Talk:The Letter (Box Tops song)

Authorship
+The letter was actually written by wayne carson thompson, not by the box tops. if you go to the box tops wikipedia page, you will see that informatin on there as well. 155.212.97.18 21:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Music concréte
This is a pop song that utilizes the techniqes of Music concrete, not an example of the genre. Tapered (talk) 06:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It's music (or musique) concrète, with a grave accent.


 * Nuttyskin (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

6/6/2017
If there is a question regarding using an infobox for Joe Cocker's version of the song, there is no need to revert dozens of other copy edits that brought the article into compliance with various formally adopted WP:Manual of Style guidelines and policies. There remain several glaring problems with the article: large sections (including those with quotes) have no inline citations, the chart info is mostly unreferenced and the table doesn't follow the MOS:CHARTS guideline. The article has been tagged "This article needs additional citations for verification" for eight years. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the oversight, Ororojo, but no mention was made of the other changes in the edit summary. You could, of course, have simply reverted my changes and then copy and pasted the infobox. The article does need some help; let's work on it. I will start with wikifying the chart box. - JGabbard (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A Google search turned up RS for the Boxtops original. For Cocker, it was more chart-related. His section in this article should be long enough to support an additional infobox. Many times there is simply not enough to write about for even a charting cover song.  I will look more at it later. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A common problem with song articles is although a cover may be thought to be important enough for an infobox or chart tables, there is no accompanying text to support them. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE includes "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)."  An infobox is not a substitute for text.
 * The section on the Cocker cover contains three sentences. If in fact it meets WP:COVERSONG, there should be enough RS to expand this section. The Mad Dogs and Englishmen article notes that "The Letter" single was recorded during rehearsals for the tour.  Therefore, it is probably not a "live" recording (before an audience) and it is not "from the album Mad Dogs". Billboard shows single on the chart in April 1970; the LP appears on the chart in Sept. Even this info (and the fact that it was Cocker's first top 10 single in the US) would make the article more informative (and accurate). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Charts
There are 25+ unreferenced chart peak positions in the "History" section. These should be moved to the "Chart performance" section, if citations are added. The additional sentence after the charts (specifying number of weeks) is an unneeded detail and not given for the other charts (also unneeded in the History section). The "Joe Cocker cover" section contains a large blank white space and looks awkward. Until more is written about Cocker's version, the charts should not be formatted as two columns, which is causing the problem. The mention of the Mindbenders' cover in the History section should be moved to "Other cover versions" and the unreferenced trivia "the song appears as...[3x]" should be removed. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There have been several improvements. However, twelve unreferenced chart peak positions appear in the Boxtops Chart performance table and three in Cocker's.  Also, two cover chart positions are unreferenced. These should be cited or removed.  Record charts has info on recommended charts, etc.  The blank space and unreferenced Use in media should be removed. I've made some other changes that were easier done that listing here. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Tsort.info/music/ is on the list of WP:BADCHARTS. About 20 chart table entries need citations to WP:GOODCHARTS. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Guitar pop

 * "... four-piece whose way with a sunny melody and a lovelorn lyric is enough to breathe life into the seemingly exhausted genre of guitar pop" The Times
 * "The band are experts at crafting the kind of jangly, catchy guitar pop that have endeared them to fans of that genre," The Young Folks
 * "a summery, lilting jam that perfectly straddles the line between fuzzy, lo-fi guitar pop and nostalgic doo-wop" DIY Mag
 * "... I have a segment called “Indie Landfill”, where I rescue a song from the mid ‘00s guitar-pop scene PopMatters

Wikipedia does not decide what is a genre and what isn't based on whether the term has its own dedicated article. There are countless examples of the term guitar pop being used to refer to a specific category of music. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Guitar pop doesn't seem to be a viable genre. At best, it is a subgenre of pop rock, which is where it's redirected. That article doesn't discuss "guitar pop", except to say "As of the 2010s, guitar pop rock and indie rock are roughly synonymous terms used as a contrast to non-guitar based pop music like hip hop and R&B.[10]", which is all the cited reference has to say about it. Pop rock already doesn't include hip hop and R&B, so the addition of "guitar" doesn't provide much contrast (how much "pop rock" doesn't have guitar?).
 * AllMusic mentions "blue-eyed soul with a slicker and more pop-oriented sound featuring neat touches like the string section". "The Letter" spent 10 weeks on the R&B chart. With a horn section, strings, and the soul-influenced/oriented vocal, it has more in common with other blue-eyed soul, like the Righteous Brothers, the Rascals, "A Whiter Shade of Pale", etc., than indie rock, which has little soul-R&B connection.
 * —Ojorojo (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Chart performance

 * The "also reached the top 10 in several other countries" chart positions are taken from Billboard's "Hits of the World" sections for the dates indicated. The November 4, 1967, issue on page 70 includes "THE LETTER" and "Box Tops" or "The Box Tops" under Britain: #6, France: #7, and Holland: #8; the one for November 18 p. 59 includes Malaysia: #10; and the rest should also check out as well. If it were done today, I'd use a different citation format, but the info is valid and verifiable. Rather than just re-add the sentence, maybe the section could be re-done to make it more reader friendly. Any ideas? —Ojorojo (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Well.. Why not just add it in the same format as every other "chart positions" section? ili (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Billboard's Hits of the World section doesn't always have listings for the same countries every week, so one cannot tell if a song peaked during a week when there was no listing. So it is safer to say "reached the top ten", which is verifiable, rather than #6, #8, etc., which may not be the peak. Additionally, it does not always specify what the sources it used; sometimes it indicates "Courtesy XYZ" and other times nothing.
 * Looking at some song articles, I wonder how useful it is to the average reader to list all the details for a dozen or more countries. Maybe it is of more value for current or recent releases, but it just seems like a lot of busywork for 30–50 year-old songs. A simple "it reached the top xx" in A, B, C, and D, with more specifics about the number ones (and maybe twos or threes), should provide a more direct and clear picture of a song's popularity without getting bogged down in details.
 * —Ojorojo (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we write for "the average reader". We have readers from all over the world, some of whom may be specifically interested in chart placings in their own country, and if information can be reliably sourced I don't see a problem with including it.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Many fans want to see their favorite bands who covered a song added as well. But at some point, too many details overwhelm an article and become a distraction. This is after all supposed to be an encyclopedia: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" (WP:NOTEVERYTHING, emphasis added). I've never seen a music reference work with exhaustive lists of cover songs, chart positions, track listings, etc. That is better for specialty sites, like secondhandsongs, hung median, and discogs. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a question of balance, I agree. "Hung median" is a new one on me, and Google isn't helping me much...   ??   Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Good question. It has several entries linked in WP:GOODCHARTS, but no history, description of methodologies, relation to national charts, etc. (see this discussion). Let me know if you find anything. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Give me a ticket for an aeroplane
Interesting example of an American use of 'aeroplane' (rather than airplane) in this song. Acorrector (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Charts
Hello : One of your recent additions was removed a couple of times before, one in 2018 with the summary "removed NZ Listener/Flavour of New Zealand: doesn't meet WP:CHART guidelines". The guideline includes: "A chart is normally considered suitable for inclusion if it meets all of the following characteristics:... 2. It covers sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources." However, Listener does not cover either, but is based only on voting by its readers (subscribers?).

The Listener info page includes: "Between 1961 and 1975, there were (to my knowledge) no sales-based music charts in New Zealand. In an attempt to depict what pop music was in vogue in NZ in the period 1966 to 1975, I have used the weekly music charts published in the NZ Listener.

These weekly charts were compiled from voting coupons sent in by readers of the NZ Listener. Only Listener readers would vote. The charts underwent a few name changes during this decade, but were always published weekly in the Listener." Since it doesn't meet the guideline criteria, it should be removed from the article. It should also be listed on WP:BADCHARTS "Deprecated charts" or "Websites to avoid" so others will be advised of its unsuitability.

—Ojorojo (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I disagree. [deleted later: That entry needs to be reverted and restored. ] The fact that a different method than sales and/or radio airplay was used to survey listeners is entirely irrelevant. The method should be viewed as effective and accurate, because the chart positions are comparable to those of other nations.  Plus, New Zealand had no other national music chart or survey during that era. Lever Hit Parade and Listener charts are used across hundreds if not thousands of WP song articles, and not only because I have entered them.  [added later: The key word in the policy is "normally," which is there for this very reason, since NZ would otherwise have no chart data predating 1975. ]  That is also why the charts from Toronto radio station CHUM are used for Canada from 1960 to 1963, prior to the RPM chart era. - JGabbard (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edit earlier today already restored it once again, so there is nothing to revert. A RfC has been started at WT:CHARTS; please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't change your comments after someone has replied. Instead, use strike and insert (see WP:TALK). —Ojorojo (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I've never known how to do that, thanks. - JGabbard (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)