Talk:American Pie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American Pie is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
April 3, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

/Archive1

Contents

[edit] American Pie (covers)

hi ppl no fighting or anything but i suggest that this page be broken up, the don mclean pie is too big so there should be a separate page for covers only, example Madonna's version and other artist. Anyone agree? This proposed page could be called American Pie (covers) Rsf7589 20:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] original research

Great article for the most part, but every claim needs to be cited. Otherwise, this is original research. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Article shows both sides of all the interpetations so it is definitely NPOV and I don't know were we would find citations to back all clams in the article. Yamaka122 12:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book of Love / Propriety of the approach

Hmmm... I have to say that I don't buy "Who Wrote the Book of Love?" as Christian imagery. The song lyrics refer to a set of "rules" for romance, including breakup and reconciliation. If I were trying to interpret that reference, I would say that, in juxtaposition with the references to God, it's asking whether we (the listeners, the composer, whoever) still find that the world "works" by the rules we were taught (about relationships, religion, everything), or whether these somewhat simplistic rules no longer apply (or never did).

That's what I'd say if I were interpreting it - but I'm not, at least not in the context of Wikipedia, because that's not appropriate here. And I really have to question whether any attempt at sorting through the multiple interpretations of individual lines IS actually appropriate here.

In an encyclopedia entry on a popular song, it would seem most important to identify 1.) that the song is seen as requiring interpretation and is often interpreted, with varying degrees of consistency and historicity; 2.) whatever has actually been said about the song's content and meaning by its composer(s), as officially established interpretation, and 3.) a sampling of other prominent theories about its content and meaning and some of the strong/weak points in them (which is where a few examples of differing interpretation could be offered, along with their sources).

As long as the article is mainly an attempt to sort through interpretations for each specific line, there WILL be original research involved - it's inevitable. I suggest that it would be much more encyclopedic to change the format of the article; instead of sections on specific lines and verses, there should be sections on general themes, each containing a few examples of lines which contain those themes and how they have been interpreted. For instance, references to religion is a general theme; few could argue that it contains those. References to popular music and musicians, social/political references, etc. could also be general themes. Under those very broad categories, specific lyrics could be quoted to show the references, and then examples of prominent interpretations for a FEW of those quotes could be listed, along with their sources and any specific evidence for or against.

Without making some kind of change in this vein, I don't know that the article can ever be encyclopedic. Sure, interpretation IS what we as individuals and listeners are supposed to be doing with the song, but here we are not individuals and listeners, but writers and editors of a type of document which requires a lot more restraint.

Food for discussion, anyway (I hope).

Incidentally, I always thought the Chevy was attempting suicide. ;)

Hierophany 08:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Since the artist has never explained his work, any interpretations of it are suspect. However, citing an expert who has studied the matter from many angles is better than us doing it ourselves, that being against the rules. As with many works of popular media, there is a literal interpretation which requires no extraordinary verification ("who wrote the book of love?" is a line from a 1950s song and the obvious source of the literal wording), but the symbolic interpretation, having religious overtones, is a different story. Wahkeenah 09:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note from an A.P. fan

O.K., i am a huge fan of the son and if i remeber corectily (Wich i do, i mean i memerixed th entire song, by heart, (Proof that not all of us kids are lost) The lyrics in part of the article go:

'Cause the players tried to take the field, the marching band refused to yield.

instead, the sould go:

'As the players tried to take the field, the marching band refused to yield.

I have fixed this problem HHS.student

[edit] seperation

we should divide this article into the main article and an article about the symbolism. perhapes under Symbolism in American Pie (song) HHS.student 15:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] split the article

I'm thinking to split this article into the original version and another article on the Madonna version? Naysie 07:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I second that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.84.66 (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is only 25,112 bytes. There's no need for a split. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article could use a rewrite

This article could use a rewrite This article could use a rewrite 01:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ummm no!!! Its an "A" rated article. Yamaka122 12:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recording history and release

Several comments and a question about "American Pie" as a single:

Has anyone confirmed the existence of a 45 with "American Pie" on the A-side and "Empty Chairs" on the B-side, as mentioned in the article? I followed the source link -- yeah, I know it's Don McLean's own page -- but I remain skeptical. In 30-plus years of collecting, I've never seen a copy. It doesn't mean it's not out there, but I'd sure like to see it with my own eyes! I know that it was originally scheduled to be released that way, but I have no concrete evidence to suggest that it ever was.

Second, it might be worth noting -- perhaps in the "Time" section in the breakout box -- that three different single versions exist. I can grab the exact times off my original 45s if need be (or would that be considered "original research"?):

As mentioned in the main article, "American Pie" was issued by United Artists as (Part 1) and (Part 2) on the popular 45.

There also was a unique edit done for radio stations (this could have been the version that would have been on the A-side with "Empty Chairs" as the flip). It contains the first (slow) occurrence of the chorus at the start of the song, follows with verse 1, 2 and 4 and their choruses in their entirety, then concludes with a short faded repeat of "Bye, bye, Miss American Pie."

Finally, in 1992 the entire LP cut was issued on one side of a 45 in the U.S. for the first time, on a reissue single on the U.S. EMI label. Cheemo 07:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone can verify the "single"/radio edit versions (as compared to the full-length version that was/is almost universally played), that should be included in the article. As an aside, an abridged version was played on the January 15, 1972 broadcast of "American Top 40" (which included just the first three verses and the faded repeat of the refrain ("Bye, bye Miss American Pie ..."), but whether this was the single release Cheemo speaks of or just Part 1 (on the 7" single's A-side, with the fade being to give it a "graceful ending") played due to that particular show's time constraints — several other AT40 shows from the song's chart run play the full-length version — that would have to be confirmed through the appropriate sources. Sorry to sound confusing, but I hope I'm understood. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)]]
Update to my previous edit - According to "Goldmine Price Guide to 45 rpm Records" 4th ed. (ed. Tim Neely, Krause Publications, Iola, Wis., 2003. (ISBN 0873496302), there were several "American Pie" 45s issued. One is a 1974 reissue, while several have Parts 1 and 2 divided on the single. There is also one listing containing "Empty Chairs" as the B-side (as Cheemo alludes to), but it states beneath that "Unreleased?" (meaning its release status - be it for radio airplay or retail sale - is apparently not known as of the printing of this edition; in fact, no prices are listed). The bad thing about it is, this is simply a price directory and as such does not explain the edits at all (such as content or where fades happen in the "single"/Part 1 edit). I guess the only way to know for sure is to obtain (if it exists) a copy of the "American Pie"/"Empty Chairs" 45 and listen, but whether this would be acceptable to include in the article under original research guidelines I don't know. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)]]

I think it needs some minor changes--like copyediting.Jadams19 (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Die Live Sex More

Shouldn't this article include something about the DieLiveSexMore chant at CTY (Center for Talented Youth). I'll add this later, if nobody else does.70.23.248.149 06:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The tradition should be in the CTY article, not the article on the song. Not many people will care about CTY. Marlith T/C 23:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Split

The article should be split into the main article and an article for the symbolism. the point is that the article is getting way to long and it is a pain.HHS.student 19:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No, this article needs to remain intact. It's an A rated article which is hard to come by, and the analysis of the symbolism is a huge part of what makes it so highly rated. Besides, once the symbolism and cultural references are removed, there is precious little left of the main article. When an article is given an A status, it means the article is complete. Check the discussion linked at the top of the page regarding page assessment. Leave a success alone!! Wildhartlivie 08:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I also oppose the split. The article is not excessively long, and really the symbolism is what is most notable about the song. That said, I doubt this article will remain A rated for long because of the amount of unsourced/WP:OR material. / edg ☺ ★ 05:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Large-scale cleanup

Given the prolonged and pervasive violation of WP:OR that this article has been, I have aggressively removed as much speculation and unsourced material as I can. (Don't worry—it's all still in the history.) Sadly, this also means removing sourced material that no longer fits in. I'll try to archive some here. Deltabeignet 03:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The solution is to source it, not to delete it! This was an A-Class article! There was definitely some clean-up needed, but I don't think so much needed to be removed.[User:75.165.255.185|75.165.255.185]] 22:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.255.185 (talk)
But you can't source it. That's the problem. Anything not explicitly confirmed by Don McLean is speculation, and "The Annotated 'American Pie'" is scarcely a reliable source. More sources=more speculation. 'A-Class' is only a label, one that looked untenable in light of this article's original research problems. Having wiped the slate clean, we can try to keep this article in good condition. Deltabeignet 02:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Dkwong323 reverted me, recommending against overzealous editing of a Class A article. I must say I at first tried to remove as little as I could—unfortunately, that would have destroyed the strucutre and flow of the article. A large deletion was the radical but necessary solution many have called for. Deltabeignet 04:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

the "clean up" was just a large-scale removeal of information that can't be backed up because of the artists refusal to clarify. Wikipedia is not perfect we know that I usually wouldn't look things up on Wikipedia if i could find something better, but these are personal opinions on an important American song. This is the exact thing Wikipedia is great for. The reasons given were backed up with explinations they may not be sources but they allow the reader to form their own opinion which they have to do anyway due to the lack of varifacation from Don McLain. 72.86.115.126 22:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"just a large-scale removeal of information that can't be backed up because of the artists refusal to clarify." I'm afraid that was pretty much the idea. I will point you to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research. Information is good, but bad information is often worse than none. Deltabeignet 23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Please note that Wikipedia can also document what "many" or "most" critics interpret the song to mean, with citations. Whatever many or most mean. Those sources would be much easier to locate than McLean's nonexistent explanations. Karl Dickman talk 11:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
ok, i can deal with your rules but i would have to argue that the article wasn't full of "bad" information it was full of origional information much of which was discussed only in the boards before being added although i guess you would consider that bad, in many cases i would probably agree, but not in this one. With that being said i would like to say i do understand you not taking "common sense mixed with discussion" as a reliable source. my first comment was not a jab at you but more me saying i disagree with your idea of calling it a "clean up" which was insulting. i saw this article as a work in progress which you halted, and thank you Karl for pointing out that one can use what many or most critics think. i think what the article said would pretty much be right and if those other critics weren't so hard to find we'd probably have the same article as before you deleted most of it, but with citations. but what i now think after actually reading wikipedia's rules (ok skimming) is that those people who care about the article's creation should start an area of discussion where the sourced information can be compiled before being added. I would do this but im just a guy with 2 posts who enjoyed this article and was disapointed that the interesting parts were deleted, and as an enthusiast of this particular song i would like to say that i think the information was right and with a little more time you could probably put a lot of the information back up, although i have looked a little and i didn't find much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.146.237 (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
"Common sense mixed with discussion" and "personal opinions on an important American song" are original research, and not what Wikipedia does. The cleanup was very much needed. If McLean intends for the lyrics to be unexplained and cryptic, then that is very much the point of the song. Synthesizing an interpretation from other "sourced information" would only create some arbitrary arithmetic mean of others' original research (or more likely, a POV analysis of others' original research).
This articles lists several sites with interpretations, if that is what you enjoy reading. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I know there are some nice sites here that have interpretations thanks for understanding my rant. all i really meant by that was im sad to see it go and the only reason i use wikipedia is for things like this, im just disapointed that wikipedia isn't actually meant for those things. its funny really. "McLean intends for the lyrics to be unexplained and cryptic, then that is very much the point of the song." thats actually a good point the article should contain something along those lines (i know it does kinda, but it could be reworded like that)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.146.237 (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The writing in this article could use some work. We don't want to overstate McLean's intentions. We don't know for instance that he wrote the song with the intent of creating a mystery. What's clear is he knows it's the song's hook, and he encourages interest in the song by not explaining it. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Usenet FAQ as an external link

I'd like to restore the Usenet FAQ as an external link. While it is self-published and not suitable as a citation, it is has more information and is probably more notable a reference than the Octopus's Garden link. Would this be acceptable? / edg ☺ ★ 23:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No follow the rules loser --The Blizzard King 23:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus is a rule. So is Wikipedia:Civility. Image:Smile-tpvgames.gif. / edg ☺ ★ 04:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The person from Iraq

A person from Iraq doesnt like the song and haves so much time that they can delete almost everything every 10 min(same person). They accidentally wrote they hated Americans on this page but then delete it(its in the history of this page).—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Blizzard King (talk • contribs) 23:19, 19 September 2007

[edit] A-class?!?!

This is not an A-class article. This is more like start-class. I'm changing it. I suppose the standards on wikipedia were different when this was rated "A-Class." Well times have changed and this is a easily a "start-class" article.  cowbellcity45   talk  06:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The standards weren't different, the article was. That was before the "clean-up" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.73.164 (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Holy scare quotes, Batman!
Seriously, the A rating didn't take into account the amount of original research and second-hand speculation in the pre-cleanup version. This song invites lengthy and highly speculative interpretation, but a Wikipedia article cannot interpret the song. Several more-or-less definitive annotations are linked from this article, so losing that business isn't much of a sarcrifice. However, it clearly ticks off editors who wish to see interpretations presented. (Side note: just imagine the edit wars that would lead to.)
This is a pretty notable song, and a featured-class article is surely possible. Anyone interested in improving this article might want to look at the "model" articles listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. / edg ☺ ★ 21:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research being repeatedly restored

The OR version was restored. Marlith T/C 01:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And is reverted. All the changes since the restore constitute original research, so there's nothing to preserve since then.
This one might end in in dispute resolution. Obviously there's much initiative to create an unencyclopedic article. However, several "interpretations" are already linked. It is unlikely that anything thought up here will supercede The Annotated "American Pie", and even if they did, Wikipedia is not a place to publish new research. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
And again, this time with lyrics, a massive WP:COPYVIO. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Audio annotated American Pie

I remember hearing a audio annotated version of American Pie in the early 70s (possibly around 1973/74), but can find no reference to it on the web. As the song played a man's voice spoke an intrepretation of each line. Does anyone else remember this or have any information on it?

[edit] Look At This

"All the above bands mentioned above were influenced by the song "American Pie." There, however, are many other bands that were influenced by this great song..."

this dose not relley seem to wikiapedia like, i mean useing the word great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.211.83.82 (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The lyrics

I think that since the lyrics are very well known and since I am technically quoting them (and the fact that they are on the German Wikipedia) and are on several sites, they should be kept, along with the interpretation. December 21, 2012 (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"Technically quoting" is not a way around WP:COPYVIO. Only very short quotes are allowed. Interpretation is not allowed except via a notable source. And since your "massive edit" was a massive copy from another website, and a massive copyright violation. (It actually says in the edit window "Content that violate any copyright will be deleted.")
As for the interpretation, we have links to about four (4) sites with intepretations, some fairly authoritative and well-researched; there is no need to duplicate that effort here. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing American Pie

I plan on doing some editing to this article in the future. I think that it looks pretty good so far but it could use some minor copyediting. Jadams19 (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This article needs editing. It concentrates far too much on the madonna version than the more popular and well known original 58.168.184.131 (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interpretation that The Day the Music Died Refers to Elvis?

Where does the interpretation come from that "the day the music died" was the day in '58 when Elvis was inducted into the army? The WP article that the links point to says it was the day of the Holly-Valens-Bopper plane crash. If there's anything to the Elvis story, there must be some kind of debate, and that's worth a sentence or two.

I've looked through the Talk page and archive, and don't see anything about this. Kkken (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone misinterpreted a 2008 interview with McLean... an interview that wasn't cited, for the record. In simplest terms, McLean was saying that Elvis' conscription into the Army was the day the music (i.e. the great rock 'n' roll period of the 1950s) was almost dead, and that it completely died with the death of Buddy Holly, etc. That is assuming of course that the interview actually happened -- I haven't found it online yet. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so, if I interpret the article's History right, the Elvis interpretation was a new "contribution" from an Elvis enthusiast (whose Edit Summary conspicuously bears no relation to his/her changes), and you've reverted it. It was a friend of mine who first pointed it out to me. I'll have to invite him to have another look. Kkken (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)