Talk:Ever Fallen in Love (With Someone You Shouldn't've)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit 13:27, February 12, 2006 82.20.0.91 (removed 'best' - pure opinion. Replaced with 'popular') was me, forgot to sign in. pomegranate 13:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics[edit]

I've removed the lyrics as they are a possible copyright violation. If they aren't and you have permission to use them here, please readd them. Fram 12:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a friend and I are debating as to whether the song is about incest or homosexuality. I know that Pete was gay, but to my knowledge, there is no speculation as to whether he had designs on his bro. However, my friend is very argumentative and cannot tolerate contradiction of his world view. Please could you clarify this matter so I don't have to buy him a tequila. I am very poor atm and thus this is an unacceptable expenditure. Thankyou for your time. x x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.206.119 (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The song is not about incest nor necessarily homosexuality. It is simply about being in love with somebody who is going to cause you unhappiness. Pete did not "have designs on his bro" as you put it. I stayed at Pete's house in Leigh a couple of times as a guest. I also lived at 54 Radcliffe Road, Bolton with Pete as a fellow student. Though Pete was bisexual he was basically straight. His mother was a hardworking, respectable loving woman who looked out for Pete's welfare. In fact for all her family: mention of Pete's brother in this regard are ludicrous. Pete Shelley (McNeish as I knew him) was and still is a top man, with extremely high standards of morality both sexual and otherwise. Fletcherbrian (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The song key[edit]

The song is not in c# minor, not for a minute. This is 100% E major, but I found that through original research, so an according citation would help (I didn't find any). Tonal analysis goes like this (I'll write down the degrees between parantheses, in Roman numerals; repeats not included):

  • verse: C#m (VI) – B (V) – E (I)
  • chorus: C#m (VI) – B (V) – D (I of D major, i.e. the relative of B's parallel key – see also axis system; in tonality, this is a modulation) – A (V of D major; IV of home E major) – B (V of E major) – E (I) – B (V)

If the song were in c# minor, it could be either natural or harmonic. The leading-tone B# is never heard, which means that harmonic c# minor is not possible. It could only be natural:

  • verse: C#m (I) – B (VII) – E (III)
  • chorus: C#m (I) – B (VII) – D (flatted II, Neapolitan sixth) – A (VI) – B (VII) – E (III) – B (VII)

But this is rather problematic. First of all, degree III is never used in natural minor (because it sounds too much like degree I of the relative major key). The VII–II progression in the chorus is correct tonality-wise, since there's no leading-tone, but using a Neapolitan sixth in natural minor is fairly absurd (and sounds more like a Phrygian mode, which is not tonal). That is to say, "forcing" the song into c# minor results in a weird chord table where no important degree (IV, V) appears, but all the others do.

Oh, and the song ends with a clear E major chord (tonal music always ends in the home key). I'll add the E major thing in the article and hope that a citation will soon follow. However, this analysis is rather incontestable (there's nothing questionable about it). (Impy4ever (talk) 09:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. This may be worth reviewing if and when a more comprehensive consensus emerges. Cúchullain t/c 20:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ever Fallen in Love (With Someone You Shouldn't've) → Ever Fallen in Love (with Someone You Shouldn't've) – per MOS:MUSIC and other recent move requests — kwami (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This is a controversial move due to conflict between MOS:CT and MOS:MUSIC which is currently being discussed (and the nominator is involved in). WP:LOCALCONSENSUS should not overrule. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the guideline at MOS:MUSIC that Robsinden unilaterally removed this morning. Deor (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline at MOS:MUSIC was formed by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and was in direct contradiction of parent guideline at MOS:CT. I propose suspension of move request until outcome of current discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suspend the discussion. All three editors above are involved in a discussion regarding whether MOS:CT or MOS:MUSIC is right and why they differ. Any nomination, comment, !vote or article moving should be considered pointy and ignored. When an agreement has been made I will happily support the outcome, whatever it is. For those that want to discuss please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters --Richhoncho (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

also Billy Bragg covert the song[edit]

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ever+Fallen+in+Love+Billy+Bragg

--Über-Blick (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ever_Fallen_in_Love_(With_Someone_You_Shouldn%27t%27ve)&oldid=1201860193"