Talk:Let There Be Love (Christina Aguilera song)

Live performance sources
AARON &bull; TALK  12:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1695198/christina-aguilera-american-music-awards-performance-preview.jhtml
 * http://uk.eonline.com/news/364242/2012-american-music-awards-best-worst-from-the-show-plus-full-winner-s-list
 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2235064/American-Music-Awards-2012-Christina-Aguilera-spills-star-spangled-bodysuit-performs-AMAs.html
 * http://idolator.com/7289242/the-voice-christina-aguilera-performs-let-there-be-love-cassadee-pope-hits-1-on-itunes

Reviews
AARON &bull; TALK  12:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.billboard.com/new-releases/christina-aguilera-lotus-track-by-track-1008011102.story#/new-releases/christina-aguilera-lotus-track-by-track-1008011102.story ✅
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/christina-aguilera-lotus-review_n_2119130.html ✅
 * http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/thesound/a435214/christina-aguileras-new-album-lotus-first-listen.html
 * http://popcrush.com/christina-aguilera-lotus-album-review/
 * http://www.ohio.com/the330entertainment/music/review-christina-aguilera-s-lotus-is-good-but-not-great-1.349912

Third Single?
I don't know, it just sounds to me like it could be a huge hit, it even sounds simiar to Moves Like Jagger rhythmically. Lyrically, it's like Katy Perry with Whitney Houston's voice. If not the third single, I am fairly confident that this has to be a single from the album. Just putting that out there... -- Free   Wales Now!   what did I screw up?   13:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no reliable source for that. Talk pages are not forums for fan discussions. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  14:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Genres
They aren't properly sourced. A quick check shows that sources use words like "beats" or "inspired" which do not make a song of a particular genre. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  20:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Idolator says "dance-pop".
 * 4 Music says "From the initial stabs of synth, we know this is going to be an Ibiza-type dance anthem" implying "dance music". It also mentions trance and electronica but not in proper context.
 * AV Club top 40 EDM
 * Idolator (2) "Let There Be Love” — an unbearably cute pop song that sweeps Xtina away on a wave of synths to unfamiliar Eurodance territory", it calls its a pop song. Eurodance territory doesn't mean Eurodance song.
 * Digital Spy says "trance beats" but that doesn't make a song of the Trance genre. Same issue with Rude Boy (Rihanna song).

The genres in the infobox have been cherry picked. It has many influences but from the references the ones that should remain in the infobox as core genres should be Dance, pop, EDM. It has influences of trance, synthpop (numerous mentions of synthesizers), dance-pop and Eurodance (debatabley). &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  20:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The remove those three then. Idolator says "dance-pop track", how is that an influence exactly when he outright says it is dance-pop. Furthermore, synthpop is not written anyway. Inclusion of synths does not make it a synthpop song. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   21:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Idolator calls the song is dance-pop in one review, pop in the other. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  11:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but you said it is a pop song with dance-pop influences. If both reviews say "pop song" and "dance-pop track", then they are both genres for the info box. Dance-pop isn't just an influence here. I've changed it all anyway. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   11:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Intro should be changed to reflect that. "It is a multi-genre song" isnt very formal or encyclopaedic. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  12:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Official Artwork
The official artwork for the remix ep release, this should be added! Can somebody do that!

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/CHRISTINA-AGUILERA-LET-THERE-BE-LOVE-OFFICIAL-US-10-TRACK-PROMO-CDS-/370795194584?pt=UK_CDsDVDs_CDs_CDs_GL&hash=item56551da8d8

http://blogs.fusionradio.fm/fusion/2013/03/christina-aguilera-new-music/

--91.154.107.200 (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not reliable sources. Promo/remix CDs are not for official release. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  16:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Chart Trajectory
Calvin999 would like to place this material in the article:

It broke into the top ten at number nine on April 20, 2013, after spending two months on the chart. Two weeks later on May 4, 2013, it climbed to number five, and for the following four weeks, it rose by one position per week,   until it reached the top spot for the chart issue dated June 1, 2013. With "Let There Be Love" attaining the number one position on the Hot Dance Club Songs chart, it upped her total tally to eight number one songs, and the second from Lotus to reach the peak, after "Your Body" in December 2013.

I think it's an obvious violation of WP:CHARTTRAJ. Anyone but Calvin999 think it belongs in the article?&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Whilst I agree these are facts, the facts are chart trajectory which aren't allowed per WP:CHARTTRAJ. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  00:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Aaron. As the section stands, there is a couple of sentences about this song's chart on the US Hot Dance Club Songs chart about its debut, breaking into the top 10, top 5 info about how it climbed one position week by week from 5-2 before peaking at number one. I did this because it gives a little info about the charting of this song, which has been three months int total. User:Kww thinks that the two small sentences about the top 10 and the top 5 is a case of WP:CHARTTRAJ. Clearly, it isn't.


 * Before (What I advocate):
 * Upon the release of Lotus, "Let There Be Love" debuted on the South Korea Gaon Single Chart at number 92 during the week of November 11 to 17, 2012, with digital download sales of 2,945. In the United States, the song debuted at number 44 on the Hot Dance Club Songs chart on February 18, 2013. It broke into the top ten at number nine on April 20, 2013, after spending two months on the chart. Two weeks later on May 4, 2013, it climbed to number five, and for the following four weeks, it rose by one position per week, until it reached the top spot for the chart issue dated June 1, 2013. With "Let There Be Love" attaining the number one position on the Hot Dance Club Songs chart, it upped her total tally to eight number one songs, and the second from Lotus to reach the peak, after "Your Body" in December 2013.


 * After (What Kww advocates):
 * Upon the release of Lotus, "Let There Be Love" debuted on the South Korea Gaon Single Chart at number 92 during the week of November 11 to 17, 2012, with digital download sales of 2,945.< In the United States, the song debuted at number 44 on the Hot Dance Club Songs chart on February 18, 2013. It reached number one with the issue dated June 1, 2013. With "Let There Be Love" attaining the number one position on the Hot Dance Club Songs chart, it upped her total tally to eight number one songs, and the second from Lotus to reach the peak, after "Your Body" in December 2012.


 * The problem with what Kww has removed from the article, even though it should stay for other editors to see as to form an opinion as only he has an issue, is that between it's mid February debut and it's 1st June dated chart release, there is no information, which is not encyclopaedic. What I added, the two small sentences, is hardly a chart trajectory. In fact, it's far from it. See User talk:Kww] for more information, it is a discussion between Kww and myself about his removal. Obviously, I vote that my version be reinstated, as its clearly not a case of WP:CHARTTRAJ, and the section is now worse as a result of the removal of information. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   00:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't particularly "advocate" my section. It just represented an effort to keep the parts of your edit that conformed to guidelines and remove only the material that did not.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly you do. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   00:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be just as happy if the entire "Chart Performance" section was removed and only the table retained. Like I said, I simply kept as much of your edit as I thought reasonably fell within our guidelines.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be even worse and would not cover the the information such as it being her 8th number one on the chart and second from Lotus overall. Think about it. Just because there are two charts, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve prose. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   00:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Upon viewing the addendum in question, I have concluded that the expansive information would be an indiscriminate collection of information and would not serve an encyclopedic purpose. I do not believe a meticulous narrative of chart performance would be useful, so much as an asinine flow chart inappropriately maintained by Wikipedia. D arth B otto talk•cont 01:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it expansive? It's two really short sentences. Not sentence after sentence of a week by week update for 3 months. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   10:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm copying a discussion fragment from my talk page to here, where I think it belongs:
 * As I said up there above somewhere, if you can find one industry source that says that this particular song has had an unusual trajectory, then I think that would be sufficient reason to include it. Is there any reason that we are talking on my talk page instead of in the discussion on the article talk page?&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do we need someone to write it when I provided the week by week archive?? And no. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   00:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Because this is a guideline, meaning that reasonable exceptions can be made. If you found that reliable industry sources were discussing how unusual the trajectory is, then I would view that as being a good reason to document the trajectory. Your personal opinion that it's unusual would be original research.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But I never actually wrote that it's "unusual", I just said that for 4 weeks it rose one position per week, as it shows in each source. So no it's not original research. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   19:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't your argument for including it based on the notion that it's unusual?&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I never said that. My argument is purely for more info to be included. Obviously.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Let There Be Love (Christina Aguilera 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109120630/http://www.4music.com/news/news/6712/Review-Christina-Aguilera-Lotus to http://www.4music.com/news/news/6712/Review-Christina-Aguilera-Lotus
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021164138/http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/index.php?nationGbn=E&current_week=47&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week to http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/index.php?nationGbn=E&current_week=47&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)