Talk:Hey Ya!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Hey Ya! is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 9, 2007.
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.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Time signature

See also the discussion at Talk:List_of_works_in_irregular_time_signatures#Hey_Ya. Hyacinth 10:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this song really in 11/4? To my mind it's 3 bars of 4/4, one bar of 2/4 followed by two measures of 4/4 - which does add up to 22 crotchets, though to my mind that doesn't make it 11/4. This message has also been posted to the Common Time article. --HighHopes 19:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Wondered on this myself, so I played it for a friend who's better at figuring out this stuff than I am. I think he came to a similar conclusion that you did. In any case it is a different and recognizable beat. I've snapped it on my fingers and people have known exactly what song it was quite quickly. I don't think you can say that about too many songs. -R. fiend 04:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're right; if anything it should be expressed as 22/4. I'm changing the article. Korny O'Near 04:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be 11/4, it could be 11/2. Anonymous 04 April 2006
From time signature: "There is a sense in which all simple triple time signatures, be they 3/8, 3/4, 3/2 or anything else, and all compound duple times, such as 6/8, 6/16 and so on, are equivalent – a piece in 3/4 can be easily rewritten in 3/8 simply by halving the length of the notes....At other times, the choice of beat unit (the bottom number of a time signature) note can give subtle hints as to the character of the music....Similarly, a piece in 2/4 can often sound like it is in 4/4 (or vice versa) and a piece in 3/4 can sound like it is in 6/8 or 12/8 time, particularly if the former is played quickly or the latter slowly. The distinction may be a matter of notation." Hyacinth 10:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
And I thought that only classical music, progressive rock and Dave Brubeck used weird time signatures. :-) 193.122.47.162 19:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of "Hey Ya, Charlie Brown" viral video?

Shouldn't the history of this song include the "Hey Ya, Charlie Brown" viral video that was developed by Ryan King and Dan Hess? The sheer popularity of this video across the Internet and the well-done interspersion of "A Charlie Brown Christmas" with the lyrics of the song (as well as United Features Syndicate's reaction to the video) is just as important, IMHO, to the history of this song as the video proper.

[edit] GA pass

Excellent work. Alientraveller 18:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for expanding the scope of the article

It looks like this article is on its way to FA status, and it seems that I just missed the peer review, so allow me to give you some suggestions. Well, one in particular. I'd recommend expanding the section on the musical elements of the song. In particular, information on instrumentation, structure, harmony and melody would be appreciated. It seems like there is a lot to say about it in comparison to other hip hop songs, so there should be more than a short paragraph about the music. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 10:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E major??

That last chord sure sounds like E minor to me. I've changed the article appropriately. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The sheet music states it's E major. Please cite a reliable source if you change it to E minor again. 17Drew 17:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Google's pretty much split on it (some say E, some say Em). The closest thing to official sheet music said E, so you may be right. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 08:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm going with an E Power chord. No third, so it's neither major nor minor. And if you're singing along, you can make it either. So everyone's right, depending on what they're singing at the time. 59.167.40.235 09:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Dave

notb665 Notb665 18:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC) I'm a music teacher, and it's definitely E major! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notb665 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Unforunately, "official" sheet music transcriptions are often incorrect. The chord is E minor. The statement that there is no third is incorrect, as both the bass and the square synth play a G natural (in addition, the synth part plays a complete broken E minor chord). If the chord were an E major, the notes would be G sharps, not G naturals (in order to not sound very dissonant). Borromean-ring 19:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That's lovely, but unsourced. There's a published source stating that it's in E major; if you disagree, you need to provide a reliable source stating that it's in E minor. 17Drew 20:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The only reason why people think it is is Em is because Em chord is in G major key, the key the song is in, so they convince themselves it is Em; but you can have out-of-key chords and E major is just that! Yes, "official" sheet music is sometimes incorrect, but this time it isn't. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvIw5ZqC1ms&mode=related&search= At approx 3.26 he is playing E major. Notb665 04:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There are both E major and Em chords in the song: clearly E major in the verses and less-obviously Em in the "hey ya" choruses. And I don't think that because of the key signature; I think that because of what I hear on the recording. The "official" sheet music is self-contradicting: it has a G natural in the "vocal" line and G# in the accompaniment on the particular chord in question (3rd page, 2nd stanza, first chord, measure 29 for those counting). To me the final arbiter is the "square synth" which clearly plays the full Em triad. The guitar is indistinct and the vocal has a very heavy vibrato at that point so they are not useful in making a determination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broderij (talk • contribs) 23:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Main page date request

Show support for September 10, the day after the single's original release, here (9 is currently occupied). –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 23:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Raul made a last minute change and the article is on the front page today (9). –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 16:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popularized phrase????

"The song popularized the phrase "shake it like a Polaroid picture" in popular culture, and the Polaroid Corporation used the song to revitalize the public's perception of its products."

I'd dispute that "shake it like a polaroid picture" is a popular phrase in common usage, or any usage! this is some sort of imagined point of view with no basis in reality! 81.131.9.94 00:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same question. Popular in which English speaking culture? I'm reasonably confident to say that, outside of the song, the phrase is unknown. Ozdaren 01:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Look it up and see.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] I see the phrase in print all of the time, and find it rather irritating, because I can't imagine anyone using it has ever shaken a polaroid picture. KP Botany 03:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I stand by my claim. A few drops of rain don't make a storm. Any how, now I understand where it may be popular, the home of all things 'interesting' the US (possibily only online?). Ozdaren 06:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
That's right, if it's US-based it *must* be worthless. Just because you don't think it's popular does not make it so. I'd say that the chain of links given is more than enough evidence. DestradoZero 14:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hold onto your horses friend, there is no need to get personal about this. This expression is relatively unknown in many other parts of the English speaking world. You seem a passionate fan of this group. I'm not trying to show disrespect to your interests. Ozdaren 09:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well done popular culture article

Good job, it's about the song, and doesn't go all over the place, it's well written and researched extensively and your references appear to say what you say they say. Nicely done. KP Botany 03:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism....racist?

Um, lately there has been some vandalism on this page with frequent use of the "n-word" and I think we really think we need to stop this Wikiracism fast. I am black and many of my black friends view rap music related pages on wikipedia...it's just very offensive and hurtful to the black community.-Signalfire0093 19:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of vandalism is more along the lines of disruption than it is sensitivity. So far as I can tell, all of the vandalism has been promptly reverted, and politely asking vandals to stop on the talk page isn't going to prove effective. 17Drew 19:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
If there's any significant and blatant vandalism to today's featured article, just make a report to administrator intervention against vandalism. Often we block quite quickly in that instance (despite what the page says).--Chaser - T 19:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The seven-year-olds will be back in school on Monday. The only way to stop this is to take it off the front page, and everyone would object to that. I like to see popular culture articles on the main page. They're hard to research and write well for Wikipedia, and the editors did a great job on this one. Let's focus on that, and not on the unattended children. Every main page article suffers the same fate, ridiculous amounts of vandalism. It's never new or original, but the article is. KP Botany 23:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two Hearts

Shouldn't there be some mention of the video clip for Phil Collins' Two Hearts. I may be wrong, but it seems to me like OutKast just ripped off that one. But then, I don't know whether anyone has documented the similarities. .... 22:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they are both based off the well known Beatles appearance on the Ed Sullivan show. 128.227.104.191 23:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
But...were all the Beatles played by the same person? Methinks not. But I could be wrong. 58.161.122.82 13:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
See this reference, used for much of the Music video section. Barber came up with the idea for basing it off of The Ed Sullivan Show, and they had André 3000 play the different members because of the different "levels and characters" in the song; it doesn't mention "Two Hearts" at all. 17Drew 00:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)