Talk:Commoner/Archive 1

Use of Championed
I am not sure that the use of Championed in the Sentence : "Cocker's simple four-bar synthesizer line was championed by keyboardist Candida Doyle, and the final single was mixed down from over 40 tracks." is proper. If one of the grammar gurus could look at this and make a final judgment, I would be appreciative. Mister B. 02:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Because I wrote that sentence, here is what I was trying to summarise from recollection of the BBC3 programme. Cocker wrote the distinctive ten-note backing melody for the verses at home, most of the rest of the band thought it was naff and Cocker himself was unsure.  Doyle saw its potential, demonstrated that potential while much of the rest of the song was apparently written around it, and also performed it on the recording.  Chambers defines "champion" as a noun firstly as "someone who defends a cause", and as a verb as "to challenge (obs); to defend; to support".  The cause defended here also won out, which, I suppose, is why the word came to mind. --Cedderstk 14:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, Cedders that seems fine, I wonder if we could word it in a more laymen way. Although, it may just be my vocabulary lacking. Mister B. 03:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Real incident
The article contains this line: "However, Cocker admittedly embellished the incident with the Greek student who declares she 'want[s] to live like common people' — she most definitely never wanted to sleep with him!" Um... source? Is this taken from an interview? --LostLeviathan 01:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The BBC3 documentary now referenced interviews primary sources, and the statement was from Cocker's testimony as at 2005. I've added other material from my recollection of the broadcast a few weeks ago that I'm reasonably certain of. --Cedders 10:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Emphasising importance
I'm not quite sure how to stress the cultural significance of the song (It was kept from number 1 by Robson & Jerome!) without appearing POV. My contemporaries (slightly younger than members of Pulp) and other critics tend to disagree about the second best song on Different Class, but Common People is the one song from the 1990s (along with perhaps Parklife (song) and Killer (song)) that we'll all remember when our hair and teeth have fallen out. --Cedders 10:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Lost In the Supermarket?
I think that the verse "I took her to the supermarket/Don't know why, but I had to start it somewhere..." is a pretty obvious tribute to the Clash song "Lost In The Supermarket", with music resembling as well. Yet, there's no source for the statement, so, if anyone wishes to investigate...--Vitriden 11:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pulp - common people.jpg
Image:Pulp - common people.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cover version
I don't think there's any point in arguing over whether Shatner's version is "better" (to be fair, they were both amusing in different ways), but I would ask that people stick to verifiable facts and secondary sources, such as books and articles, as far as possible, and maintain a historical sense of perspective.


 * This version won critical praise and was the center of a popular "viral video" phenomenon on You-tube which took the form of a wide variety of user-interpreted videos which used it as a soundtrack. This made the song famous in markets outside of the United Kingdom and resulted in this cover version becoming the definitive one in the minds of many.

A Google search is an invitation to the reader to do their own research, rather than a source itself. Rather than adding a citation needed template, I've removed most of the last sentence (I added a mention of the cover back in 2006, as I thought it was notable, but it shouldn't take over the article). It may be the first version that some people heard, but that's certainly fewer than those who heard the original in 1995, and has any serious author claimed the cover supplanted the original in the minds of those who had heard it later, as the sentence seems to imply? All I'm saying is that it can be hard to get historical perspective on the recent past. Different classes, different generations. --Cedderstk 17:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * First, what sort of reference would better prove the statement "This version won critical praise?" Should I reference one positive review, or a whole slew of them?  It's not worth the hassle.  The reference I used proves it simply and easily. The rules about research are only the rules because they work. All I want to do is prove to any doubter that any random search for reviews of the song and album are mostly positive. The fact that there are many positive reviews of it can be quickly checked by glancing at that page, without bothering to click on any of them.  There, I've shown it's true that it was critically well received at the click of a mouse.


 * Second, you say more people "certainly" first heard the original back in 1995 than either heard the cover first, or just the cover and the original not at all. And that's probably true in the one smallish country where it was a hit.  The sentence you altered didn't imply that it "surplanted" the original in their minds.  It implied that it brought the song to millions who had never heard the original before, and these people want to know more about the song. For example, it's important to note that Ben Folds who is most responsible for it.


 * I'd like to offer you another reason to doubt your statement: More than two-thirds of the English-speaking world lives outside of Europe; mostly in North America, where the original never was a hit. In order for the original to be definitive in one's mind, you'd more likely than not have to be a Brit who grew up in the 1990s.  Every day that goes by, that's less and less likely, and more and more people who have heard this song and visit this article wanting to learn about it will have heard only the new version.  Actually, I am as confident that this is the case already as you are "certain" that it is not.  For one thing, it was true of me.


 * Leave your emotions aside and face it. While the Pulp version should always come first in this article, the time has come for it to allow more space at the bottom to the version most modern people interested in this song know and love and want to learn about.  (Including the fact that it's more properly called "Fold's version" than "Shatner's" as you have done.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 06:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Fogus vs. Jackson's inclusion
Fogus, are you sure that "backing vocals" really is the best description of what Jackson's credit should be? He basically takes the whole second section, and then is mixed pretty equally for the final one, I'd say dominating it. It's more of a duet. I don't think the section would be complete without mentioning his contribution. We just want to describe the dominant features of the track.Chrisrus (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Video text copied from another source?
The text for the "video" section of this article was probably cut-and-pasted from somewhere else, as it refers to Pulp as "indie band Pulp" -- I think anyone reading this article probably knows who Pulp are! 76.2.164.171 (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)