Talk:That's Entertainment (The Jam song)

To anyone who doubts its notability, the going consensus is anything on the List of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time may stay. StarryEyes 01:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger Than Fiction...

Actually, "That's Entertainment" can be heard while he is on the bus reading the manuscript, way before the end credits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.124.153 (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Versions of the song

How many exactly are there? For example, there is the first released version with the heaviest bassline, then there's a version on Snap! that seems more acoustic whilst on Weller's "Hit Parade!", there's a version that seems like the Snap! edition but with more noticeable backing vocals and and even lesser bassline still. Any clarification?

Parody worth a mention?

Alexei Sayle produced a parody of That's Entertainment calle "That's Milton Springsteen" on "The Fish People Tapes" -- is that worth a mention?AxS 22:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Manormadman (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best known?

It is stated that "That's Entertainment" is probably The Jam's best known and most acclaimed song". Is there any evidence for this? Its presence on the Rolling Stone list should be noted, but only proves that it is acclaimed by American music journalists of a certain vintage. My instinct would be that on The Jam's home turf, "Going Underground" and "A Town Called Malice" are better known, but in the absence of objective evidence, I wouldn't offer this as a fact. Matthau (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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: This page Moved to That's Entertainment (The Jam song), other page not moved (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 13:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– WP:AT 1. Recognizability - 3. Precision . --Relisted. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)In ictu oculi (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't like all the clutter in the titles, especially the 1952 song. That seems to violate the WP rule of conciseness. I think for that reason the 1952 song is probably better like it is now, unless a more concise title can be arrived at. Softlavender (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I don't particularly like the length of including the lyricist either; Dancing in the Dark (Howard Dietz and Arthur Schwartz song) would be better as Dancing in the Dark (Arthur Schwartz song) in my view, but that's a POV that says first music second lyrics. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move of That's Entertainment! (song), support move of That's Entertainment (song). There should be a redirect from That's Entertainment! (Howard Dietz and Arthur Schwartz song). See the excellent argument by Peter James at Talk:Scandalous!. Andrewa (talk) 06:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The second one should be That's Entertainment! (1952 song) if further disambiguation is needed. We normally use the "X song" disambiguator for performers only. WP:SONGDAB doesn't cover this case, it seems, but AFAIK that's how these situations are usually handled. Yesterdays (1933 song), Just Friends (1931 song), For All We Know (1934 song), etc. Jafeluv (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting point but disagree. We certainly use the date for films, and that's probably good. But for songs I'd think the band was normally more helpful, as in this case, and that's what the guidelines say too. WP:NCDAB reads in part Naming conventions applicable to certain subject areas are listed in the box to the right; these often contain detailed guidance about how to disambiguate.... In other words, we have different conventions for different subject areas, just as for other parts of the article title. WP:DABSONG reads in part Disambiguate albums and songs by artist and not by year unless the artist releases multiple albums with the same name. That seems clear, doesn't it? Perhaps we should revisit the examples you give. Andrewa (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, usually we disambiguate by the recording artist and that's quite fine. Howard Dietz & Arthur Schwartz are not a band, though, and the song has been recorded by a number of artists. When there is not one artist with whom the song is sufficiently associated, we need to use an alternative disambiguator to provide context for the reader. In my opinion using the year is better than using the names of the composer and lyricist. Jafeluv (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for clarifying. Is this convention documented anywhere, I wonder? I would have thought that artist included songwriters, but perhaps not. Either way WP:DABSONG seems to need clarification on this point, but in any case I oppose that move for other reasons. Andrewa (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I ditto Andrewa's thought... mild support of the move of this page, but oppose move of That's Entertainment! (song). Red Slash 01:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support the first, and support That's Entertainment! (1952 song) for the second. There is already a number of songs disambiguated by year in 1952 and other pre-60s years. The reason for this is a song was written on one side of town and recorded by two or more people on the other side of town. The exact opposite of what is expected post-Beatles/Dylan. Maybe the guidelines should reflect the existing precedents? --Richhoncho (talk) 08:38, 10 November 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.