Talk:American Pie (song)/Archive 2

American Pie (covers)
hi ppl no fighting or anything but i suggest that this page be broken up, the don mclean pie is too big so there should be a separate page for covers only, example Madonna's version and other artist. Anyone agree? This proposed page could be called American Pie (covers) Rsf7589 20:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I want 2 mention that i was lucky enough 2 see him perform at a county fair and he performed american pie and because he liked it the saga begins also —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypergoof (talk • contribs) 05:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

original research
Great article for the most part, but every claim needs to be cited. Otherwise, this is original research. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 21:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Article shows both sides of all the interpetations so it is definitely NPOV and I don't know were we would find citations to back all clams in the article. Yamaka122 12:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Book of Love / Propriety of the approach
Hmmm... I have to say that I don't buy "Who Wrote the Book of Love?" as Christian imagery. The song lyrics refer to a set of "rules" for romance, including breakup and reconciliation. If I were trying to interpret that reference, I would say that, in juxtaposition with the references to God, it's asking whether we (the listeners, the composer, whoever) still find that the world "works" by the rules we were taught (about relationships, religion, everything), or whether these somewhat simplistic rules no longer apply (or never did).

That's what I'd say if I were interpreting it - but I'm not, at least not in the context of Wikipedia, because that's not appropriate here. And I really have to question whether any attempt at sorting through the multiple interpretations of individual lines IS actually appropriate here.

In an encyclopedia entry on a popular song, it would seem most important to identify 1.) that the song is seen as requiring interpretation and is often interpreted, with varying degrees of consistency and historicity; 2.) whatever has actually been said about the song's content and meaning by its composer(s), as officially established interpretation, and 3.) a sampling of other prominent theories about its content and meaning and some of the strong/weak points in them (which is where a few examples of differing interpretation could be offered, along with their sources).

As long as the article is mainly an attempt to sort through interpretations for each specific line, there WILL be original research involved - it's inevitable. I suggest that it would be much more encyclopedic to change the format of the article; instead of sections on specific lines and verses, there should be sections on general themes, each containing a few examples of lines which contain those themes and how they have been interpreted. For instance, references to religion is a general theme; few could argue that it contains those. References to popular music and musicians, social/political references, etc. could also be general themes. Under those very broad categories, specific lyrics could be quoted to show the references, and then examples of prominent interpretations for a FEW of those quotes could be listed, along with their sources and any specific evidence for or against.

Without making some kind of change in this vein, I don't know that the article can ever be encyclopedic. Sure, interpretation IS what we as individuals and listeners are supposed to be doing with the song, but here we are not individuals and listeners, but writers and editors of a type of document which requires a lot more restraint.

Food for discussion, anyway (I hope).

Incidentally, I always thought the Chevy was attempting suicide. ;)

Hierophany 08:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the artist has never explained his work, any interpretations of it are suspect. However, citing an expert who has studied the matter from many angles is better than us doing it ourselves, that being against the rules. As with many works of popular media, there is a literal interpretation which requires no extraordinary verification ("who wrote the book of love?" is a line from a 1950s song and the obvious source of the literal wording), but the symbolic interpretation, having religious overtones, is a different story. Wahkeenah 09:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Note from an A.P. fan
O.K., i am a huge fan of the song and if i remember correctly (which i do; i mean, i memorized the entire song by heart [proof that not all of us kids are lost]), the lyrics in part of the article go:
 * 'Cause the players tried to take the field, the marching band refused to yield.

instead, they should go:
 * As the players tried to take the field, the marching band refused to yield.

I have fixed this problem HHS.student
 * I've always wondered about this line — is it a reference to the Kent State shootings? Captain Quirk (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've long held the same opinion, i.e. that it is a reference to the Kent State shootings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.109.143 (talk) 09:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

seperation
we should divide this article into the main article and an article about the symbolism. perhapes under Symbolism in American Pie (song) HHS.student 15:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 20:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

split the article
I'm thinking to split this article into the original version and another article on the Madonna version? Naysie 07:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I second that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.84.66 (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is only 25,112 bytes. There's no need for a split. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

True but the whole Madonna section isn't needed or entirely relevant, and simply falls under the category of covers  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.138.188 (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In Fact it's almost become a Madonna cover page, with a huge part of the page dedicated to her version and it's performance in the charts. The page ends with a link to all of Madonna's work/albums/songs etc. rather than Don McLean and should be moved to a Madonna cover page  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.138.188 (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

At the very least the Madonna section should be cut, and take up less space on the page with pictures —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.132.19 (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

An entire article dedicated to one cover version? Is that even precedented? If not that's not in itself a reason not to do it, but it would make more sense to have one separate article about all the cover versions (including adapted versions currently listed under "Other parodies, revisions and uses"). I don't think splitting the article is necessary though: the problem is not that the whole article is too long, but parts about the original Don Mclean version have in the past been savagely edited while the section on the Madonna version is detailed and properly researched, so the article is now imbalanced, with the section on the Madonna cover dominating. This can be addressed by adding more sourced and relevant information about the Don McLean original in order to restore appropriate balance. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This article could use a rewrite
This article could use a rewrite This article could use a rewrite 01:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ummm no!!! Its an "A" rated article. Yamaka122 12:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Recording history and release
Several comments and a question about "American Pie" as a single:

Has anyone confirmed the existence of a 45 with "American Pie" on the A-side and "Empty Chairs" on the B-side, as mentioned in the article? I followed the source link -- yeah, I know it's Don McLean's own page -- but I remain skeptical. In 30-plus years of collecting, I've never seen a copy. It doesn't mean it's not out there, but I'd sure like to see it with my own eyes! I know that it was originally scheduled to be released that way, but I have no concrete evidence to suggest that it ever was.

Second, it might be worth noting -- perhaps in the "Time" section in the breakout box -- that three different single versions exist. I can grab the exact times off my original 45s if need be (or would that be considered "original research"?):

As mentioned in the main article, "American Pie" was issued by United Artists as (Part 1) and (Part 2) on the popular 45.

There also was a unique edit done for radio stations (this could have been the version that would have been on the A-side with "Empty Chairs" as the flip). It contains the first (slow) occurrence of the chorus at the start of the song, follows with verse 1, 2 and 4 and their choruses in their entirety, then concludes with a short faded repeat of "Bye, bye, Miss American Pie."

Finally, in 1992 the entire LP cut was issued on one side of a 45 in the U.S. for the first time, on a reissue single on the U.S. EMI label. Cheemo 07:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If someone can verify the "single"/radio edit versions (as compared to the full-length version that was/is almost universally played), that should be included in the article. As an aside, an abridged version was played on the January 15, 1972 broadcast of "American Top 40" (which included just the first three verses and the faded repeat of the refrain ("Bye, bye Miss American Pie ..."), but whether this was the single release Cheemo speaks of or just Part 1 (on the 7" single's A-side, with the fade being to give it a "graceful ending") played due to that particular show's time constraints — several other AT40 shows from the song's chart run play the full-length version — that would have to be confirmed through the appropriate sources. Sorry to sound confusing, but I hope I'm understood. Briguy52748 (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)]]
 * Update to my previous edit - According to "Goldmine Price Guide to 45 rpm Records" 4th ed. (ed. Tim Neely, Krause Publications, Iola, Wis., 2003. (ISBN 0873496302), there were several "American Pie" 45s issued. One is a 1974 reissue, while several have Parts 1 and 2 divided on the single. There is also one listing containing "Empty Chairs" as the B-side (as Cheemo alludes to), but it states beneath that "Unreleased?" (meaning its release status - be it for radio airplay or retail sale - is apparently not known as of the printing of this edition; in fact, no prices are listed). The bad thing about it is, this is simply a price directory and as such does not explain the edits at all (such as content or where fades happen in the "single"/Part 1 edit). I guess the only way to know for sure is to obtain (if it exists) a copy of the "American Pie"/"Empty Chairs" 45 and listen, but whether this would be acceptable to include in the article under original research guidelines I don't know. Briguy52748 (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)]]

I think it needs some minor changes--like copyediting.Jadams19 (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As a big fan of the song, from the time it was released, I can confirm that that there was very definitely a promotional version of "American Pie" with "Empty Chairs" on the B-side. It was even the subject of controversy in a phone-in quiz, because it was not sold to the public and so the caller (to the radio station) had little chance of getting the right answer. To the best of my recollection, this promotional version started with the chorus and had the second, third and fifth stanzas, fading out on a repeated chorus. 10:08 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Crikey, how long has the article been in such a mess? The contradictions in the information given on the releases must surely be obvious even to someone with no specialist knowledge. Please tell me the previous version of the article rated as A-class did not contain this misinformation? If it did then surely someone should have picked up on it at the time? The infobox listed:

B-side 	Empty Chairs (first release) American Pie part 2 (second release) Released October 1971 (first release) November 1991 (second release)
 * which would mean that American Pie Part 2 would have been the B-side of the 1991 version! Meanwhile the article stated

Some Top 40 stations initially played only side two of the single, but the song's popularity eventually forced stations to play the entire piece.
 * thereby making it clear that it was the earlier release which had Part 1 as its A-side and Part 2 as its B-side. The discrepancy is quite blatant (and I happen to know that the "B-side" tracks of the '91 re-release were Vincent on the cassette version (whose A-side I believe was a shortened version of American Pie, possibly Part 1), with Vincent and Castles In The Air on the CD which featured the full American Pie). Thanks for the info, people. I'm supposed to be working right now but fixed the infobox a bit. I'll worry about the article's other issues another time. Any info on B-side track(s) of 1992 45 mentioned above? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Die Live Sex More
Shouldn't this article include something about the DieLiveSexMore chant at CTY (Center for Talented Youth). I'll add this later, if nobody else does.70.23.248.149 06:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The tradition should be in the CTY article, not the article on the song. Not many people will care about CTY.  Marlith  T / C  23:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Split
The article should be split into the main article and an article for the symbolism. the point is that the article is getting way to long and it is a pain.HHS.student 19:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, this article needs to remain intact. It's an A rated article which is hard to come by, and the analysis of the symbolism is a huge part of what makes it so highly rated. Besides, once the symbolism and cultural references are removed, there is precious little left of the main article. When an article is given an A status, it means the article is complete. Check the discussion linked at the top of the page regarding page assessment. Leave a success alone!! Wildhartlivie 08:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I also oppose the split. The article is not excessively long, and really the symbolism is what is most notable about the song. That said, I doubt this article will remain A rated for long because of the amount of unsourced/WP:OR material. / edg ☺ ★ 05:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Large-scale cleanup
Given the prolonged and pervasive violation of WP:OR that this article has been, I have aggressively removed as much speculation and unsourced material as I can. (Don't worry—it's all still in the history.) Sadly, this also means removing sourced material that no longer fits in. I'll try to archive some here. Deltabeignet 03:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The solution is to source it, not to delete it! This was an A-Class article! There was definitely some clean-up needed, but I don't think so much needed to be removed.[User:75.165.255.185|75.165.255.185]] 22:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.255.185 (talk)


 * But you can't source it. That's the problem. Anything not explicitly confirmed by Don McLean is speculation, and "The Annotated 'American Pie'" is scarcely a reliable source. More sources=more speculation. 'A-Class' is only a label, one that looked untenable in light of this article's original research problems. Having wiped the slate clean, we can try to keep this article in good condition. Deltabeignet 02:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Dkwong323 reverted me, recommending against overzealous editing of a Class A article. I must say I at first tried to remove as little as I could—unfortunately, that would have destroyed the strucutre and flow of the article. A large deletion was the radical but necessary solution many have called for. Deltabeignet 04:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

the "clean up" was just a large-scale removeal of information that can't be backed up because of the artists refusal to clarify. Wikipedia is not perfect we know that I usually wouldn't look things up on Wikipedia if i could find something better, but these are personal opinions on an important American song. This is the exact thing Wikipedia is great for. The reasons given were backed up with explinations they may not be sources but they allow the reader to form their own opinion which they have to do anyway due to the lack of varifacation from Don McLain. 72.86.115.126 22:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "just a large-scale removeal of information that can't be backed up because of the artists refusal to clarify." I'm afraid that was pretty much the idea. I will point you to Reliable sources, Verifiability, and No original research. Information is good, but bad information is often worse than none. Deltabeignet 23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that Wikipedia can also document what "many" or "most" critics interpret the song to mean, with citations. Whatever many or most mean.  Those sources would be much easier to locate than McLean's nonexistent explanations.  Karl Dickman talk 11:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ok, i can deal with your rules but i would have to argue that the article wasn't full of "bad" information it was full of origional information much of which was discussed only in the boards before being added although i guess you would consider that bad, in many cases i would probably agree, but not in this one. With that being said i would like to say i do understand you not taking "common sense mixed with discussion" as a reliable source. my first comment was not a jab at you but more me saying i disagree with your idea of calling it a "clean up" which was insulting. i saw this article as a work in progress which you halted, and thank you Karl for pointing out that one can use what many or most critics think. i think what the article said would pretty much be right and if those other critics weren't so hard to find we'd probably have the same article as before you deleted most of it, but with citations. but what i now think after actually reading wikipedia's rules (ok skimming) is that those people who care about the article's creation should start an area of discussion where the sourced information can be compiled before being added. I would do this but im just a guy with 2 posts who enjoyed this article and was disapointed that the interesting parts were deleted, and as an enthusiast of this particular song i would like to say that i think the information was right and with a little more time you could probably put a lot of the information back up, although i have looked a little and i didn't find much.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.146.237 (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Common sense mixed with discussion" and "personal opinions on an important American song" are original research, and not what Wikipedia does. The cleanup was very much needed. If McLean intends for the lyrics to be unexplained and cryptic, then that is very much the point of the song. Synthesizing an interpretation from other "sourced information" would only create some arbitrary arithmetic mean of others' original research (or more likely, a POV analysis of others' original research).


 * This articles lists several sites with interpretations, if that is what you enjoy reading. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah I know there are some nice sites here that have interpretations thanks for understanding my rant. all i really meant by that was im sad to see it go and the only reason i use wikipedia is for things like this, im just disapointed that wikipedia isn't actually meant for those things. its funny really. "McLean intends for the lyrics to be unexplained and cryptic, then that is very much the point of the song." thats actually a good point the article should contain something along those lines (i know it does kinda, but it could be reworded like that) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.146.237 (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The writing in this article could use some work. We don't want to overstate McLean's intentions. We don't know for instance that he wrote the song with the intent of creating a mystery. What's clear is he knows it's the song's hook, and he encourages interest in the song by not explaining it. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Usenet FAQ as an external link


I'd like to restore the Usenet FAQ as an external link. While it is self-published and not suitable as a citation, it is has more information and is probably more notable a reference than the Octopus's Garden link. Would this be acceptable? / edg ☺ ★ 23:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No follow the rules loser --The Blizzard King 23:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Consensus is a rule. So is Civility. [[Image:Smile-tpvgames.gif]]. / edg ☺ ★ 04:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The person from Iraq
A person from Iraq doesnt like the song and haves so much time that they can delete almost everything every 10 min(same person). They accidentally wrote they hated Americans on this page but then delete it(its in the history of this page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Blizzard King (talk • contribs) 23:19, 19 September 2007

A-class?!?!
This is not an A-class article. This is more like start-class. I'm changing it. I suppose the standards on wikipedia were different when this was rated "A-Class." Well times have changed and this is a easily a "start-class" article.  cowbellcity45  talk  06:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The standards weren't different, the article was. That was before the "clean-up" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.73.164 (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Holy scare quotes, Batman!
 * Seriously, the A rating didn't take into account the amount of original research and second-hand speculation in the pre-cleanup version. This song invites lengthy and highly speculative interpretation, but a Wikipedia article cannot interpret the song. Several more-or-less definitive annotations are linked from this article, so losing that business isn't much of a sarcrifice. However, it clearly ticks off editors who wish to see interpretations presented. (Side note: just imagine the edit wars that would lead to.)
 * This is a pretty notable song, and a featured-class article is surely possible. Anyone interested in improving this article might want to look at the "model" articles listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. / edg ☺ ★ 21:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Original research being repeatedly restored
The OR version was restored.  Marlith  T / C  01:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And is reverted. All the changes since the restore constitute original research, so there's nothing to preserve since then.
 * This one might end in in dispute resolution. Obviously there's much initiative to create an unencyclopedic article. However, several "interpretations" are already linked. It is unlikely that anything thought up here will supercede The Annotated "American Pie", and even if they did, Wikipedia is not a place to publish new research. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And again, this time with lyrics, a massive WP:COPYVIO. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Audio annotated American Pie
I remember hearing a audio annotated version of American Pie in the early 70s (possibly around 1973/74), but can find no reference to it on the web. As the song played a man's voice spoke an intrepretation of each line. Does anyone else remember this or have any information on it?

Look At This
"All the above bands mentioned above were influenced by the song "American Pie." There, however, are many other bands that were influenced by this great song..."

this dose not relley seem to wikiapedia like, i mean useing the word great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.211.83.82 (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The lyrics
I think that since the lyrics are very well known and since I am technically quoting them (and the fact that they are on the German Wikipedia) and are on several sites, they should be kept, along with the interpretation. December 21, 2012 (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Technically quoting" is not a way around WP:COPYVIO. Only very short quotes are allowed. Interpretation is not allowed except via a notable source. And since your "massive edit" was a massive copy from another website, and a massive copyright violation. (It actually says in the edit window "Content that violate any copyright will be deleted.")
 * As for the interpretation, we have links to about four (4) sites with intepretations, some fairly authoritative and well-researched; there is no need to duplicate that effort here. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing American Pie
I plan on doing some editing to this article in the future. I think that it looks pretty good so far but it could use some minor copyediting. Jadams19 (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC) This article needs editing. It concentrates far too much on the madonna version than the more popular and well known original 58.168.184.131 (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation that The Day the Music Died Refers to Elvis?
Where does the interpretation come from that "the day the music died" was the day in '58 when Elvis was inducted into the army? The WP article that the links point to says it was the day of the Holly-Valens-Bopper plane crash. If there's anything to the Elvis story, there must be some kind of debate, and that's worth a sentence or two.

I've looked through the Talk page and archive, and don't see anything about this. Kkken (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone misinterpreted a 2008 interview with McLean... an interview that wasn't cited, for the record. In simplest terms, McLean was saying that Elvis' conscription into the Army was the day the music (i.e. the great rock 'n' roll period of the 1950s) was almost dead, and that it completely died with the death of Buddy Holly, etc. That is assuming of course that the interview actually happened -- I haven't found it online yet. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, so, if I interpret the article's History right, the Elvis interpretation was a new "contribution" from an Elvis enthusiast (whose Edit Summary conspicuously bears no relation to his/her changes), and you've reverted it. It was a friend of mine who first pointed it out to me. I'll have to invite him to have another look. Kkken (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Lennnon or Lenin?
Alright all the Lyric pages claim its Lennon and people seem to be obessed with thinking the song is all about the beatles and specifically John Lennon. Now considering Lennon (the beatle) died 9 years later then the song was written I don't think his death is relevant. And considering that the book or Marx was what lead Lenin (As in the guy who Founded the worlds communist nation) to make Russia communist surely this is a misinterpritation.

Further on the beatles notes is it possible that Helter Skelter is not a beatles reference at all. The song was released 3 years before American pie but there are other things called Helter Skelter (a book for example) and its a kinda obvious rhyme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Errlloyd (talk • contribs) 01:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Helter Skelter book was about Charles Manson, and therefore it's title was a direct reference to the Beatles song. It's NOT an obvious rhyme.  Define either "helter" or "skelter".  Know your role, Jabroni.

I agree. I just read in my history book about Lenin, and he was a devout Marxist. Lennon was just a hippie, and not exactly a violent revolutionary like Lenin. People may have misinterpreted the pronunciation of Lenin's name in the song to be similar to Lennon. Also, though Lenin was the originator of communist Russia, it is Stalin who is most often associated with it, leaving Lenin in borderline obscurity. ~SS

I don't entirely see how it would be Lenin, as he died way before the subject of the song (the day the music died). Lennon would be a much better fit. 71.182.179.19 (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a pun, folks. I don't know how McLean spelled it when he wrote the song, but it's obviously a pun.  Powers T 12:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's the issue here. If you pay attention to the lyrics that surround that passage, it's clearly taking place in the present time of the day the music died. Lenin was not still alive then, but it makes perfect sense that he'd be referring to Lennon - it would be his formative years before the Beatles took off, and it's very obvious that Lennon had socialist/communist tendencies (the song "Imagine," anyone?). It could not possibly be Lenin. Although, I like the idea that McLean was maybe just pointing out how interesting it was that both men who were interested in communism had similar last names. Metsfanmax (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look at the footnote in the list of notable references based on interpretations of the song by Bob Dearborn and Jim Fann, it says "McLean's official website lyrics spell the name "Lenin", not "Lennon", although some interpretations say it refers to John Lennon." One could debate song interpretation and social climates and everything else endlessly, but I think the spelling McLean himself posts in the lyrics is what one must take. The phrase's placement in the song is in the stanza that begins "Now for ten years we’ve been on our own", so it is placing this part around 1969, so it wasn't in Lennon's formative years, but nearing the breakup of the Beatles. It certainly may be a pun on the names and similar philosophies, but again, we could argue interpretation forever. McLean certainly doesn't seem to intend to ever validate any of it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Marx is a reference to Groucho, not Karl. Zazaban (talk) 05:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Terrible article, bring back old
It focuses way to much on covers and parodies, as well as contains an unnecessary list of cultural references. This is one of the most important songs ever and the WP article is awful. There should be an impact section, perhaps production or history. And I say, we bring back the interpretation. I know it was against WP policy, but it made the article better.--Asderoff (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * These are good ideas, except for restoring the interpretation, which is absolutely against Wikipedia policy unless representative interpretation can be cited from a reliable critical source. Anyway, this article links several sites with interpretation, so there is no need to duplicate this work. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall a much better article discussing cultural influence that has now become a much more uninformative article. Nlsanand (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the version to which you are probably referring. That version has subsequently undergone considerable cleanup. However, since all Wikipedia content is GDFL-licensed, you can use this information in another project as long as it is GFDL-compatible, and the original authors are credited. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Madonna: Chart Positions!
We should include the chart peaks of Madonna's version, since it was a massive hit worldwide!!! It hit #1 in like 3/4 of the world... How about creating one ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.129.223.181 (talk) 10:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for this suggestion. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Needs doing for Canada, try http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-110.01-e.php?q1=American+Pie&x=0&y=0&sk=97&&&&&PHPSESSID=ccntousk30frf6h4jsn237nm12 to research. Need a cite. Rich Farmbrough, 19:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC).

Notable references in the song
The section with the above title makes no sense since it includes Lenin and Marx (who are explicitly named in the song). None of the other names listed here are. Re Lenin/Lennon; listening to the (vinyl) single recently, it definitely songs more like Lenin (to me). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.53.21 (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Duration
I've got two different copies. One is 8:30, the live version, and two scrap copies both 4:06, presumably the recorded version. Which is genuine? And if need be, should we inclde relevant info in the article?--Launchballer (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Look in the infobox at the top right of the page. It's already there. --Manway (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation Links
"Despite this, many fans of McLean, amongst others, have attempted an interpretation (see Interpretation Links)"

Can someone provide a link to the "Interpretation Links". It seems a bit confusing to me as there is no section in the article with this heading. Youngka (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Geez. Yanks wanting to interpret. The dirge and all this speculation makes this the most embarrassing article on the Internet.

Madonna merge/split
This article is about the Don McLean song. Within this article it is reasonable to have a discussion of covers of the song. When the amount of material on one or more of those covers reaches a point where a new article can be created and is allowed under Wikipedia guidelines, we split out. There is a considerable amount of material on the Madonna song - (10,812 bytes), more than enough for a standalone article, and fully compliant with guidelines on reliable sources, notability, etc. When that material is removed from this article there is still enough material left here about the McLean song (15,969 bytes) to meet requirements. There is no duplication of material, and the split wouldn't be a Content fork as the articles are about different things - one is about the Don McLean song, the other is about Madonna's recording and marketing of her version of the song.

While I have no personal interest in the Madonna song, a number of readers would be interested, and some editors have worked to put together some material on that recording which they feel would be of interest to a reader wishing to know more about Madonna's cover. I wouldn't like to see that material simply deleted from this article, but it doesn't belong here as the amount of detail on this one cover is out of proportion to the rest of the article. Under our current guidelines we WP:SPLIT out such material in Summary style following the Copying within Wikipedia guideline.

There is a discussion taking place within WikiProject Songs on how to deal with cover versions. That discussion opened on 2 July 2009, over 5 months ago, and is still not concluded. Wikipedia editing cannot be held up while discussions are taking place (there are discussions taking place on all aspects of Wikipedia all the time) - so until guidelines are changed, we are advised to follow existing consensus.

I suggest the articles are split.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Support: I came to the page expecting it to be about the song. My reading of the page was that it was mainly about Madonna. If I went to a page about a symphony composed by JS Bach and found it was mainly about one particular recording by the Sydney Symphony Orchestra I would consider it to be about a recording, not the Bach composition I came to find out about. By all means give Madonna lots of weight - on the Madonna Wikipedia page or the Madonna (American Pie) page or the American Pie section on the Madonna Wikipedia page. McLean's song and his version of it was literally a historic event in music. The story it told, the references to the memories of the eras covered, the broad scope of issues covered, the irony of the song being an antithesis to the carefree nature of the eras it hankered for (the song is richly intellectual and cryptic compared to Holly's physical and emotional songs that are easy to understand) all contribute to its place in history. This antithesis re-affirms how much the music had changed. Even McLean's lamenting of the loss of innocence that seems to be a key theme of the song has to be in the language of the changed musical culture. Anyone, even Madonna, who has a cover is reproducing (with any Madonna variations). They are not creating. They are following history. But that is not what McLean is doing: he is creating musical and social history while documenting musical and social history. I support splitting Madonna's version off or reducing it to an entry about the many covers of the song. MichaelBurl 10:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Burlace (talk • contribs)


 * I don't have an interest in either version of this song (in fact, I despise it) but I do not agree that a split should happen here. The placement of cover versions is still being discussed and this song in particular seems to be brought up a lot.  I partially agree with SilkTork's opening statement: "This article is about the Don McLean song".... yes, it will always be McLean's song (as in, he wrote it), but it shouldn't have to be only about McLean's version.  In terms of which version may be "more notable" or "more important" I think depends on several demographics of the reader, such as their age, the style of music they like or even their geographic location (i.e. Madonna's version was much more successful in European countries).  I don't see that the Madonna section clutters, overwhelms or takes away from the Don McLean information, and I just don't see how keeping these merged violates or compromises any Wikipedia policies.  It has been a rule of thumb for many years to keep song cover versions together with their originals, and there are literally hundreds of pages set up that way.  If splitting out cover versions is going to be handled on a case-by-case basis (if decided at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions) then "American Pie" is definitely a good place to start and a consensus on this Talk Page is the best idea. - eo (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose: I just don't see the need for it, and it seems to me that the benefits of keeping info about all the versions of the same song in the same article outweigh the benefits of splitting. All the basic authorial, lyrical and musical details about the original also apply to any covers, and users interested in any version of the song are apt to be interested that info along with the details about the particular version they were seeking. Page size is rarely an issue with song articles, and I don't see that it is in this case. If page length is a concern, I think that could be addressed here by, for one thing, putting the repetitive track and version lists for the Madonna cover into a collapsible template. But my opposition is lukewarm, and if consensus emerges for split, I can live with that, although, as I said, I don't see any significant benefits from a split.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  17:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The title of the article is quite clearly "American Pie," i.e. as the article Song says "A song is a metrical composition intended or adapted for singing, especially one in rhymed stanzas; a lyric; a ballad." It is therefore the song that is notable, it is NOT directly about McLean or Madonna, save that McLean, as writer, will always be associated with the song, Madonna is presently also associated with the song, having had a hit record with her version, but without a crystal ball nobody can ascertain that she will always be notably associated with the song. Splitting quite clearly states, " < 30 KB Length alone does not justify division." and "> 40 KB May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)" At the moment the article is therefore, at worst, deemed as "may eventually need to be divided," but if you only consider readable prose (see Article size) it is not yet at that length. If there is a split, on present naming the Madonna article would be named American Pie (Madonna (Entertainer) song. Well, pardon me, it is not a Madonna song - it is a song Madonna has recorded. User:SilkTork says above "...be of interest to a reader wishing to know more about Madonna's cover," I am totally unconvinced by this argument as a reason for splitting, for me it drives a coach and horses (or should I say a "Chevvy to the levee") right through the whole reason for Wikipedia, with the concepts that a). Madonna fans aren't really interested in the history of the song, what it means, who wrote it, when it was written etc and b). some WP readers should be protected from the full facts.  If a compromise is needed, and I sincerely hope not, why can't there be a soft direct for Madonna fans to the Madonna part of the article? --Richhoncho (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Removal of split tag. I have removed the suggested split tag as there was no concensus for splitting. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There are some noteworthy points made in the above arguments, and frankly, fairly abstract. Let me offer some non-abstract points. I just heard the Don McClean song on the radio and then -- inspired, of course -- looked it up on Wikipedia. I found it absolutely bizarre that the bulk of information in the article is on Madonna's recording of the song -- its cover art(?!!!!), its music video, and its chart history, among other things. I never even knew that Madonna covered the song. I find it completely immaterial. (Yikes -- pun not intended.) Surely, that cover pales in its cultural impact to the original. (A comparison of radio airtime over the last few decades would indicate that, and -- sorry Madonna -- the next few decades.) It would be fine to list the Madonna cover among other covers, but I can't see that going extensively into minutiae about it is at all warranted. (Details about the cover, the video, and even the chart history are minutiae. No two ways about it.)  As a music fan, I must say there is a great injustice here, perpetrated no doubt by an overly enthusiastic and non-objective Madonna fan. Enthusiasism by partisans can be forgiven. But the timid musings of more self-consciously objective observers and self-appointed arbiters cannot. Quit parsing the Wikipedia rules and the definition of the word "song" and do what it is right by American music history. Get rid of (most of) this stuff on Madonna and let the proportion of information reflect its cultural significance. It is not the mission of an encyclopedia to vomit information about all things remotely connected to the topic. (Did you notice that Madonna's cover peaked at #29 on the US Billboard Hot 100?!!! 29!!!! That indicates a fairly low cultural resonance.  Not much more resonant than the drunken warbles you might hear at a karaoke bar.)

66.69.210.82 (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Baby, did you also notice that Madonna's version was NOT released in the United States? It charted at number 39 on the Billboard Hot 100 without physical singles, without digital downloads, but airplay ONLY. That's an achievement!!! Come on, no songs today can reach Top 30 with just airplay. Not to mention, Madonna's version was a big worldwide hit. It reached number one in Australia, Canada, and many European countries. Yes, Don McLean original has a huge cultural significance, but Madonna's version has its own NOTABLITY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.138.53.1 (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Recommend the following: Split off the Madonna aspect of this topic. I do not suggest total elimination of any mention of her cover version, but is it really necessary to list each and every track listing, variant, and charting regardless of the country? Pare it down until it is comparable to the mention of other covers and parodies. If Madonna fans and wikipedia users/contributors feel this information is so highly important and significant, let it be contained within an entry that is more Madonna-focused.71.89.115.145 (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the anon editor above - don't split off the Madonna info - either delete it or move it to Madonna's page. In my mind, the Madonna version is simply just another cover of the original and this page has WAY WAY too much about it. Yes, it was a popular international song, but on this page it should be given it's due and then ended. If Madonna fans want to expound on it, do so on her page. Ckruschke (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Regardless of whether this is split or not, the amount of space devoted to Madonna's version is absolutely ridiculous. One almost gets the impression that the Madonna remake was some sort of groundbreaking event in the history of popular culture when all it is is just a lame remake.74.134.160.246 (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)