Talk:Enjoy the Silence

Covers

I know the site nullsleep has two covers of this song, not listed here. Video Games Hero (nintendo DS homebrew game) also had a unique mix. Might someone be willing to look into the covers and credit them appropriately on the wiki page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.18.115 (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Talla 2XLC “Can You Feel the Silence” is also not listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.88.89.137 (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Tori Amos

Surely the bit about her cover being 'Elegant, sparse sounding' isn't really factual, and more like a crazed Tori obsessed fool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.8.205 (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Harmonium

I get miffed when I read articles that cite that the demo of Enjoy The Silence is played on an organ. The reason it's called Enjoy The Silence (Harmonium) is because it's performed on the popular, adopted by South Asia, instrument of the same name! Sure it's an organ of sorts, but it's a very specific one.

Fixed (for future reference, it probably would've been much easier and faster for you to just make the change yourself, instead of writing about it on the talk page). John5008 | talk to me 17:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I'm proposing merging the contents of Enjoy the Silence 04 into this page, much like how I've written Everything Counts to include the original 1983 release and the 1989 live re-release. Rather than doing this immediately, however, I figured it is best to leave it up to discussion first. If anybody has any objections, please let me know...if not, I'll probably do the merging in about a week's time. John5008 | talk to me 20:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the merger. I think you did an excellent job with Everything Counts, and I'd like to see the same thing happen here. Acegikmo1 23:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

--- I respectfully disagree with the concept of merging distinct singles. Neither "Everything Counts (Live)" nor "Enjoy the Silence 04" are reissues but, rather, discrete singles (unlike "Strangelove" and "Strangelove 88" which I would agree should be merged). I find it simplistic and reductionistic to merge these distinct recordings, especically if the idea is to catalog the singles historically. 72.132.36.31 23:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, there seemed to be no disagreement, so I went ahead with the merger. In addition, I very much appreciate your comments regarding "Everything Counts"...glad to see that didn't go unnoticed. :) John5008 | talk to me 04:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

--- I also disagree with the merger on the grounds that they're independent singles. It's fine if something's been reissued, like Strangelove '88, but if they're completely different singles with different catalogue numbers and b-sides, etc. leave well enough alone. I've seen it across the site and it really doesn't work.

--Feduciary 12:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you know that in Denmark a band of five have named their DM Cover band after this song and the fans leave footprints in the ceiling when hearing one of the greatest tunes out there.

Fair use rationale for Image:EnjoyTheSilenceL12.jpg

Image:EnjoyTheSilenceL12.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Enjoythesilence.jpg

Image:Enjoythesilence.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Reinterpreted is nu metal

If you hear the "reinterpreted" of Enjoy the Silence, you'll note it's far more "nu metal" than "alternative rock".

By no means alternative rock is as heavy as that remix song. Additionally, who remixed the song was Mike Shinoda, from a still nu metal-styled Linkin Park (only in 2007 the band left nu metal behind).

Thus I've changed the style. I've kept the electronic rock but changed alternative rock to nu metal.

And the reinterpreted ruined Enjoy the Silence...

187.59.114.201 (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Another band's album tacked onto the end?!?

Why???

-143.215.155.50 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

I agree and will remove the huge Lacuna Coil section at the end unless someone can come up with an argument otherwise. This belongs on a separate page or Lacuna Coil's page. Kagetto (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

According to the WikiProject Songs project when a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, this should be included in the song's article, never in a separate article. Orpheuss (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

So we should make a huge section for every cover/album that has been made? There are hundreds of covers, why have that big of a section for just one? Come on. Kagetto (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Lacuna Coil released it as a single, and it charted in the UK. An example of another "that big of a section", see Marilyn Manson cover at Personal Jesus. I think there was Lacuna Coil template at the bottom once, but that was a little too much. --Sk4170 (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

If they respect the criteria of WikiProject Songs yes, in this case I quote the selection in the project guide

• the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song (not on the subject of the rendition),
• the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS.

Orpheuss (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Referencing the Personal Jesus page doesn't make things better. Now we have two pages that have unnecessary info. Noting the Lacuna cover in a line or two should be good enough. Do you really think someone came to this page in hopes of finding out that Lacuna Coil has a song called Virtual Environment that is 5:23 long? If you went to a library and opened up a book about Depeche Mode, would you expect a chapter about a different band? Don't hide behind wikipedia criteria. Use common sense.

Just to remind you, this is an article about a song, not about Depeche Mode. Most Lacuna Coil fans probably never heard about Depeche, but they might come here to check the song. Please sign your posts. --Sk4170 (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Spanish charts peak position

The Spanishcharts.com offers quite confusing information about the single. It gives #1 for the 2004 entry, but later states that the peak position for the single was #5 which I believe has to be a typo. The info seems to be a mix of the 1990 release and the Mike Shinoda version of 2004. I reverted the peak position back to #1 based on "Listas de Afyve" (currently Promusicae) from 12 March 1990. It shows that the single spent 5 weeks on top of the chart in 1990. ETS'04 topped the Spanish charts in 2004 for one week. Promusicae website doesn't offer online charts history from 1990. --Sk4170 (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Accusation Of Vandalism From Sk4170

I have been accused of "vandalism" for reinserting the information that the single was released on 16 January 1990. This was the original information carried here and was altered some time ago without explanation. To the best of my knowledge the original information was correct. If fresh reliable information has been discovered, I would support any changes. I do not vandalise Wikipedia articles. I simply expect that all changes carry rationales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.23.37 (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

First, you claim in your edit summary that "The DM website states 16th January." There is no such date at the official Depeche Mode discography. Nor in other sources, including the Malins and Miller DM biographies. How can it be possible that you completely misread the DM discography page? Do you have something else to support your claim? You are now saying "to the best of your knowledge" and don't mention the DM website anymore. Second, as far back as the article revision history goes, 8 November 2005, the original information was the correct release date 5 February 1990. How can you claim that the January date is the original information carried here? Also, I find your demand for "fresh reliable information" and "rationales" quite confusing, as you yourself added a wrong January date and explained that you found it from the DM website while the actual date you can see there is 5 February 1990! I'm going to restore the correct date now and add the Malins book as the source. --Sk4170 (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This song is Dark Wave, no new wave or electronic

This song is considered Dark wave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.33.20 (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

By whom? Can you present reliable, preferably multiple secondary sources to support your claim, e.g. magazine articles, books, written by professional journalists where the song is consistently talked about as dark wave? Until that it will be regarded as your personal point of view and as such against one of the major Wikipedia content policies, neutral point of view. --Sk4170 (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't find any sources in support of dark wave. Reverted until properly sourced or consensus reached. --Sk4170 (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Use by Dior

This song was used in the 'Secret Garden - Versailles' video produced by the Dior fashion house. link to Secret Garden - Versailles --Andrew 12:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Lack of information about the song itself

The article as it is lacks information about the song itself : the melodic structure, the lyrical content. The french article for instance provides adequate data and analysis on those subjects. Abolibibelot (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

There is only one official video

I can’t believe this misinformation about two official versions of the video is still here. There’s a FAN MADE video that uses low quality VHS sourced B-roll from the video shoot that someone uploaded to youtube. The link doesn’t even work anymore. 2003:E0:5733:27AA:F1C1:A59B:8D19:B8D6 (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)