Jump to content

Talk:Baby (Justin Bieber song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBaby (Justin Bieber song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 20, 2010Good article nomineeListed

Orphaned references in Baby (Justin Bieber song)

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Baby (Justin Bieber song)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ACHARTS":

  • From Favorite Girl: "Justin Bieber - Favorite Girl". acharts.us. Retrieved 2010-01-15.
  • From One Less Lonely Girl: "Justin Bieber - One Less Lonely Girl". acharts.us. Retrieved 2010-01-02.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't sing Baby in its original key any more.

[edit]

I moved the following information from Justin Bieber, as I believe it is relevant to this article, but it was reverted. I believe it is relevant to this article as he specifically mentions that he cannot sing this particular song in its original key any more. Per WP:BRD, I thought I'd put it here for discussion. --Malkinann (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2010, Bieber's voice is now deeper than it was when he recorded his albums. The singer discussing his vocals remarked, "It cracks. Like every teenage boy, I'm dealing with it and I have the best vocal coach in the world. [...] Some of the notes I hit on "Baby" I can't hit anymore. We have to lower the key when I sing live."[1]

References

  1. ^ Justin Bieber's Voice Breaking contactmusic April 27, 2010
Oppose adding. In reguards to his voice being deeper it should be under Justin Bieber ,not Baby. Why? Because otherwise it would have to be added to all Justin Bieber Articles, his voice dropped after he recorded My World 1 and 2, so all singles would need this information saying he now sings in a different key, its pointless, include in main article, not singles. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 00:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He mentions how, when he performs Baby live, he cannot hit the same notes that he hit when he recorded it, so the information is relevant here, not to any of his other singles. --Malkinann (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the article about the SONG not Bieber's voice. Candyo32 (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I put it in the live performances section because he can no longer perform the song as it was recorded, and it must be changed for his live performances. --Malkinann (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it has nothing to do with a particular live performance. It's just a general note that his voice is getting deeper, which happened to use an example of singing lower during this song. Candyo32 (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter that it's not to do with a particular live performance of Baby. It's just a general note that as of this last April, he can no longer sing this song in its original key when performing it live, due to his voice change, so whenever he sings it live, the key for this song must be changed. --Malkinann (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EXACTLY! Its a general note that his voice is deeper, you just said it. Which means it falls under Justin Bieber, NOT Baby. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 01:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But he says it specifically for Baby, not for any of his other songs. He may or may not still be able to sing those in their original key. It belongs here as well as in his main article. --Malkinann (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it only belongs in his main article, say someone publishes something in reguards to Somebody To Love or what ever his next single is reguarding the key, or voice dropping, by adding this to baby you would have to add it to each article. Its pointless, it falls under fan facts. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 01:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On March 27, 2011 the music video of "baby" that went viral on Youtube reached 500,000,000. it was the first to break the record and is the most viewed video on Youtube — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1yleencm1 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to add it to each article, because the reference only talks about JB's voice and Baby. The information is relevant to this article because the reference specifically mentions Baby, not any of his other songs. --Malkinann (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He just used Baby as an example. For the second time, the live performances section noted specific performances and descriptions. Candyo32 (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know why he used Baby as an example. It could be that the E-flat major key makes it more difficult than the rest of his songs, it could be "just" an example, like you say. However, he does use it as a specific example of a song that he cannot sing in its original key, due to his voice change. Why should the live performances section only note specific performances, when JB's voice change will affect all future live performances? --Malkinann (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is about LIVE PERFORMANCES NOT his voice. Candyo32 (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When he performs Baby live, the key has to be dropped now, due to his voice. He can't sing it live in the same key it was recorded in. This is why I feel it's relevant to the live performances section of this article. --Malkinann (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The information is not relevant to anything in the section, it could possibly be different if it at least were a particular time. But it's general information that should only be included in the Justin Bieber article. Candyo32 (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The information is relevant to his live performances of Baby post-April 2010, so I believe it is relevant to the live performances section in this article, as well as in the JB article. --Malkinann (talk) 02:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The information is off-topic! The section is composed of describing when performances happened for promotion of the song and the album and description, and BAM - here's this random fancruft about his voice changing. Candyo32 (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained already how the information on his voice change is on topic for the live performances section of this article. How is this fancruft? It's reliably sourced information on how his live performances of Baby will now be different to the recorded version. --Malkinann (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Something can be sourced from TIME magazine and still be fancruft. In this situation the information is irrelevant, as I have said the live performances/promotion section is for identifying and describing specific performances, this voice change information belongs soley on his biography page. Candyo32 (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it fancruft? What constitutes cruft is a subjective opinion. I believe the information is relevant to "Baby", for the reasons I've outlined above. Why should the live performances section be limited to "identifying and describing specific performances" - there doesn't seem to be a section on what should go in a "live performances" section in WP:MUSTARD? --Malkinann (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sick of going around in circles. Add if you want, but other editors may not think it is fit for the section. Candyo32 (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sick of going around in circles too. I don't understand why you feel the live performances section should be limited to "identifying and describing specific performances" - are there any guidelines for what information is relevant to a "live performances" section? --Malkinann (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is just what a typical live performances or something "promotion" section is composed of. Candyo32 (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. My thought is that if there's no guideline, then how can this information be inappropriate, given that it is about JB's live performances of "Baby"? --Malkinann (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Automated suggestions

[edit]

Hope this helps the WP:GA run. The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Malkinann (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Digital Sheet Music"?

[edit]

What is this citation? [1] If it's a webpage, we should try to have the full url, but if it's a book or sheet music, then we don't need an access date. {{Cite music release notes}} may be helpful? --Malkinann (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Digital Sheet Music – Justin Bieber – Baby". Musicnotes. Alfred Publishing. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)

I believe its a website...:S. Im not 100% sure. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 07:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You has the wrong ref instated before, please see 4 Minutes (Madonna song) to see how it should be linked, it is an FA, the way i have instated it in the article is correct, please do not change it. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 07:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cite web may have to suffice, then, as there doesn't seem to be a convenient {{Cite sheet music}}. --Malkinann (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to think that the Madonna article has been vandalised since it's become FA, as the version of the Madonna article that was promoted included the URL. --Malkinann (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has not been vandalized, please see discussion of Tik Tok. I dont know why this is being persisted, there is nothing wrong with the way i have it. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 07:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When the Madonna article was promoted to FA, it had the URL, and now it doesn't. Was there a discussion on the 4 minutes page that led to the removal of the URL? Sometimes FAs don't retain their quality after being promoted, as they become vandalised. It would improve the verifiability of this page if the URL was included, which is essential for WP:WIAGA. --Malkinann (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright to put this discussion to an end, the ref was changed per discussion concluded at RSN. Im not digging through the archives as there are hundreds, but obviously the conclusion was to have it the way i have, and i dont intend on changing it. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 07:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_56#Musicnotes.com. Will peruse and see what's what. --Malkinann (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ive read it and the conclusion was to publish it as a "Tree Note"(which i agree with), so thats what ive done. Anything else? (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 07:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, seems pretty straight up, now that I've read that discussion. Sorry for the bother, I didn't understand what was going on. --Malkinann (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it was bound to come up sooner or later, best to have it dealt with right off the bat :) (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 07:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Singlechart usages for Norwegian?

[edit]

The article and sandbox seems to be in the category Category:Singlechart usages for Norwegian? What happened? --Malkinann (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand what you are asking me? (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 19:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, just the category didn't exist yesterday, so it was showing up as a redlinked category. --Malkinann (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Runaround Sue

[edit]

Just putting this out there to the editors of the page. The Justin Bieber song is almost exactly the same as the song "Runaround Sue." This doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere on the page for some reason. They are STRIKINGLY SIMILAR in chord progression, and Justin even sings a line from Runaround Sue during the intro to the song. There is a video on youtube that confirms this by having two groups of people sing the two songs at the same time. Can you please look into this, or at least open up a discussion about it? Thanks guys --58.179.181.37 (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but unless a reliable source that discusses the songs can be found, we can't put it in the article. --Malkinann (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your quick reply, and you will appreciate the fact that I did not simply change the page without bringing it up in the discussion with you first. I have found what I consider a reliable source (The British Broadcast Corporation or BBC) discussing the combination of Stand By Me with Runaround Sue. It is in the first paragraph of this article from the BBC website. here is the link , please get back to me with your thoughts. --58.179.181.37 (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the idea, but i dont think it should be added, its one reviewers opinion and doesnt have enough stand alone information or coverage to be included in the article. And yes i appreciate that you didnt just add it to the article, so thank you for that. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 21:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synthpop

[edit]

Please do not add synthpop to the genre. From research of the genre here and here. According to these definitions, this song does not fit at all. The genre is not just pop music with synthesizers in it. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, using your research falls under WP:OR. Also, your interpretation of what a genre a song is after looking at a definition is original research. Critical reception is the closest we can get to delving into explaining the information in the composition section of a music articles. With that said, critics specifically say the pop song has a heavy use of synthesizers. Candyo32 (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have not provided any source calling this song synthpop, which is equally WP:OR from your statement. It's not mentioned once in the article. Adding synthpop due to the fact their is synthesizers in the song is also WP:OR, and I'm challenging the genre inclusion. Your statements of synthpop would go against the information in the synthpop article. I will add the contradiction template if this is not changed. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all the Synthpop article shouldn't be set as any sort of standard because it is not a GA or FA. However, even if it were, the intro stated, music... "in which the synthesizer is the dominant musical instrument." Also like I said with critics being the only source we can derive genres from, there would be no genres. For example, critics noting the dance feel of the pop song = dance-pop, R&B vocals = R&B, hip-hop flavor = hip-hop. I was trying to avoid using WP:OTHERSTUFF, but even with arguably the highest quality music article on Wikipedia, 4 Minutes (Madonna song), dance-pop is used as a genre deriving from critics noting dance elements in the pop song. Candyo32 (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the article not being GA or FA standard, there is no problem with bringing this up. Critics also compare the song to doo-wop, but you didn't cite that as a genre did you? I recommend reading this user essay to simplify the article. As we can not come to a consensus, would it be so wrong to just have the genre field labeled as "pop" or dance-pop for now? It's a single song that does not really need to span four genres. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is because critics said the song draws from doo-wop influences, not that the song was doo-wop music. And it is not a Wikipedia standard to the number of genres listed, as the song has been called R&B, pop, dance-pop, and hip-hop. Candyo32 (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, just a suggestion: this user essay|read this essay. How do you feel about a suggestion like this? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article is fine at its current state. Candyo32 (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree as per above statements. You've noted the other genres, but still are incorrect about synthpop. If this were a GA review, I wouldn't pass it as it's uncited and I have more proof from reliable sources than your opinion on what the genre is about. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated as user observations can't be used for genres under WP:OR, what critics infer, such as stating heavy use of synthesizers, or dance elements, or funk-tinged, are used to develop genres. And what ever research you find about the genre can't be used because it is all original research because whoever is writing these theses on synthpop hasn't heard the song to say whether it is synthpop or not. Candyo32 (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not feel just stating synthpop without any citation and original research such as stating that critics note "heavy use of synthesizers"? You've yet to provide a source backing up your claim. I've added a citation needed tag to the genre in the infobox. At this state, it would be easier and more correct to remove the genre itself. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The synthpop article itself says "Synthpop is a genre of pop music in which the synthesizer is the dominant musical instrument." The article states the song is a pop song with heavy use of synthesizers." Candyo32 (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article also says it's a style from the late 1970s and the early 1980s. It also states it's been brought up again in the early 2010s and late 2009s by indie music artists. Justin Bieber does not follow this at all. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As don't other artists such as Miley Cyrus, Chris Brown, Drake, Nicki Minaj, and Selena Gomez and numerous other artist emerging in the late decade using the sound. As before, the synthpop article cannot be used as a precedent. Candyo32 (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF. So your argument is invalid. I might as well state that synthpop has been removed from several articles related to The-Dream who produced several Bieber songs. Please add a citation or remove the genre'. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However it wasn't an "WP:OTHERSTUFF" argument. I was personally and directly proving the point that not all synthpop songs fall under 2009 indie artists as the low-quality synthpop article states. Candyo32 (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly looked like WP:OTHERSTUFF. Those articles need work too, but we are not talking about them. We are talking about this song.Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BUT I was not talking about those songs in particular. I was making the point that synthpop is not just by 2009 indie artists ! Candyo32 (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is WP:OR I'm afraid...Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, all song articles listed have reputable sources that listed it as a pop song making heavy use of synthesizers, as stating on the synthpop article "dominant use of synthesizers." Candyo32 (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Hopefully this will put this to an end. The Rolling Stone review of My World 2.0. While talking about Baby he states "Baby, is a consciously crafted throwback. Listen to the chord progression, tapped out on a perky synth:. Wikipedia states Synthpop is a genre of pop music in which the synthesizer is the dominant musical instrument.. Synth meaning synthpop. here the the reference (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 20:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a group uses a synthesizer does not make them a synthpop artist, song, or such. Andrew WK, The Beach Boys, and David Bowie have used synthesizer as a main element in their music. I have never seen them classified as synthpop as that would incorrect. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article also states that synthpop is considered a sub-genre of new wave, is Justin Bieber or any of the artists mentioned above "new wave"? Of course not.Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The articles does not call him a synth pop artist, it calls the song synthpop, which i clearly stated above. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 21:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, but is this song a new wave song then? If it's not following these definitions, then I do not think we should include it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AND IT ALSO STATES SYNTHPOP IS A SUB GENRE OF POP MUSIC. Synth - use of synths. Face it, no critic is going to come out and directly call a song synthpop. Therefore you infer from their usage of the elements of the song, as I have stated time and time before (ex. dance elements, hip-hop flavored, funk-tinged, reggae-influenced, electronica-driven), to derive genres such as (dance-pop, nu-funk, reggae fusion) or what ever it may be.

Also, time and time again I have stated the Synthpop article is not high-quality enough to be considered a precedent to others. Just because a song is synthpop doesn't mean new wave. That's just like saying a dancehall song is reggae. Candyo32 (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quote you are referencing to "In recent years, synthpop has began to re-emerge as a new wave of indie artists began to incorporate the sound into their songs. Some of the bands during the early-to-mid 2000s that helped the development of the genre have included Goldfrapp, The Postal Service, The Junior Boys, Uffie,[7] The Knife, and particularly The Killers, whose 2004 debut album Hot Fuss achieved widespread popularity and was considered an authentic throwback to 80s synthpop by many." Contains no references, it falls under Original Research, so that point cannot be used. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 21:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

regardless of these points being used, I have provided citations of what synthpop is and when it's era lasted. My citations above clearly state "By 1984, synth pop had begun to die out, but the music had helped establish the synthesizer as a primary instrument in mainstream pop music during its time in the spotlight."]http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:18%7Cwork=A here]. This brings up the point that just because mainstream pop music is using a synthesizer, it should not be under the term "synthpop". Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If not further proof against the statement above can be made. I'll be removing the synthpop statement from this article tomorrow. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay this is going nowhere, the definition of synth pop is pop with synthesizers. Def here "a kind of popular music, esp. of the 1980s, emphasizing the use of synthesizers and often characterized by blandly monotonous rhythms and optimistic lyrics" and a broken down def here. "Synthesized Popular Music". Earlier up in the RS review i said ""Baby, is a consciously crafted throwback. Listen to the chord progression, tapped out on a perky synth:. Wikipedia states Synthpop is a genre of pop music in which the synthesizer is the dominant musical instrument.." Two things to note, 1) Synth as in Synthesizer, can mean Synthpop. 2) "Throw back" referencing to old/reminiscent of older music, which you keep saying synth pop is from the 1980's. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 00:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't hold up. You might as well say it's doo-wop as well then with all the "throwbacks" to 1950s music. You see what I mean? :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? read the sentence, he is directly referencing to Synth as the throwback (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 00:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence you are referencing to "The fun begins with "Baby," which blends winks at Fifties doo-wop with hip-hop chants ("Yo! Unh-huh!"), disco strings and one of the catchiest choruses concocted by the-Dream and Tricky Stewart, the duo behind "Umbrella" and "Single Ladies." Says it hints at doo-opp and hip-hip. The quote i have says the song is Synth, he doesnt say it hints, he says directly uses Synths, thats why who doo-opp wouldnt be included, because its not a main theme in the songs production, better yet, he only hints at one line in particular, not the whole song. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 00:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless. Synthpop by your dictionary definition links it similarly to the 1980s as does the allmusic statement I've cited. I really want to have a consensus on this so we can get on with our lives. I still recommend taking note of this user essay for genre to well..WP:KISS. ;) Let's wrap this up!Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You misread my link, "a kind of popular music," it used the 1980's as an example, esp means especially. My other ref directly refers to "Popular Music" not being biased on year. I would like a consensus as well, your main thing was Original research to which i provided links, so it clearly isnt OR. So with that being said it should be left as is. There is no rule violations or Ga violations in have Synthpop in the Genre section. Lets just leave as is. This is an non-winnable/ pointless arguement. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 00:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll drop it for now. I might try and get some music genre books from the library to spruce up the synthpop article. Until then, let's drop it for now as I'm sure everyone is just waiting to push an otherwise fine article forward. Go forth! Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Justin Bieber is not synth pop, THE REAL GENRE FOR "SYNTH POP" is techno new wave or electronic new wave. Justin is not electronic new wave. No one source says "Baby"(song) is synth pop.

"BABY" IS A R&B OR SOUL SONG THAT USES HIP HOP/DANCE DRUMS AND INCLUDES A RAP SECTION IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SONG.

NO ONE SOURCE says "baby" is dance-pop, but it may be considered dance/electronic dance.

I know new wave-rock music and groups like depeche mode, human league, erasure or devo are electronic new wave/techno new wave or synth pop (as some people call it).

The song ("Baby") is basically a R&B or soul song that uses hip hop/dance beats (DRUMS)

--Newalf (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Synths" in a pop song, synthpop, dance beats in a pop song, dance-pop. We go by what these sources say, not your original research. Candyo32 02:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candy, no one source says "Baby" is synth pop, that is your own analysis. Please send me what source says baby is synth pop and dance pop, those genres are unsourced. I have citations that use reliable sources and no one says that "Baby" is synth pop. I have citations that says "Baby" is a soul song that uses hip hop/dance drums. I will add it, because I investigate this song.

I think that the problem is the confusion of the term "pop", it is just an abbreviation of popular, pop music (popular music), pop culture (popular culture) or pop art (popular art), etc. I have citations that proved that.

Synth pop is not the real name of the genre, the real genre is techno new wave.

Dance pop is not the real name of the genre, the real genre is dance/electronic dance.

Synth pop and Dance pop were invented by people that did a wrong analysis of those styles

Pop is short for popular, it is the real meaning.

--Newalf (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read above, there is no music genre dance, dance means dancepop. Dont change it, its as simple as that. Changing it again will be considered disruptive editing and WP:EDITWAR both of which will get you blocked from editing. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still willing to bring this up: "By 1984, synth pop had begun to die out, but the music had helped establish the synthesizer as a primary instrument in mainstream pop music during its time in the spotlight." The genre's time and era has passed. Synthesizer is common in music. The site also calls synthpop a sub-genre of "new wave and punk" source. Would this song be considered a subgenre of that? If you kind find a source for it get back to me. Because it has a synthesizer backing and is a pop song, it does not make it synthpop. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im willing to remove synthpop to stop this pointless stupid argument, but dance pop is not getting removed and im not debating that. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no beef with dance-pop being there. Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Backup vocals - "Yup" and "Uh-huh"

[edit]

If someone can find a reliable source for the backup lyrics and vocalists that sing, "Yup" and "Uh-huh", between Bieber's lyrics, I believe it would be a positive addition to the article. My addition of the Yup/Uh-huh backup was reverted because it was unreferenced, and done in good faith, but the Yup/Uh-huh is a major theme throughout the song. I don't wish for the article to have original research issues, but if anyone can add referenced material on this, it would be helpful to the article. The only references I've found so far are fan related, and a fan-pov reference is no better. AlaskaMike 06:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where the info can be found since it is not included in the credits, and that is the only place where it would show up. I believe it is The-Dream, however no proof of it. Candyo32 08:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Dislikes

[edit]

It is now the most disliked video on YouTube, thanks to anonymous internet pranksters who call themselves "the Metal Militia." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.180.35 (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How prominant are the Metal Militia? Maybe there should be a subsection about them. They are part od why it has 718,096,471 views so far.--71.85.125.55 (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been the most disliked video without the internet pranksters.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.61.5.250 (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure?--71.85.125.55 (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They should include how he was hit in the head with a waterbottle and ran into a glass revolving door.

[edit]

In the music video section, you mention Jasmine Villegas' appearance in the video. You should link to her Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasmine_Villegas).68.193.247.210 (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bias of critical reception

[edit]

I find the Critical Reception section of this article has a noticeably positive bias. It seems that the worst is calling the song "goofy". Yet, as anyone with even the slightest amount of research experience on this song's reception would know, there have been an overwhelming amount of negative reviews, both professional and amateur, denouncing this song. Most of what I have read in the Critical Reception section seems to revolve around fan-pleasing, rather than an actual unbiased review. I don't wanna go any further on this, or it'll turn into a rant, but the point is that I do feel that the Critical Reception section should contain both the positive AND the negative. You can't ignore the general public's feelings - furthermore the unbiased feelings of representative accounts of public opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.253.201 (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote it and its not biased. Review number one "Bill Lamb of About.com gave the single a rating of four and a half out of five stars." = Positive review. Digital Spy = 3 out of 5 stars means mixed more so positive. "no great departure from what he's given us before" is the negative comment, "simple", "big" chorus about "puppy love" that works is the positive. Billboard review was positive. Boston Globe was mixed. Which i have, theres a positive and a negative. Sorry to inform but there were no negative review. Public view doesnt count - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote the Critical Reception section? Then would you mind explaining why half of the section is devoted to detailing one single glorifying review of the song? This is a Wikipedia article, not a high-school essay where you're trying to pass the 500-word requirement by so liberally quoting a single source. And if you want professional critical opinion, at least find some real music critics. - Iateyourgranny (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you just said is very biased. The wording is biased towards positive views. The public reception is mainly negative, for experience and from statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.61.5.250 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do not use public reaction on Wikipedia. We use critics. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Critics aren't as reliable as the public. Your selection of critics is biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.61.5.250 (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is how Wikipedia is written, so tough cookies. If you dont like, dont read it. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is tricking people into believing Justin Bieber is a good singer without actually hearing him sing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.61.5.250 (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, i dont know why your bothering to write here. It would be different if you were suggesting something that would help improve the article. Your views/public views arnt going to be added. Please go find something constructive to do with your time. Thank you. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article is very biased to be positive about the song, not least the reviews section. I don't believe for one minute that there are no negative reviews for such a vomit inducing piece of junk as this. It states in another Wiki article that this song is the most "disliked" song on YouTube, yet that fact is not even mentioned here, I wonder why? --Hibernian (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Find negative commentary from reliable sources, then feel free to inject them into the article. Candyo32 12:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but a review - no matter how corporate - is an OPINION, NOT FACT. you should add the fact that a lot of people HATE THIS SONG. seriously, is "and I Was Like Baby Baby Baby Ohhh Like/ Baby Baby Baby Noooo! Like/Baby Baby Baby OHHHHH!/Thought you'd always be mine, mine" a mind-blowing chorus? NO! but Bill Lamb's 4.5 stars makes this easy-to-write song look like Bohemian Rhapsody! PLEASE ADD SOME ACTUAL UNBIASED NEGATIVE REVIEWS TO THIS (sure, they are not official, but still...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.175.95.152 (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow what a convincing argument; I've never been so convinced on something in all my life, let me go change the entire article right away..... This is an encyclopedia, only things covered by high-quality reliable sources are added to the article. Public opinions are irrelevant. Find high-quality reliable sources that contain negative reviews, until then, bye. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has a point. This article is incredibly biased towards positive reviews, yet THIS SONG HAS MORE NEGATIVE REVIEWS THAN POSITIVE! I've just been convinced that Lakeshade is a belieber. Anyone else would have wrote an unbiased section writing about both positive and negative reviews. Oh and the negative reviews would be from CRITICS. Stop assuming that we want public views in here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.150.28 (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Find high-quality reliable 3rd party negative reviews to add to the article. Until then, bye. And to be clear, I don't like Bieber. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number

[edit]

We should probably mention that the word baby is used 56 times in the song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.73.57 (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No we shouldn't. No source anyways. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean sources? Just take a minute and count!
That is not how wikipedia is written, sorry. This article is a WP:GA anyways, it must be sourced. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the song itself a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.180.231 (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Positive/Negative

[edit]

Shouldn't the article say that the song recieved a heapload of positive reviews and a heapload of negative ones? On YouTube, it recieved 404,679,985 views, 710,160 likes and 1,451,685 dislikes. It would be the ACTUAL reception that this song recieves. I'm with the dislikes. I hate Baby ft. Lucadris as much as I hate MN12BiRD. My review: J.B. sounds like a girl and WHAT WAS HE THINKING?82.13.79.52 (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is not reliable, Wikipedia does not use public views, we use author and critic reviews. Public reviews are biased and not allowed. This will not be added, sorry. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so don't include my review. Include some negative reviews though, since that's what most people think. 82.13.79.52 (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glee cover

[edit]

Glee have covered the song. Should this be added? [1] Ozurbanmusic (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protection a go-go!

[edit]

It's good somebody protected this. I've seen so many vandals on this page it's not even funny! Oh, and by the way, I've seen some vandals on the Simple English pages. Fancy some protection if it gets ugly there? The Pikachu Who Dared (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USA

[edit]

Baby is 3x Platinum in the US... Same source as the existing one! Please change that! --93.229.101.104 (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks for letting us know. :) The Helpful One 03:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing citation

[edit]

I noticed that citation 25, name "sc_UKchartstats_Justin_Bieber" does not exist and is flagged in References. I thought at first that an underscore was simply missing between "Justin" and "Bieber" but that's not the case. Just pointing this out. --Valce Talk 22:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian music and Justin Bieber...

[edit]

Are two real portals that this article centers on.....

tildetildetildetilde — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.208.137 (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium

[edit]

Please add that Baby is Gold in Belgium http://www.ultratop.be/en/certifications.asp?year=2012 --79.199.63.211 (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why is justins talk page locked too?????

[edit]

Help! I wanted to ask some questions and am a huge fan of him, but why is his talk page locked???? It hasnt changed and nothing bad had happened to it, can someone please help me talk on his talk page??? =(184.98.114.65 (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* What do you mean it's locked if you just commented on it? ZappaOMati 22:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Couldnt just his page be locked? why that too??75.171.15.5 (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surpassing of popularity- "Gangnam Style"

[edit]

" In July 12 2010, the video became the most viewed video in YouTube history. It remained that way until 21 December 2012, when it was surpassed by Gangnam Style by Psy."

Not true. 21st December 2012 was simply the date when Gangnam Style made YouTube history by becoming the first single internet video ever to exceed 1 billion views. The actual date it surpassed Justin's Bieber's "Baby" was 25th November 2012.

Sources: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP5RbZ9T73E http://hollywoodlife.com/2012/11/25/psy-justin-bieber-youtube-record-gangnam-style-baby/ http://www.capitalfm.com/artists/psy/news/justin-bieber-gangnam-style-record/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Ex9-mG4g4

Can someone change that? I ask this, because I don't know how to do references, and I wanna make it clear here.

EDIT: It may have been 24th November, not entirely sure myself now...

Point is, the quote about 21st December was mistaken.

Edit request on 22 June 2013

[edit]

On the music video section, it says Baby was surpassed by Gangnam Style on November 21, 2012. This isn't true, it was November 25, 2012.

67.186.159.229 (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: The existing content does not have a reliable source, and you did not provide one either. I have changed the statement to "in November 2012" for now. Please feel free to reactivate this request if you have a source for the specific date. - see WP:RS. Thanks. Begoon talk 03:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
adding note: Another editor has been good enough to add a source (dated 24 November), which says "early on Saturday". That seems to imply 24 November. Unless anyone thinks it's terribly important that we have an exact date (which, in any case would depend on time zones, just to be pedantic), I'm inclined to leave the entry as it stands, but I have absolutely no objection if someone wants to be more specific based on that source. Begoon talk 05:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Edit Request - August 23, 2013

[edit]

The opening paragraph states that this is the best-selling song in American history. But Billboard's new certification policies now reflect streaming, not just sales. Baby is the most successful YouTube video, with over a billion views, which is where the bulk of the certification comes from. It is not just misleading, but a total lie, to say that it is the 'best-selling' song in American history. That title belongs to I Gotta Feeling by the Black Eyed Peas, which has sold more than 8 million copies; Baby has sold more like 4 million. It more accurately should be said to be the most commercially successful according to Billboard...NOT the best-selling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.153.116.200 (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Official video?

[edit]

Is there an official video of the song? On YouTube, is it this website here, isn't it? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ARRIA DIAMOND AWARDS FOR BABY

[edit]

Baby has certificated by ARRIA with the diamond awards [2], User:werlystennyson (talk) 04:07, 02 june 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.160.102.170 (talk)

Team Fortress 2 Parody

[edit]

There exist a parody of "Baby" which features samples from the first-person shooter multiplayer video game Team Fortress 2. You can listen to the song here. I don't know if this is endorsed by the Valve Corporation, but it does have 1.4 million views on YouTube, and the rap verse may be the only part in the song that doesn't use samples from the video game itself. An interview with the maker of the parody may be necessary. Is this eligible for inclusion in the main article? ElMeroEse (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Baby (Justin Bieber 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 05:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Baby (Justin Bieber 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2017

[edit]

Add {{YouTube most viewed}} navbox template.

--200.89.248.75 (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Gulumeemee (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Baby (Justin Bieber 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Baby (Justin Bieber 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2017

[edit]

"Baby" is a song title, not an album title, so it shouldn't be in italics. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:1D7B:5DE:3B37:17F8 (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There's a Manual of Style that says this is allowed, but I can't seem to find it at the moment. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2018

[edit]

Hi. Me want to edit 73.229.169.107 (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. JTP (talk • contribs) 02:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2019

[edit]

In the section titled "Style and Composition", I am suggesting that an extra sentence be added. I was searching on my own for the doo-wop song that actually starts exactly like the beginning of Baby by Justin Bieber. It is called "Runaround Sue" by Dion.

For those who are looking reference this article to figure out the same thing I did, it would be great to edit this line.

My suggestion: Please change

"According to Jody Rosen of Rolling Stone, the song "blends winks at Fifties doo-wop with hip-hop chants", comparing the style and the lyrics "My first love broke my heart for the first time/And I was like/Baby, baby, baby, ooooh/I thought you'd always be mine" to fifties ballads like "Tears on My Pillow", "Why Do Fools Fall in Love" and "Earth Angel".[8]"

to

"According to Jody Rosen of Rolling Stone, the song "blends winks at Fifties doo-wop with hip-hop chants", comparing the style and the lyrics "My first love broke my heart for the first time/And I was like/Baby, baby, baby, ooooh/I thought you'd always be mine" to fifties ballads like "Tears on My Pillow", "Why Do Fools Fall in Love" and "Earth Angel".[8] Most notably, Dion's "Runaround Sue" has a very similar introductory melody." Jigaleepoof (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Searching on your own and finding the information is original research, which is not permitted in Wikipedia articles. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

[edit]

This is confusing. In the lead section, it reads that the song received positive reviews. In the 'critical reception' section, it says critics panned it. GOLDIEM J (talk) 07:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 November 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved WP:SNOW closure. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 03:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Baby (Justin Bieber song) → Baby (song) – This is the most common song with the title "Baby". TheRafaMarc15 (talk) 09:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baby_(Justin_Bieber_song)&oldid=1205579345"