Talk:Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song)/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Chart positions

I’ve added a note in the Chart positions section, requiring entries to be a) in the top ten b) of a national or other major chart and c) verified. And I’ve removed any that aren’t.
I’ve left the listing for Leonard Cohens version, but I don’t know which is worse; having it in, or not having it in. It seems wrong to me somehow that every other bugger is making money out of the song except him. Swanny18 (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly keep Cohen's in. I think the writer should have immunity to this whole top-10 requirement. BwaB (talk) 9:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Not sure if that is justified - we should either be consistent, or explain in the text why we are being inconsistent. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As Cohen is the song's sole writer, he is making more money off the song than any of the cover artists individually. The person to feel bad for is the artist who popularizes a song they did not write; even if subsequent covers are a direct homage to the singer, they fail to remunerate that singer. Abrazame (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

( a question) Are you saying artists who make covers don't get paid for them? And I thought Cohen didn't get anything from it now because it was out of copyright. Swanny18 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Before I give you a big long answer, I want to be sure you don't have facts I'm not privy to: have you heard that Cohen sold his publishing rights, and/or are Canadian copyright laws markedly different from those in the U.S.? Abrazame (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two different copyrights associated with a record: One for the writing of the song (indicated by a C in a circle), and one for the recording (publishing) of the song (indicated by a P in a circle). Alexandra Burke (or, rather, her record company) can claim the publishing copyright, but Cohen retains the writing copyright. (Unless he's sold it or something.) When someone makes money off a cover version, the holder of a the writing copyright gets royalties at a standard rate set by ASCAP. 69.159.196.72 (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, it shouldn't be "out of copyright" yet, unless Cohen has given it to the public domain. You might be getting confused by "compulsory license", which allows anyone to cover anyone else's song without getting their permission. 69.159.196.72 (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Chart positions, again

I took an item out of this section, as its best chart position was 24th; this was reverterd with the summary
"Threshold is unreasonably high and would preclude the song's original version"
I don't know how many times this has been discussed, but we can always do it again. I thought any top ten placement was being generous, and that any threshold is going to upset anyone who's favoured version is outside of it; but: If not that, what would be a reasonable threshold for inclusion? Swanny18 (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should be consistent. Personally I think the encyclopedia should be encyclopedic, and include every chart position achieved by every version. It's hardly going to overburden the system, and the arguments against listing seem usually to be based on the personal artistic judgements of particular editors - which are utterly irrelevant here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I can’t really say I’m against consistency, or being encyclopaedic; and a complete list of all 200 cover versions would keep everybody who wants their favourite included happy, while showing their chart positions would show how significant they all are relative to each other.

But I don’t think it should be here; this article is supposed to be about the song itself, and (as someone pointed out further up the page) few of the covers have contributed anything to the song from a musical point of view. The article seems to be nine-tenths about this or that cover version, and it's only going to get more bloated if it runs unchecked.

So how about a list page with all of them in a sortable list, giving dates, best chart showing and a one sentence comment on its significance, for each? With a summary here, and something on whatever versions that have contributed to the song in some way?

What do you think? Swanny18 (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest listing every version - just every version that reached a chart, which in my view is the most objective measure of notability that we have. A sortable list of recorded versions would be complete overkill. I don't really attach much credibility to the idea of only listing versions that have "contributed .. from a musical point of view" - unless we have authoritative statements in reliable sources that some versions have more musical merit than others, which I doubt, it is all ultimately a question of taste, which isn't really something that an encyclopedia should be dealing with. For what it's worth I prefer Buckley's version to Burke's - but that's a personal opinion, not an authoritative statement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, for the record I am the editor whose summary was quoted and I was invited back to comment. It took a few days before I could be in the frame of mind to compose what I hope is a compelling response.

I think that creating a separate list article of notable cover recordings is a good idea, but I'm perplexed by the resistance to the charting info here. A song's article is about the song. The song is more than the notes and the words (ironically two parts often entirely overlooked in its Wiki article, due to an excess of copyright infringement caution) and it is more than a single recording. A song may be the baby of the writer, or the artist who introduces it, for a period of time, but a great song has a life of its own. The cover recordings and media usage are a part of this life of the song. Indeed, for several songs, and I daresay this is one of those, one or more of those cover recordings actually become the primary part of the life of the song.

Yet this article seems reluctant to express that. While Cohen is the genius who wrote and introduced it, it was popularized by Jeff Buckley, and the media usage of the Cale and Wainwright versions. I shudder to think that a contest winner (Burke, whose version I have not heard) has the highest-charting version, but then, that's what happens when your baby grows up. Write songs nobody else wants to sing and you have their Wikipedia articles all to yourself. Cohen is the focus of his bio, and the articles on his albums, and articles for those songs of his which are not popularly recorded by others will rightfully place their focus on Cohen, his composition, his recording.

But the purpose of a song's article is not to place its focus on the writer, the composition, and its initial recording, if it is at the expense of subsequent versions which eclipse that initial recording in critical or popular acceptance. This article is no mere wisp of a thing, but it could stand being a good deal longer if in so being it better represents the life of this song.

This isn't a zero-sum game: we can establish a notability threshold somewhere between national Top 10 charting and every bloody karaoke bar massacre. Reviewing the list of covers in the footnoted source, I'm struck by how many of those artists are not likely to be notable enough to the English-speaking world to have their own English-language Wikipedia article. (Recording the song seems to be a requisite for voter registration in Norway and Slovakia.)

It seems fairly simple: if the artist has a Wikipedia article, we list them; if their version is more notable than the average (as with the k.d. lang version) perhaps they get their own paragraph or even a subheaded section; if their version was particularly iconic or broadly charted (like the Buckley version), it needs to be given its own full headed section (which the Buckley version does not currently have), and a single infobox.

As to charting, which was the initial point, surely not all 200 of those versions actually charted. Before we blanch at the prospect of including all charting versions, just how many are we talking about? Eight? Twelve? Twenty? It seems to me that there are two measures of a recording: the subjective and the objective. The most notably subjective might be "Cohen favors XXX's version" or "XXXX magazine praised XX's version as..." The most notably objective would be the perfect storm of concurrent airplay and consumer interest (or simply the latter) that results in a charting.

Bottom line, if an artist's cover would deserve its own article even if Cohen's original had never been released, then that version needs to have some prominence here over versions that would not. The main criterion for article creation is notability; the most literal indicator of a single's notability is its sales and charting data. Too strong? Certainly. Because isn't the real most fundamental aspect of a song's or a recording's notability the affect, the influence, it has on others, and perhaps most notably other musicians, the peers (contest winners notwithstanding) of the song's creator? Particularly when that affect travels through those other musicians' versions and to still others? And how better to make that point than to show all the notable covers and their chartings, with, as Wiki guidelines dictate, weight in proportion to their respective impact? Frankly, it is to a singer/songwriter's credit when one of their creations lives on beyond their recording and performances of it, and while I can sympathize with Cohen's desire not to see it become overexposed, the flip side of "overexposure" is that your composition has become a standard.

If all of that hasn't got every reader here convinced, ponder this: insofar as Cohen's version was never released as a single, there would be no "Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song)" article at Wikipedia if it weren't for the cover versions — nor would Cohen's version ever have charted — yet there would be articles for any or all of the Voegele, Burke and Timberlake/Morris versions (like them all or even ever have heard of them all or not), if they were the only version(s) that existed. (Their versions only exist because of the story of the song, which wends its way back through the authenticity of the ill-fated Buckley to Cale and Cohen, but there you go.) Abrazame (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So, how to respond to this?

We don’t seem to be disagreeing about the need for some criteria on how different covers are presented, only (maybe) on the thresholds (on which subject I notice the threshold for chart position has changed to 50 though we are still discussing it) Your division of .a)Section (or subsection, which is what we have now/already) for particularly significant versions .b)Paragraph for more notable than average versions .c)Listing for any other versions by notable artists, is fine by me.

That suggests we should split the current “Other cover versions” section, which would be no bad thing. Currently it has at least 30 entries, a number which merely say “such-a-body also recorded a cover of this”; some don’t even have blue links. Visually it’s a mess; it's a jumble of text, no particular order, and often no claim to significance. It would certainly look better as a list. (See for example “My Way”, though minimum detail would help (date, format, for example)

(PS I made a trial separation here; what does anyone think?)

The point about charts is well made; I don’t know how many actually charted; a lot of the covers are on albums not singles, so that might cut it down a bit.

The comment about significant musical contribution was only that other pages (like “Yesterday”) have more to say about the song itself. I notice the text says there are Spoken Word, Classical, and Spanish language versions, of which it would be interesting at least to know how well that worked. Also, depending on which verses are used can give very different interpretations; Cohen has done a “sacred” and a “profane” version. If cover versions can enhance a songs meaning or appreciation, it might be nice to know in what way.

My comment about a separate list page was only that the page already looks cluttered; If we have a list that is going to run to 200 entries it would sit be better on a separate page, with a summary /main article link here.

In like manner, some of the subsections (JB AB for example) should probably have their own page (again, with a summary /main article link). Other number one’s have their own page, with about the same amount of content, and it would sort out categories, succession boxes and templates here.

Also, Templates have no criteria at present; I think the page needs some, otherwise it’ll acquire one from everybody who .a) has a template and .b) has done a cover ( I’d guess at least a dozen more). What about limiting them to artists with particularly iconic versions (ie sub-sections)? What does anybody think? Swanny18 (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

My view is that there is not too much wrong with the current article; and that there is certainly no need for a separate article on cover versions. Firstly, can we assume that people are aware of the guidance at WP:SONGS? That suggests some model articles on songs - but the problem here is that the story of this song has a number of unusual characteristics. What I mean is that, unlike, say, "Yesterday", this is not a song that had one undeniably notable original version, followed by a mass of later less notable cover versions. In the case of "Hallelujah", what we had was an originally quite obscure initial version, and the song gradually emerging into public consciousness via a series of steps - the Buckley version, the song's appearance in Shrek, American Idol, X Factor and so forth - with both increasing commercial success and decreasing (or at least contentious) artistic merit. So, taking an overview, this article needs to tell that whole story - without straying into editors' opinions about different versions, and recognising that the cover versions - taken as a whole - are more "notable" than the original version. My interpretation of WP guidance is that cover versions should not have separate articles - they should be covered in this article, and there should be a proper balance between them. In WP terms, the most notable versions, in my view, are those by Cale, Buckley (kick-starting the process of drawing the song to public attention) and Burke (greatest commercial success in some parts of the world), but I'm happy to accept the Wainwright and lang versions also having their own paras. The other versions should be given appropriate (that is, little) weight in a short section of text, as they are now (though I fully accept that the section needs to be rewritten). I also think that, currently, there is an overemphasis on the Buckley version and its chart positions and awards - but I'd be happy for the sections on other versions to be brought up to the same standard, rather than for the section on the Buckley version to be cut back. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Favourite?

The text here says
“Bon Jovi has covered the song several times in concert, including on their 2008 Live at Madison Square Garden DVD, and Cohen rates their version as his favorite.source
Que? Does anyone have another source for this? This source reckons the BJ version is one of the worst(though, thinking laterally, that doesn’t mean it isn’t Cohen's favourite) But the k.d lang section claims that to be his favourite, so it’d be nice to clarify it. Swanny18 (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed this last month -- diff -- as the cited source for it being Cohen's favorite cover was John Bon Jovi's management company. I did leave in the statement that JBJ was performing it live, and had included it on a live performance DVD, continuing to use that press release from Outside as the source -- Foetusized (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Freddie Mercury (or sound alike?)

I've heard a version of Hallelujah that I think is Freddie Mercury. However, I see no mention of such a version on the page. If there is a Mercury version, please add discussion thereof. If there isn't I would be grateful for the addition of a comment indicating which one sounds like him (particularly around the lyric --the fourth the fifth, the minor fall, the major lift) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.0.112.164 (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

no it was jeff buckley-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the cover by Kevin Max, which has a "big" arrangement with backing singers more like the Cohen original recording than most later versions -- Foetusized (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Request to combine refs

Refs 20 and 32 are redundant, both to the same search page at BNI. Could someone show me how to combine these refs (so they both link to cite #20 and the overall no. of cites is reduced by one)? I'm horrible at that sort of thing. Thanks. Abrazame (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. For the first ref, instead of <ref> you use <ref name=bpi>, followed by the bracketed URL and <ref/> as usual, and then for the second ref just use <ref name=bpi/> - with slash but without the URL or <ref/>. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I had been trying to add the ref name after the cite, rather than before it, and in quotes. Don't know where I got that from! Abrazame (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The quotes are only needed if you use more than one word, eg <ref name="British Phonographic Institute"> rather than <ref name=britishphonographicinstitute>. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Vocal Range

I don't think the vocal range information is correct - E4 is by no means a low pitch, and just by hearing it I can hear notes as low as E3. I can't see the sheet music (and I'm not going to buy it just to prove a wikipedia article wrong), so could someone verify the full vocal range? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.20.92 (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct; I'm not sure what point there is in the first place to defining in which octave the song should be sung, but if we're to taken the author's renditions (ie., Cohen's original recording and live versions) the lowest significant melodic note is E2. Cohen (by that point in his life, in any case) was undeniably a bass. In fact, his voice stylistically dips a good bit lower than that at the end of some of the lines, but it's arguably not really part of the melodic content in those cases. In any case, the specified vocal range in the article makes no sense and doesn't offer anything useful, so I'm removing it for the moment. 76.27.138.149 (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Enrique Morente cover

1996 - Enrique Morente, spanish flamenco singer, recorded "Omega", and album with Federico Garcia Lorca poems and Leonard Cohen songs, it was a mix of flamenco and rock, with a "hallelujah" cover called "Aleluya". http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrique_Morente —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.154.82.119 (talk) 09:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Extra space

There seems to be an unnecessary extra space between the singles chronology and the music video link in the infobox for the Alexandra Burke version. It would be a minor improvement on the degree to which the infobox extends into the next section if someone could figure out a way for this space to be omitted. I've tried two or three things and can't seem to get anywhere. I would note that the previous version has a music video link that does not have this space above it, although as it was a supergroup version, there isn't a chronology in that box—might that be the source of the problem? Not a big issue, but if someone knows how, it would be a helpful tuck here. Abrazame (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Susan Boyle cover

Susan Boyle's cover was ranked #15 by the Village Voice on their "20 Worst Songs of 2010" list. The discussion can be found here:

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/2010/12/the_20_worst_so_5.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.163.106 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Nynke Laverman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nynke_Laverman)recorded a version in the Frisian language for the compilation "Cohen in het Fries" (www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuE_hT0VZXQ)

Opera superstar Renee Fleming recorded a version on her album "Dark Hope" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Hope)

Aonsman (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

a not-so-minor edit

In a recent series of edits, I trimmed some excess verbiage. Among these edits, this was by far the most substantial. For it, I accidentally checked the option "This is a minor edit". Sorry! -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Lyrics and chord/interval progression

The use of a line of lyrics to explain chord progression, expecially since it is discussing the topic, is allowed per WP:LYRICS. Quoting a lyric in this purpose is fair use, see Copyrighted works.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 11:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The way it is written is spectacularly cheesy and inappropriate in tone for an encyclopaedia. An article should describe the lyrics, and describe the chords, and if the lyrics self-referentially mention the chords, that should be mentioned. Simply copying and pasting the lyrics to describe the chords is like something out of a fanzine for 12 year olds. 190.44.138.168 (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a single line of lyric, which then is wikilinked to the appropriate musical interval and description. When you wikilink "fourth, the fifth, the minor fall" you are doing exactly what an encyclopedia is supposed to do: explain the meaning of those words.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not a fanzine. Using the song lyrics in place of encyclopaedic text is not acceptable. You can write this in an encyclopaedic way but it seems that you don't want to. 190.44.138.168 (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

More Covers

I've also personally heard covers by Molly Sanden in Swedish and Dani Youssef in Arabic (an interesting one as it's translated as "Hamdoulillah.") Not sure if that's important but yes, there are more covers. etothei (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Generally such things should include third-party sources that establish their significance, rather than being an effort to include every possible occurence. WP:IPC discusses this in some detail. Doniago (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the completely different (religious)lyrics written and sung by Kelley Mooney in 2010 ? Jmn71440 (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)jmn71440

Because you haven't been bold and added information about it along with a reliable source establishing that it's considered significant in some manner? (grin) Cheers! DonIago (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference to usage in the show The OC

There's a link (which I can't read in full) that lists the show The OC as using Juff Buckley's version. From my own memory, that's not true. Then I found this article http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/12/how-leonard-cohens-hallelujah-became-everybodys-hallelujah/265900/ that says it is Imogen Heap's version of the song that plays over Marisa's death scene. Didn't want to make the edit since I can't read the referenced article that claims it to be Buckley's version, but I don't think that is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.137.21 (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Rolling Stone article about the song

If anyone wants to add info to this article, I saw that Rolling Stone published a big 2012 story on it here. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Jeff Buckley over-emphasis?

Is Jeff Buckley's association with this song so important that he should have a sidebar with his picture, etc.? An argument in favor is that Buckley has, indeed, been important to the song's popularity. But I see more reasons against: (a) The song is extremely widely covered, so singling out one cover artist with a sidebar seems excessive. (b) Because the song is widely covered and because Buckley's version is often used in US media, there stands some chance that he could be mistaken for the author; having his picture in the article increases the chances of confusion. (c) I hate the precedent.. are we going to give William Shatner a sidebar in Sir Elton John's "Rocket Man" article? Does Johnny Cash get a sidebar in NiN's "Hurt" article? Etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.88.9 (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

If you claim a discussion in talk to delete something you need to actually allow a discussion to happen. What is the rationale for deleting Buckley's infobox yet none of the other cover infoboxes? His version appears to be more commercially successful than Cohen's original. It may even be better off as a stand-alone article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Loriendrew, welcome to Wikipedia! I didn't "claim a discussion"; I left this talk because I think some could wonder why all the sidebars disappeared from this article (I agree, they all need to go). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.88.9 (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060509121355/http://www.rollingstone.com:80/artists/jeffbuckley/articles/story/6596104/hallelujah to http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/jeffbuckley/articles/story/6596104/hallelujah

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song). 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:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110708043836/http://jerryischubby.blogspot.com/2009/07/mia-catalano.html to http://jerryischubby.blogspot.com/2009/07/mia-catalano.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The Fourth - the Fifth

"Written in the key of C major, the chord progression matches lyrics from the song: "goes like this, the fourth, the fifth, the minor fall, and the major lift": C, F, G, A minor, F.[4]"

In my opinion, this sentence is wrong. The chord progression matches the lyrics no matter which key it is played in. Any suggestions how to rewrite it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.138.181.162 (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 02:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Original recording

There's a lot of blah blah about the "lyrical interpretation" (meaning) of the song in the first paragraph, but nothing factual about the original recording. For example: who where the musicians and who did the backing vocals. Can anyone find these data and add them to that paragraph? Wikiklaas 19:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

See the album article for that list. Unless there is some sourcing showing who were the specific performers for this particular song, they cannot be added to this article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Lyrics (variations)

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://leonardcohenfiles.com/coverlist.php?sortby=Song
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/jeffbuckley/articles/story/6596104/hallelujah
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.webheights.net/speakingcohen/natpost032009.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090905072850/http://wearsthetrousers.com/2008/07/08/sometimes-you-just-get-very-lucky/ to http://wearsthetrousers.com/2008/07/08/sometimes-you-just-get-very-lucky/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/theampersand/archive/2008/12/15/a-secret-chord-jeff-buckley-leonard-cohen-fans-unite-to-keep-reality-show-version-of-hallelujah-off-british-chart.aspx
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aria.com.au/pages/httpwww.aria.com.aupagesSINGLEaccreds2012.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110051530/http://www.furious.com/perfect/kdlang.html to http://www.furious.com/perfect/kdlang.html

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) 10:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)