "That's why those guys blow up buildings; they think they're going to get forty Virgins or something." This is misguided in the fact, nobody who believes that St Peter holds keys for your rite, believes in blowing buildings. (Not even Planned Parenthood buildings! xD Ahem... Christian humor.) Catholics and Christians believe in the Apostles as Saints. And, yes, there have been speacial cases of Catholic Terrorists, but these are considered radicals who just happen to believe in The Holy Trinity.

I'm not blaming this guy for what he said, even though I myself am Catholic, I'm just clearing up a little mess left behind. Maybe something to put in the article? It's not exactly OR to publish a little clearing up about the quote in an afternote.

But if you think I'm hating the song for that quote, you'r actually wrong. In a world where my religion is quickly being tossed away, it's refreshing to hear those "Calvary Choirs" and Church Bells in the background. And as for the "St Peter Will or Won't" deal, I, as a Catholic, thought I heard "Will", and I've been going through the song, and it's won't and will. But won't first. I figure it's like a "questioning of faith" sort of personal ordeal for the character, but I still like the song. xD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.133.126 (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I think he was only making a statement about reasons people do things while they're alive, you know, like saying a blessing before a meal, or not cursing, or not eating pork, or not hurting cows, etc etc.208.100.226.209 (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two Cents[edit]

First off, a comment to English native speakers who do not know the boundless joys of Roman languages. In French "Vive la France" or in Spanish "Viva Espana" are examples of old-style imperative commands. In English, they would grammatically translate into "May France live" and "May Spain live". Of course, this is only a grammatical translation. A literal translation would be "long live France" and "long live Spain". The meaning is however the same: "may France/Spain be long-lived". Now, you can use any word you want to produce similar imperative statements "Vive le roi" ("may the king live"), "viva la vida" ("may life live" = "may life go on strong"), etc... You can even say "vive moi" (long live me). Now, as to the meaning of the lyrics, you have to be a complete ignorant to fail to see the likeness between them and the life of Napoleon, or that of Louis XVI of France. The link to French history is clear enough from the album cover. Coldplay chose *the single most* important depiction of the French Republic (in fact, the naked-breasted women at the center of the picture has become the symbol of the French republic. Her name is Marie-Anne. Any idiot in France would know this painting). If you want to know more about the painting itself, visit its Wiki page. And all will be clear to you. Sorry to disappoint those people who wrote below that the song is about the fall of Saddam Hussein. That's not just wrong. It's also totally idiotic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.92.4 (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation tag[edit]

Is the citation tag really needed for the 'second single' statement? Is there any reasonable doubt as to whether the statement is true or not? The Violet Hill page doesn't have a citation-needed tag for a similar page, so I don't think this page needs one. 202.46.136.129 (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Hill is clearly a single. Viva la Vida, however, appears to be a promotion for the album/iTunes. -- I need a name (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well nonetheless, its still notable due to its chart appearences. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 18:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Song meaning[edit]

I feel like deleting the "song meaning" section because it is poorly written to the point of irrelevance. Suggestions? 69.109.185.48 (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's OR too. -- I need a name (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those lyrics aren't even correct...it's "I know Saint Peter WILL call my name" so that defeats the purpose of that entire section. 72.72.91.166 (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely 'won't'. -- I need a name (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first time it's "won't," but the second time it could be "will," but I think it sounds like "won't" both times. Phs1234 (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely "won't". The lyric before it says "for some reason I can't explain," and if the lyric to the next verse was "will" it wouldn't make any sense. "For some reason I can't explain I know Saint Peter will call my name"? Don't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.204.200 (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

who actually deleted the section ? i cant find the edit in the history and i would like to read that section. Machete97 (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it here and here. -- I need a name (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dont blame you for removing it - both times. They are pretty badly written and are completely OR. I was just interested in some opinions of the meaning of the lyrics. Machete97 (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol it's not even got anything to do with that. The song's about the Bush administration... They even dedicate the song to America at the MTV awards! But of course you can't add anything unless and until there is a source. --.:Alex:. 18:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i suppose "in jerusalem bells are ringing" " "never an honest word" and "revolutionaries wait for my head on a silver plate" apply to that, but what about "sweep the streets i used to roam" (far too rich and stupid to ever be able to do that) "see it rise when i gave the word" "now the old king is dead - long live the king" loads more..... Machete97 (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's "Seas would rise" referring to Bush's denial of global warming, "be my mirror, sword and shield" and "missionaries in a foreign field" obvious refer to the Iraq War. It was left deliberately open to misinterpretation though, and some things probably reference other things as well. If the meaning was too obvious, well...--.:Alex:. 20:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly about Napolean. --Augustine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.178 (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I hear Jerusalem bells are ringing" refers to the closeness Napolean came to conquering Jerusalem--he conquered Egypt, Syria, and today's northern Israel. "They couldn't believe what I'd become" and "revolutionaries wait for my head on a silver plate" refer to Napolean spurning the French revolution and creating a monarchy (also the cheers that "the old king is dead - long live the king" refer to the termination of the French monarchy only to be replaced by Napolean's own monarchy). "Never an honest word - that was when I ruled the world" perhaps refers to the flattery that led him to risk too much and destroy his armies in Russia and at Waterloo. "I used to roll the dice, see the fear in my enemies eyes" refers to the gambles and victories he won as a general. "Viva vida (long live) my sword and shield - my missionaries in a foriegn field" refers to the fact that Napolean spread his strength and his own gospel of power by means of the sword; i.e. his missionaries were not priests preaching about Christ, but instead the weapons that brought Europe to her knees. "For some reason I can't explain, I know St. Peter won't call my name" is typical of powerful men who use questionable meand to accomplish great things, and eventually vaguely come to understand that their souls are lost in the process when they sacrifice their morals for ambition. "Now I sleep alone" refers to his banishment on St. Helena after Waterloo, separated from his family. I'm sure Coldplay deduicated the song to America as a statement of the suggestive similarities between Napolean and George Bush, or, more plausibly, a warning that, in hindsight, ambition for its own sake at an international scale, can be horribly destructive to the soul of a vain leader. --Augustine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.178 (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Augustine is damn right. It´s definately a song about Napoleon.

Some more about the song:

"Seas would rise when i gave the word" - Most parts of europe were under Napoleons command. Whatever he ordered would be done.

"Now in the morning I sleep alone" - Exile on St. Helena apart from his family

"Sweep the streets I used to own" - Symbolizes his fall

"One minute I held the key. Next the walls were closed on me" - He had the key to whole europe and then was banned and imprisoned.

"and I discovered that my castles stand upon pillars of sand" - Nothing lasts forever. Even Napoleons fame and glory.

"Roman Cavalry choirs are singing" - From 1805 he was king of italy too.

"It was the wicked and wild wind. Blew down the doors to let me in." - Nobody could resist him.

"I know Saint Peter won´t call my name" - In art, St. Peter is often depicted holding the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Napoleon was sure, that he wouldn´t make it to heaven. -Jenson- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.35.204.51 (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Augustine has a good point, saying that the song is about Napoleon. The only problem i have with his assumption is that this song has a revolutionary theme. "Shattered windows and the sound of drums People could not believe what I'd become Revolutionairies wait For my head on a silver plate." Napoleon was sent into exile by the British not the French. I feel the song is about a king who was great but then slowly became corrupted like most powerful leaders, and then was overthrown by his own people. No suggestions on which leader it might be but I dont think that Napoleon fits the description that well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.23.180 (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's about Louie XVI. The kid on the cover is also supposed to be Gavroche from Les Miserables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.146.192 (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do beleive that Augustine is right. I think it is mostly about Nepoleon. Before you made those excelent points I thought maybe "Jeruseulm bells are ringing." sort of meant the end of the world becuase some (cultures of relegious p.o.v.) think that a sign that the world will end soon is when there is peace in the middle east. Hence "Saint peter won't call my name." I don't know, just some thoughts. 71.49.92.224 (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think this song is about Saddam Hussein al Tikriti and the US - Iraq war. Dedicated to America as an expression of what they had done in opposition to massive global disapproval and anti-war protests. The following is a line by line comparison / analysis of this song that doesn't violate copyright because it is used in an academic setting for review and analysis and has proper citing. The lyrics are taken from www lyrics mode com/lyrics/c/coldplay/viva_la_vida.html (apparently this site is blacklisted?) on December 5, 2008. While I can’t claim that they are 100 percent accurate, and I initially heard some of the lyrics as something else, I will say that they are accurate enough.

There are might be some logical fallacies in my explanations but they help breakthrough the artistic license and wording by the composers. I didn't tag anything, but I will if someone wants me to.
Berryman, G., Buckland, J., Champion, W., Martin, C. (2007). Viva la Vida. Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends, [CD], location unknown: Parlophone, Capitol. (2007-2008).

"I used to rule the World", refers to Saddam being head of state and hence a world leader therefore ruling the World.
"Seas would rise when I gave the word", refers to the increase of 'seas of oil' during Saddam's seizure and increase of Iraqi oil field production, and the increase in coastline during the Kuwait Invasion.
"Now in the morning I sweep alone, sweep the streets I used to own", refers to hiding in the hole the US found him in and having to constantly 'sweep' his tracks to avoid being followed and found.
"I used to roll the dice, feel the fear in my enemy's eyes", is a metaphor for war, as in playing the board game Risk. Alternatively, it could also refer to gambling his life during the several failed assassination attempts, including when a would-be assassin's gun misfired (or had the safety on) at point blank range before being killed by Saddam with the same gun (I don't know if this anecdote it real, but it is a story I heard about Saddam).
“Listen as the crowd would sing: ‘Now the old king is dead! Long live the king!’”, refers to Saddam’s personality cult, the ‘old king’ being previous rulers of Iraq, and possibly King Hussein of Jordan.
“One minute I held the key”, refers to the key to the kingdom (Iraq), world power, political relations, his palaces, the power to imprison, etc.
“Next the walls were closed on me”, refers to obstruction, political and economic sanctions, and being outcast and considered a fugitive in his own country, as well as being imprisoned and detained by the US.
“And I discovered that my castles stand upon pillars of salt, and pillars of sand”, refers to the loss of internal and external political support from the world and the US, and also to the literal destruction by ‘bunker busters’ of his palaces turning them, as well as other parts of his country, to rubble. Additionally, while fleeing the biblical towns of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt. "Sodom" is the pronounciation that George H.W. Bush used for Saddam.
“I hear Jerusalem bells are ringing, Roman Cavalry choirs are singing”, refers to the anti-war protests from places like Israel, which is usually pro US; Jordan, owning disputed ‘East Jerusalem”; and Rome, where the largest anti-war rally in history took place, including anti-war support from the Pope (leader of a religion historically opposed to the religion Saddam believed).
“Be my mirror, my sword, and shield, my missionaries in a foreign field”, refers to a plea of help to the rest of the world’s nations, the Pope, the other Muslims, Jews; for distraction from, fighting against, and protection from the US invasion.
“For some reason I can’t explain”, refers to how he was unable to convince the US coalition that he was telling the truth about WMD, even after interviews by US's Dan Rather.
“Once you know there was never, never an honest word”, refers to the lies fed to the World by the Bush Administration about the WMD and need to invade Iraq.
“That was when I ruled the world”, refers to how now that Saddam is dead, and Iraq has been thoroughly searched; no WMD have ever been found, and the World now knows that Bush was lying.
“It was the wicked and wild wind”, is an allusion and metaphor for the US and its allies referring to the ‘Wicked Witch of the West’, and the ‘Wild West’.
“Blew down the doors to let me in”, refers to the help of the US in the 1959 – 1969 assassination attempts and coup d’état’s which put the Ba’ath party and Saddam in power.
“Shattered windows”, refers to the phrase ‘people in glass houses should not throw stones’, and Saddam’s decision to nationalize Iraqi oil production, destroying the foreign ‘glass’ house.
“And the sound of drums”, refers to the drums of war during the Kuwait war and possibly also the Iran – Iraq war.
“People couldn’t believe what I’d become”, refers to the ‘tyrannical’ behavior of causing wars, destabilizing the area, and degrading political relations after the massive social progress and ‘modernization’ that he had done for Iraq.
“Revolutionaries wait”, refers to the US (1775 -1783 American Revolutionary War).
“For my head on a silver plate”, refers to the Iraq war’s purpose of overthrowing Saddam, and the capture, trial, and execution by the US.
“Just a puppet”, refers to the way the US placed Saddam as head of the Iraqi state.
“On a lonely string”, refers to the loss of support (strings) from the US, and the flimsy lies of WMD for the US - Iraq War.
“Oh who would ever want to be King?”, is a lamentation for his predicament, not a real king but a puppet set for execution, and a warning for the future leaders.
“I know Saint Peter will call my name”, there is some debate whether the word is ‘will’ or ‘won’t’, but it refers to either Saddam believing that he was still a good person and only did what he thought was best for his people, himself, and his country; or the realization that he will not survive the war, and that he has no chance of dying graciously or honorably to get into heaven.

This may not be the 'official' meaning of the lyrics, but this is what I interpret them to mean. I think that most artists are inspired by the events that occur during the time in which they live. For this reason, I do not agree that the lyrics are about Napoleon, even if the cover art depicts otherwise. Nikkitacroix (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is definately a song about the life of Napolean, and the title makes sence as "an examination of the life" (of Napolean), and it probably does has references to many current events (such as the Bush / Iraq etc), But please - the lyric is

"Roman CATHOLIC choirs are singing", the way it is sung is Cath - o - lic, but please - no more "calvary choirs" which surely does not make sence! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.185.215.144 (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's "Roman cavalry, choirs are singing." Two separate things. "Roman Catholic choirs" makes no sense there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.44 (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's an awful lot of bollacks in this section. Chris Martin said this song was about not belonging.

This song is not about one king in particular. It is from the point of view of a king that probably never existed. Parts of his story were probably based on kings from the past, but not entirely the same events. This song definitely has something to do with Frida Kahlo's painting of the same name. "Viva la Vida" means "long live life." The band has said that Kahlo went through a lot of pain in life, but then her very last painting read "Viva la Vida." This is what inspired the song. That must mean that the speaker in the song went through a lot of pain, which is evident if you read the lyrics, but that it was all worth it. Maybe that's bad wording, because that doesn't really seem like it's what the song is about. The message in the song is called the theme. Deep songs have themes and aren't supposed to be literal. Don't get this song confused with club music, which is often too literal. The speaker doesn't have to have actually existed. Do you notice that there are tons of metaphors in this song? It isn't clear how they relate to what the theme seems to be, but maybe digging deeper will uncover things that relate to it. ITS NOT ABOUT NAPOLEAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.149.240 (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

24.128.133.89 (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need some cleanup[edit]

This page is a bit messy. Please try to rearrange it, such as putting the chart performance together. Sorry I don't know how to do this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddyfu123 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similarity to Satriani Song[edit]

Someone needs to write that this song is similar to the Joe Satriani Song - If I could Fly. Chris Martin was even in the news about copying other songs- sp it is a significant point. Here is a link to a youtube video confirming it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ofFw9DKu_I

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.44.243 (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but original research is not permitted, let alone linking to original research from an anonymous Youtube source. This claim has to be reported by reliable news sources. --Madchester (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? hobbie (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC) A few problems:[reply]

  1. While MusicRadar is a reliable source, it only has a passing mention of the Satriani video, with no further research of the song similarities. The article does not nothing more than offer a link to the Satriani-Coldplay video.
  2. Both videos fail WP:SELFPUBLISHED, since we generally don't recognize Youtube as a reliable source. However, the CB video was accompanied by the band furthering those allegations in press interviews. Satriani was not involved in the creation of the Youtube comparison video (whereas CB created the video themselves), nor has he made any official claims or allegations.

I've removed the Satriani reference again, unless the artist makes an actual comment about that video. --Madchester (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish?[edit]

I'm sorry, but I've been taking Spanish for around nine years, and I see no way that "viva la vida" means "long live life". There's no word for "long" in the phrase, since the word for long is "largo". I'd say it means roughly "live life", like telling somebody, "live your life". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.222.253 (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm a native spanish speaker from Mexico, and the most aproximate (and almost direct) tranlation for 'Viva la Vida' is 'Long live the Life'. If i'm not being clear is like saying 'hooray to life'. For me, as an spanish speaker, familiar with english, to translate 'viva la vida' to 'live the life' is kind of unnatural, because you don't order someone to live the life. gilb_4 02:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As stated on the album's Discussion board, I'm a linguist, a native Spanish speaker and a native English speaker. The phrase "Viva la vida!" (cf. "Viva España!", "Viva el rey!" and "Vive la France!") can only mean "Long live life!" (just as the others mean "Long life Spain!", "Long live the king!" and "Long live France!"). It does not mean "Alive is the life!" and it is not an instruction to "Live the life!". It is, however, a euphoric and victorious battle cry. Please stop changing the translation to inferior and crude representations. I have checked with three other native Spanish and English people (one of whom is a professional translator and another is a university professor) and they all agree that the correct translation of "Viva la [...]." is "Long live [...]!".

Further proof can be seen here: [1] and here: [2] Ben Merritt (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The Amazon source can't be used per WP:SYN.
  2. The Wordpress source can't be used per WP:RS, since a blog is a non-reliable source.

Right now, no party in this edit war has provided a reliable source to back up their claim. Namely, an article describing the album, which also provides a translation/explanation of the album title. --Madchester (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the proof is what the actual translation of the phrase is, rather than what people who don't really understand translation/interpretation/Spanish/English think it should be? When Spanish citizens went round shouting "Viva el rey!", would an accurate account in English say they were shouting "Alive is the king!"? When French citizens chanted "Vive la France!", were they saying "Live the France!"? Is "Viva España!" really "Alive is the Spain!"? No. Because the best way of translating "Viva [...]" is "Long live [...]". Ben Merritt (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh... Come on!!... just trust us, and if you don't want to trust us, where is your 'realiable' source for the 'live the life' translation eh????. I think I have a more reliable source for the statement that 'Viva la vida' translates as 'Long live life': Vive, Viva. It is another article in the wikipedia itself. Greets from mexico. gilb_4 19:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So it seems all of us educated researchers (and the aforementioned Vive, Viva Wikipedia article itself) agree that it should be "Long Live Life". However, whenever any of us change the article to reflect this, someone else changes it to Alive is the Life or Live the Life (or similar). Anyone know what to do about this? Ben Merritt (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What if the title is possibly part English, and part Spanish? I have seen titles like that before. If you look up the word "viva" in an English dictionary it says something along the lines of "an examination through spoken communication." and "la vida" could mean "the life." then the title would literally mean "a spoken examination of the life." or something along those lines. Which the lyrics do in fact seem to be: an examination of life. This also seems to make much more sense than "long live life." does it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.144.148 (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might or it might not make more sense (to me it doesn't) but it definitely is original research. --JD554 (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm what Ben Merritt says. I'm also a native spanish speaker and a native english speaker (not a linguist though). "Long Live Life" might not be the literate translation of "Viva la Vida", but it is the better suited. The translation of "live the life" or "live life" to spanish would be "vive la vida"(imperative), which is just not the same as "viva la vida" (literate translation: "hooray for life").--Chnt (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "viva" Wiktionary page, Spanish section, ([3]) supports the "long live" theory. The other possible translations would be feminine adjectives (feminine form of "alive") and verbal forms (imperative and subjunctive forms of "to live"), which wouldn't make much sense in this title, not as much as "long live life"; the fact is this exclamation actually derives from the subjunctive form of "vivir", that is "que el viva", meaning "may he live"; therefore to say "viva el rey" means "may the king live", "long live the king". Nowadays its verbal meaning is less connected to the exclamation, which can therefore be used to express support to non-living objects too: "viva España", "viva la vida", not actually meaning "may Spain/life live long", but "hooray for Spain/life/etc.". Similar forms exist in Italian, French, Portuguese and even in German. Here however are some on-line dictionaries which support "long live [...]" [4] [5] [6]. In some of them another translation is listed: "viva", masculin noun, meaning "cheer", as in "three cheers for [somebody]!"; I think it is pretty clear that the translation should be "long live life".--Cebriancobos (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Native Spanish speaker here with a degree in translation and a teaching certificate... the title means "long live life" as in "long live the Queen!", as plenty of other users have pointed out. Why hasn't this been corrected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.132.182 (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of dulcimer?[edit]

Starting at ~2:05 in the song (for ~15 seconds), I think the instrument dulcimer has been used - can someone confirm? Amrishkelkar (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chart Performances[edit]

Where are the chart performances of other countries? Why did you erase them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.6.123.97 (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know it too, someone always deletes the info about the Polish National Top 50... Mixplusik (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video[edit]

Any refrences to say when the video is being made?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nisior (talk • contribs) 13:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism allegations[edit]

I noticed one editor has been continually removing this section. The plagiarism allegations received substantial press coverage from reliable sources and even merited an official response from the band. Had the story A) not been reported by the press and/or B) not led to an official band statement, then you could make a case that the story is irrelevant.

Note that we never reported on the Satriani similarities, since that claim was only from a YouTube video and was never carried by any mainstream media outlets. --Madchester (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: I never said it was false, just irrelevant. There is a TON of stuff that received press coverage from reliable sources and was commented upon by the band. Shall we shove all that info into the article? By my reckoning the plagiarism charge needs to be true to be included, otherwise it is just irrelevant. The American band is so small they don't even have their own Wikipedia page.

In ten years does a reader need to know that an obscure rock group briefly thought Coldplay stole from them? Probably not, which is why WIKIPEDIA IS NOT AN INFORMATION DUMP. The section I removed has no business being in an encyclopedia.

Please stop sending me messages accusing me of vandalism and suggesting I hit up the Sandbox. I cleanly snipped out some clutter and left a good reason why. I'm going to remove it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.66.222 (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The story easily satisfied WP:V and WP:RS. I've restored it into the article. Per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you don't remove verifiable content simply because you don't like it. --Madchester (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madchester, you have a thick skull. I NEVER said it wasn't verifiable. Obviously the information is verified because it was published by a reputable newspaper. EVERYONE AGREES IT IS VERIFIED. That doesn't mean it should be in an encyclopedia, because an encyclopedia is not an information dump. I never removed it because "I don't like it" I removed it because it is NOT GERMANE TO WIKIPEDIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.66.222 (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:IDONTLIKEIT again; you can't simply remove content you don't like. Once again, the allegations were well-documented by the press and merited an official response from the band. This set the claim apart from dozens of other Youtube claims which are unverifiable and unreliably sourced.
The incident also satisfies WP:N. In a nutshell, the policy states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." A simple Google search reveals dozens of media sources providing independent, second-hand coverage of the topic - two such sources from The Independent and The Telegraph are used for writing up this section.
Finally, please refrain from calling people names per WP:NPA.
Thanks, --Madchester (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just read about the alleged plegerism here and have listened to both of the songs. While there is some superficial similarities in the basic melody, it would be quite a stretch to say it was plagiarism. The rhythm sections are completely different and Coldplay's song has quite a bit more depth and orchestration than Joe Satriani's. Also, Joe Satriani looks like a Douche Bag, but I suppose that is irrelevant. --Craig t moore (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding orchestration, don't confuse composition with arrangement. You can arrange any song in any way you like, but it's still the same song. Take Joe Cocker's version of 'With A Little Help From My Friends' with the Beatles original. They have completely different arrangements but they're still the same song. As a musician and songwriter, what matters most is melody and chord progression. If I had inadvertently written a song this close to Satriani's, I would probably throw it out.
BTW, as this issue receives more and more press coverage and especially if it goes to trial, we should probably want to create its own article for this issue. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see what you mean. However, your example may not be a good one since Joe Cocker's song (while a different orchestration) has the same basic melody, structure and (most importantly) words. Perhaps the Hewy Lewis and the News' "I Want A New Drug".vs.Ghost Busters Theme comparison is more apt. This is not the case with these two songs which may make it more difficult to make the plagiarism accusation stick. Just because two songs share a common chord progression doesn't mean its plagiarism. Or does it? Which leads to another question: At what point does it become plagiarism? --Craig t moore (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good questions. You can't copyright a chord progression. But the melody of the chorus of the Satriani song is very, very similar to the melody of Coldplay's verse. I'm not a lawyer, but as a songwriter, I would consider the combination of a nearly identical chord progression with an extremely similar melody to be plagerism. But the Coldplay chorus is original(as far as I know), so they didn't steal the whole song. That's not to say it's intentional. Coldplay might have heard the Satriani song in the background one day and inadvertently copied it. Honestly, I'm not surprised when a songwriter inadvertently copies another song, I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.
A few years ago, Mick Jagger inadvertently plagerized a song by K. D. Lang. Once he realized his mistake, he decided to keep the song the same, but credited Lang as co-songwriter. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"Also, Joe Satriani looks like a Douche Bag, but I suppose that is irrelevant"... No, your opinions are irrelevant. Nina137.111.47.29 (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer or anything, but I don't see how it ISN'T stolen from Satriani. On hearing both songs, as I have many many times (cos I love both musicians), I HAVE to state that it is at the very least "inspired" by Satriani. If I didn't I'd be LYING. It's the SAME Melody...the exact same. I know at this point Coldplay are a lot more POPULAR than Satriani, and have made great (POPULAR) music in the past....but this is just...WEAK. Weak, Weak, Weak, Weak, Weak. No getting around it. And please don't talk $#!+ about Satriani.....Coldplay's great...but just not in the same league as St. Joe. Not even close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.165.18.196 (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Song Lyrics[edit]

Wouldn't it be useful to have a link to song lyrics under External Links so then it would look like:

External Links

- Coldplay official site
- Viva La Vida lyrics
Alexme (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing you user page, just a reminder that Wiki is not a platform for promoting personal websites; i.e., your personal song lyrics site. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

risk[edit]

when i heard this song i thought it was about a guy who played an awsome round of risk only to be dissapointed when he woke up in the morning and had to return to his day to day life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.241.25 (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation[edit]

Can someone explain why the rev. I made to add "Disambiguation" was removed as "not needed". I would have thought 2 popular music songs with exactly the same name ought to be disambiguated. Gungho (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why when there isn't an article for the other version? The fact something has the same name isn't really noteworth. --JD554 (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accidential Alizee cover[edit]

The songs intro sounds a bit like Alizee "J'ai en marre". - [7] 78.94.185.121 (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually J'en ai marre and you're right, it does sound a bit like it. But I'm also sure, like you, that it's purely coincidental. IndieSinger (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirect change[edit]

The redirect needs to be removed. By typing in Viva la Vida you actually get the album and not the song. I would be gratefulif it could be changed. I tried doing it earlier but I couldn't get the formatting right. Matt G (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

I noticed an editor labeled the song as being "baroque pop" based on this link: http://www.umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b.4447105/k.5F9D/Coldplay_Viva_la_Vida.htm

The United Methodist Church is not what you would call an authority on popular music. The author also labels it as ", experimental and atmospheric modern rock"; the baroque-pop reference is only in passing and has little direct support for that claim. In summary, the baroque pop label for the song doesn't work, since the provided source fails WP:RS. --Madchester (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baroque pop is defined as: This style, with clear indie-rock inclinations, uses additional members in the band to create a fuller-bodied, more orchestral sound. Many artists often highlight songs with unique instruments not found in most modern popular music such as the accordion or harpsichord. The writing style of the genre often has a distinct narrative quality to it and often makes references to history, literature, philosophy, and folklore. I would say that's a pretty appropriate label (considering the symphony almost entirely comprises the song's instrumentation and the narrative describes a king's fall from grace). I would absolutely not call it "alternative rock", since that is an umbrella term (which is not very accurate in this case) and I haven't seen any critics refer to it as such, not to mention there is a more specific genre to characterize the song's sound. I can't really find many references for "baroque pop", since it isn't the most widely used term, but it's not uncommon to label similar sounding music as such ("Nine in the Afternoon", "Eleanor Rigby", "Penny Lane", Pet Sounds). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without valid reliable sources for the genre, adding Baroque pop is WP:OR. --JD554 (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then. How about, in an article comparing Joe Satriani's piece to this song, it is referred to as "chamber pop", which is just an alternate term for Baroque pop (as mentioned in the baroque pop article)? [8] "Above all of this, Coldplay has orchestrated a lush collection of cellos and various string sounds in service of what is essentially haunting, deeply inspired chamber- pop. There’s nary a distorted guitar within earshot, as opposed to Satriani’s mild boogie, which is all about the keening, heavily distorted electric guitar line." Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside that the article is an editorial, it describes Coldplay as an "alternative pop" band too. Given this doesn't sound all that different from other Coldplay songs, and all those are labeled alternative rock, why not just go for consistency? Also, I'm pretty sure baroque pop in modern usage is intended to describe bands like Belle and Sebastian and the Decemberists, who are quite a bit different than Coldplay. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All that different from other Coldplay songs? Most Coldplay songs are dominated by guitar or piano, and they have standard rock instrumentation. This song mostly features a string section, timpani, chimes, with limited use of drums and guitar. I realize you want to maintain consistency in articles related to the band, but wouldn't that just compromise the accuracy of this song's article? If it isn't really a rock song, but just a song by a rock band, wouldn't it make more sense to label the song's genre as it really is, rather than what the band's genre is? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Won't then will[edit]

Is there an authoritative/official site that lists the lyrics. The first time it is clearly "I know St. Peter won't call my name", and this is mentioned in the article. However it sound to me (and to many others based on the number of lyrics sites that agree) that the second time the lyric is "I know St. Peter will call my name". Many of the lyric sites have posts going back and forth on the second time's wording, and it would be nice to have the correct answer, as opposed to various listener opinions. —MJBurrage(T•C) 19:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According the citation used from the BBC (a reliable source) the Q magazine article (another reliable source) the lyric being explained is "won't". It may change to "will" later in the song but that is irrelevant to the quote being used and to which Chris Martin is giving an explanation. --JD554 (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the first St. Peter line says "won't call my name"; but I am specifically asking about the second St. Peter line. Is there an authoritative source for that? —MJBurrage(T•C) 14:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources as far as I know - Coldplay's official website doesn't have them, they're not in the album's liner notes and Parlophone's website doesn't have them either. Any other site (especially the lyrics databases) is likely to be original research or guesswork at best. --JD554 (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could try to go to a music store and look up the sheet music. Usually, they'll print the lyrics along with the music. Make sure you write down the name of the book, publisher, etc. so you can cite where you found the info. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coldplay's official Viva la Vida Tour Programme features the song's lyrics and uses "won't" both times. Scans of the programme are here. 58.7.105.226 (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Layout[edit]

WP:SONGS#Article_content states that the layout should be in the following order:

  • Main body: discussing background, reception etc.
  • Track listing
  • Music video and lyrics
  • Charts and succession
  • External links

--JD554 (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline does not says its should be the layout, only the content. I have raised concern at the wikiproject. --Efe (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Release and Promotion Clarification of Citation[edit]

Under "Release and Promotion" there is:

"Viva la Vida" was initially released only with iTunes Store pre-orders of Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends on 7 May 2008 – the "new edit" version of the song – which led to the song's temporary exclusion from the UK Singles Chart.

Giving its reference as this MJS article.

But that citation at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is pretty much just a short critical piece that does not mention its exclusion from the UK Singles Chart. Is the citation wrong, or perhaps just in the wrong place? Oswald Glinkmeyer (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Viva la Vida/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a nicely written article, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    I'm not crazy about the genre being labelled "baroque pop" (I would just say "rock"), but I guess I can live with it
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    See below for areas that I think need more coverage and work
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    Still looks to be a lot of editing and some reversion on it
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Good luck improving the article

(These review templates are a pain. Easier just to write here.) I like the article, but have these concerns/suggestions, in no particular order:

  • The lead section is too short. Summarize more of the article and, if possibly, capture the 'feel' of the song and its success, so that readers will be drawn in to see more.
  • The arrangement description should include more on the church bell use. It's one of the most visually distinctive part of their playing it, and is shown on the video (and which member is doing that?) On their SNL performance, the bells were hugely visible.
  • The "oooh's" layered vocal part near the end should be mentioned, as it's another key part of the song's hooks.
  • Aren't there some interpretations that focus more on the song's applicability to ordinary life, and not just to kings/revolutions/etc? Don't have a good reference for this right now, alas.
  • The SNL performance should be mentioned, as it's a very visible outlet in the U.S.
  • The article should discuss how they play the song live. From what I heard, they struggle to reproduce the layered, orchestral sound and overall "oomph", even though multiple backing tracks seem to be used.
  • Of the two plagiarism charges, the Satriani one appears to be the more serious, yet gets less space. Maybe mention the YouTube mashup that puts the two sections on top of each other? And also, be clearer on what part of the song is being accused. From what I heard, it was just the strings riff into 'For some reason I can't explain ...'
  • Footnote 12 isn't fully formatted, with publisher etc.
  • The publisher field in the footnotes is linked sometimes, not others. Should be consistent (I favor linking
  • The article doesn't quite get across the nature of the song, and why it's been such a big hit. Writing about music is hard! I won't hold up a GA for this, but see if you can spice it up a bit in this respect.

If you have questions or object to any of these comments, let me know here and we can discuss. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I formatted ref #12 with {{cite web}}. After doing a pretty thorough Google search, I don't really think that Coldplay's Saturday Night Live performance is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article; yes, SNL is a major show here in the USA, but it was kind of hard to find more than just a few reliable sources that mention the band's appearance on the show, much less highlighting on their performance of the song "Viva la Vida" alone. Jamie☆S93 02:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Chart performance' comments

  • "'Viva la Vida' has become one of the band's most commercially successful songs." – We're all going to have different definitions of 'commercially successful', so it's better to replace with something objective like 'highest charting'.
  • Commercial is being understood in the music scene as well-downloaded, high-charting, etc. But I changed it per suggestion. Looks more specific. --Efe (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then how do we define "well-downloaded" and "high-charting"? See the problem? That's why we just stick to the numbers. —Zeagler (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does reference [28] (the Katie Hasty Billboard article) support anything about the single?
  • Changed ref link. Now points to the proper source. --Efe (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the song was initially successful in digital sales" – source? And what constitutes 'successful'?
  • Ref 28. "Successful" is supported by "Fueled by high digital sales" above. --Efe (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now you have a source that provides the number of downloads. Use that number instead and let the reader decide for himself whether it qualifies as "successful". —Zeagler (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it went on to become the band's biggest radio hit in the United States" – biggest is POV. Highest charting?
  • Did some changes. --Efe (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was also successful on the Billboard Modern Rock Tracks chart, becoming their first number one on the chart" – POV. Why not just "It also became their first number one on the Billboard Modern Rock Tracks chart"?
  • "beating previous songs 'Talk' and 'Speed of Sound'" - replace "beating" with "besting"
  • This line was removed as it became nonsense after revising the preceding clause. --Efe (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as well as the first single on the Capitol Records label to ever top the chart" – trivia
  • Not a trivia. Record labels do count on their number-ones. --Efe (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's relevant anywhere, it'd be at the Capitol Records article. As far as this song is concerned, the fact offers no insight and constitutes trivia. (The supporting reference is out of date, anyway.) —Zeagler (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The single was also successful in the United Kingdom." – drop this and reorder the paragraph. —Zeagler (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Zeagler (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images

  • How do you know that Chris Martin is performing "Viva la Vida" in the first image?
  • That's not the image to which I was referring. —Zeagler (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The music video screencaps need beefed-up fair use rationales, as well as better captions that explain specifically what we are supposed to take away from them.
  • The music sample also needs a more specific caption, as the sample will do nothing to further my understanding that the song is built around a string arrangement. Try using a quote from a critic about the string arrangement instead; then the use of a sample is justified so that the reader can decide if the critic is on target.
  • The caption is enough and specific. Its a support of what readers are about to head from the sample. --Efe (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not sufficient, especially for a fair use sample. See WP:CAP. —Zeagler (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Zeagler (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Failing. Unfortunately I'm going to have to fail this nomination. It's been in hold status for a week, the usual waiting period, and there isn't any real momentum towards resolving all the issues raising above. The nominator of the article at WP:GAN, User:Matthew R Dunn, doesn't seem to have ever worked on this article, never a good sign. There's also still a fair amount of churn in the article. It can always be resubmitted another time. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music videos[edit]

The following was removed from the section and has been placed here in case someone else wants to add it back in somewhere else.

"A parody of this music video, "Viva la Cheata", was done on the Fox sketch show MADtv. It starred Jerry O'Connell as John Edwards, who sings about how his affair and possible love child have ruined his political career, although he is confident that he will rebound since political sex scandals have been around for a long time."

Also, even before the segment was removed, the two images spilled over into the next section, making for a rather unprofessional look. I have removed the following images in hopes that someone can work them into a better place:

File:Vivalavida1.jpg
File:Vivalavida2.jpg

Thanks,  Aaron  ►  00:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most played song of 2008[edit]

The website last.fm has this song as the most played of 2008 based on users' scrobbles. Notable enough? It is a pretty big website and probably indicates THE most played song even among non members.  PN57  11:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bonus Tracks[edit]

are these tracks for a special version or something? Coz i have a copy, a normal copy, and i don't have those last two tracks at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigs1890 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alizée plagiarism allegations[edit]

I've removed the claims per WP:UNDUE, since Alizée has never made any personal allegations about the song similarities. This story is only reporting fans noticing similarities between the songs. The Satriani similarities were also noted by fans on Youtube for many months. However, it was only after Satriani filed his lawsuit against Coldplay that the allegations became official and were added to the article. Likewise, the Creaky Boards allegations were not added when their Youtube video went viral - but after news media picked up on the viral phenomenon and interviewed the band for an official statement. Wiki is not news and we're not going to be adding new plagiarism "allegations" every time fans post Youtube videos or blog posts showing similarities between two songs. --Madchester (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

song meaning, "French Revolution", etc.[edit]

The page used to say "The song is about the French Revolution". This is clearly wrong. The reference given was a music review in an obscure online magazine -- clearly not a reliable source (see WP:RS). In fact, in such as case as this, the only reliable source is statements of the band members themselves or official album info (e.g. in the album insert). AFAIK no band members have said anything more specific than that the song is generally about revolutionaries and fallen kings -- see the quotes in the article. The album artwork of Delacroix's Liberty Leading the People is not proof that the song is about the French Revolution, or for that matter about anything in French history (note that the painting is about the 1830 revolution in France, not the 1789 one that is normally called the "French Revolution".

In fact, if you look on the Internet you can find people arguing in favor of nearly any famous authority figure. I personally believe that, if anything, the song is more likely about the Crusades -- this fits the mixture of religion and absolute power that appear in the lines like "missionaries in a foreign field" and "Roman Cavalry choirs" better than any of the other suggestions (French Revolution, Napoleon, Charles X, Nero, Caesar, GW Bush, etc. etc.), not to mention clear references to "Jerusalem bells". As for "Roman Cavalry choirs", during the Middle Ages (esp. around the time of the Crusades) the city of Rome and many surrounding provinces were known as the Papal States and ruled directly by the Pope, so it's hardly surprising that in the Crusades (which were, after all, a series of religious wars), there would be a church-sponsored Roman Cavalry, who might well have had priests who marched along with them and sang religious hymns. Perhaps a better interpretation, however, is metaphorical -- the holy warriors sent out by the Pope during the Crusades are metaphorically "Roman Cavalry" (i.e. the Pope's army) and hence the religious war hymns they sang along the way to keep themselves motivated could be seen as "Roman Cavalry choirs".

But all of this is just personal speculation, and doesn't belong in the article. What I did instead is try to follow proper Wikipedia procedure by:

  1. Not asserting anything controversial without reliable sources.
  2. Instead, noting the people claim the song is about X, Y, Z, ...
  3. Giving the unambiguous religious references contained in the lyrics (pillar of salt, St. Peter) and the likely but not unambiguous religious references (commanding the sea to rise, building castles on sand, having one's head delivered on a silver plate), and the Biblical sources of those references.
  4. Not saying anything else about the meaning beyond direct quotes from band members.

Please keep in mind that info can go in *only* if either

  1. It is clearly uncontroversial.
  2. It is reliably sourced. There are strict requirements for this, which become more stringent the more disputed any particular statement is.

Benwing (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flaking away vs. Crumbling[edit]

There have been edit wars about the wording of a description of one of the scenes, if it should be flaking away or crumbling. Or should that description just be deleted, as it is not really needed. Thoughts? Mr. moose (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I had already removed the sentence before this discussion began...I guess I'm for removing it. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 00:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm for removing it all together, it is not very relevant overall. Mr. moose (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote #3[edit]

Goes to a 404 page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.13.136 (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long live life[edit]

Hi there, I'm half Italian and half Scottish, but I grew up in Italy, and I can assure you that "Viva la vida" (in Italian it would be like "Viva la ViTa") will never mean "live life"... it is clearly "LONG LIVE LIFE", because "Viva" is not a true imperative, it is an incitement we use as "long live sthg", trust me... "live life" actually means nothing, if you think about it. :-) Can I remove the "live life" quote? I'll do that only when someone will answer to this one, of course. :-)

Long live life[edit]

Hi there, I'm half Italian and half Scottish, but I grew up in Italy, and I can assure you that "Viva la vida" (in Italian it would be like "Viva la ViTa") will never mean "live life"... it is clearly "LONG LIVE LIFE", because "Viva" is not a true imperative, it is an incitement we use as "long live sthg", trust me... "live life" actually means nothing, if you think about it. :-) Can I remove the "live life" quote? I'll do that only when someone will answer to this one, of course. :-) Gianmaria Framarin 15:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native Spanish speaker, and I can tell you that "viva" is actually an imperative. The most common form is "vive", but you can say "viva" in a more gentle way. Having said that, I think that "viva la vida" means almost obviously "long live life", but there's nothing that can deny the possibility of "live life". --Moraleh (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NO that's all wrong even thou i didn't even read it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.153.104 (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should Darin's version section be removed?[edit]

Is it really needed to have an infobox about his version? It's not really notable outside Sweden an there's little information about it on the article, don't you think it should be on the list along with the other covers and not with it's own section? Rafa42 (talk • contributions)] 16:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

swearing[edit]

In the article it says the F word. Isn't that not allowed?

Grinquest11 (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Garrett Rinquest[reply]

The word itself is fine (see WP:NOTCENSORED). That quote, however, seems a little too long for us to use in full. Hot Stop 03:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closer lyrical analysis would be helpful.[edit]

I think a new section focusing on analysis of the lyrics would be helpful. After visiting this site in order to understand the song better, I still have no idea what half the lyrics mean, for instance; 'roman cavalry choirs are singing'. When did the roman cavalry ever have a choir? What is this meant to mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.255.3 (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Viva la Vida. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream Top 40 only # 12?[edit]

you all might know the mainstream top 40 charts ? Other word for it POP SONGS

and i wondered how the song could have reachd only #12 on that chart and beeing however # 1 on the hot 100 !

I mean they are british and their music is not the same like rihanna but how they could reach # 1 with #12 mainstream top 4o position?



On thje other hand why there are not chart positions for RADIO SONGS or digital songs or just SALES? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.0.137.8 (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Viva la Vida. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Viva la Vida. 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) 14:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Putsch hymn[edit]

I remember the night from July 15. to 16. in 2016 and the morning after this night this song was played about a dozen times on German radio. The first time I heard it in the night was right after the (false) announcement that Erdogan wanted to flee to Germany but was refused to land on German soil. I think this is worth mentioning in the article. --92.75.197.142 (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of song... to me[edit]

I think everyone misses the real meaning behind this song. Everywhere I have looked to find the meaning of this song takes the words way too literally. Yes he is talking about a king, but it is a representation. Songs are like poems, many times the actual words are just representing other things. Like Hotel California is not about a hotel, it is about addiction. And knocking on heaven's door is about a very specific drug that is easy to overdose on and nearly kills you, thus you're knocking on heaven's door, or nearly dying.

The meaning I see in Viva la Vida is about a guy who lost his family via an addiction, either drugs or adultery, but most likely adultery. Sexual addiction can be a powerful drug and can lead you to making very risky, compulsive actions. He was like a king, on top of the world! He thought he had it all, the beautiful wife, the big house, career, kids, etc. People would listen when he spoke, an educated man doing big things with his life, making money, growing his wealth, his family. He was important, he had status, respect. But the whole time he had been chasing women (or men, or worse) on the side, his secret life. Never an honest word, had to constantly lie to keep his double life a secret. Then one day it all came to light, and his whole life came crashing down. He had the world wrapped around his finger, with dishonesty. A life built upon pillars of salt and sand, a life that could easily be toppled over if there was a storm. Have you ever met a married couple such as this? Many of us have. Who wants your head on a silver plate when they find out about what you did to your wife behind her back all those years? Only all your mutual friends, church members, and her whole family. Saint Peter is the gatekeeper of heaven's door and he will not call your name, you're an adulterer.

Some guy in AZ (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag (June 2023)[edit]

Many release dates are mentioned in this article. Cherrell410 (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New peaks[edit]

Doesn't mention the reason behind the new peaks looks like increased streaming but why? DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Viva_la_Vida&oldid=1203863539"