Talk:Even Worse

Posthumous??

posthumous song about a socially inept apartment dweller's attempts to woo his neighbor Melanie

Erm. What? --Thorns Among Our Leaves 01:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, in the final verse of the song, Al sings about jumping off the roof of a building, basically committing suicide in front of the girl he's been seranading, so basically, the character in the song is dead, but still singing. It's weird, but 'posthumous' is probably an accurate description. --Measure 01:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

There's a line that goes "I may be dead but I still love you"

"Grey Matter" is a wrong link. (The description of You Make Me) --24.46.164.83 03:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Stuck In A Closet" as an AC/DC style parody??

I'm not exactly sure how to define the "style parody" employed by this song, but it definitely is far from being similar to AC/DC at all, let alone specific to the "Back In Black era". A better (but not perfect) description would compare it to the style of Billy Idol, which is conveniently parodied elsewhere on the same album. It's probably safest to call it a song in the style of generic hair metal.

FumblePDI at Yahoo Dot Com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.241.29 (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed that "Stuck In A Closet With Vanna White" is nowhere even close to ANY era of AC/DC--and I would hesitate to even identify it with hair metal. It's far more "pop" than any metal or hard rock.

Furthermore, "Twister" is more a general parody of the Beastie Boys style, circa Licensed to Ill--and there are no elements resembling "Fight For Your Right" in the song. Actually, the repetitive "Twister (twister) (twister) TWISTER!" lines are more a riff on a line from "Slow and Low" ("a hot dog with no mustard (mustard) (mustard)" etc.) -- Pennyforth 08:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

dont want to be rude jumping in, but i always thought this song was supposed to be a style parody of a aerosmith! doesnt anyone agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.174.243.12 (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Opinion

I think this article could greatly benefit from an expert on the topic. Lots42 (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Melanie

This song owes a lot to Marshall Crenshaw's "You're my favorite waste of time." Especially the chorus. Nearly identical chord structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nortmand (talk • contribs) 15:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Marshall Crenshaw's song was released after Weird Al's. However, Owen Paul's "My Favourite Waste of Time" was released in 1986, two years before Weird Al's "Melanie," and without any doubt the choruses match in every way possible (melody: identical scale degrees; harmony: IV-IV-V-I, rhythm: identical despite complexity of syncopation; placement of rhythm within meter identical). I added a YouTube reference to the track listing (I thought I'd try since the owner of the YouTube video is clearly Owen Paul himself). The update was reverted, I'm assuming by a bot that assumed the link was a copyright violation. OK. I understand having to be hyper-vigilant about those things. So naturally I'd want to add the reference without any YouTube reference, but then the source text now says "DON'T ADD A BAND/GENRE HERE UNLESS YOU HAVE A RELIABLE SOURCE TO BACK IT UP." Seems there is a dilemma here. Weird Al unquestionably emulated the chorus of Melanie from Owen Paul's song - this is not debatable. Even the opening lyrics match (one word being stretched out over several notes) and also rhyme ("Ba-a-a-a-BY" vs. "Me-e-e-la-NIE"), a distinctive feature of Weird Al's deliberate writing of parody lyrics. It would be silly to think that some article, interview, liner notes, or other text would be required as an additional "reliable" source when the resemblance is undeniable and the timing (2 years after Owen Paul's original) is consistent with most of Weird Al's album releases. Actually listening to the two songs *is* the credible source here. OstinatoFreak (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to identifying style parodies, we need sources to be reliable and verifiable. This generally means that they need to be from a peer-reviewed/edited source (e.g. magazine, book, professionally published/released form of media) that backs up the claim. Since your assertion that "Melanie" is a style parody of a Owen Paul song is based solely on your idea, and because you do not provide a reliable, third-party source (YouTube doesn't count, because the video itself is not affirming that it's a style parody, it's merely making a comparison) that clearly backs up this idea, the edits are considered original research, which is explicitly forbidden on the site: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I do understand the idea of reliable and verifiable sources. What I don't understand is how the line is drawn that distinguishes between those things that need verification and those things that don't. For example, Weird Al Yankovic is referred to with masculine pronouns "he" and "his" in his Wikipedia article, and yet Wikipedia offers no citation documenting that Weird Al Yankovic is male. My point here is that no matter how hard one might try to assert that the reverting of my editing was an objective decision based on rules set forth by Wikipedia, it is not true: someone subjectively determined that the resemblance of these two songs was less self-evident than the fact that Weird Al Yankovic is assumed to be male, and therefore is subject to these rules in the first place. Both facts are equally self-evident, undoubtable for any observer of Weird Al's body shape, face and timbre of voice, and undoubtable for any listener of the two songs. As a second example, would citation also be needed to identify that "Jingle Bells, Batman Smells" is a parody of Jingle Bells? In research, certain kinds of skepticism are warranted, while other kinds of skepticism are not, such as pretending not to know something which is plainly knowable. Even the strictest of scientific journals recognize certain boundaries of where skepticism stops being healthy and becomes nothing more than a philosophical game / thought experiment. As an example of something that really ought to need a source, one website mentions that Carly Simon's "Anticipation" chorus bears resemblance to Weird Al's "Good Old Days" chorus... this resemblance was much more subtle and definitely does not come close to the line of certainty. The Owen Paul influence crosses way beyond the line of certainty. OstinatoFreak (talk) 07:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You are comparing a style parody speculation to Weird Al's gender? I feel that that is a rather sophistical argument (first and foremost, because Yankovic himself identifies as a male, meeting the requirements of MOS:GENDERID and WP:ABOUTSELF to a certain degree). And yeah, pretty much all knowledge/judgement calls/writing is to a degree subjective, and I don't think anyone is really saying it isn't. Indeed, Wikipedia allows reasonable subjective extrapolation from sources, otherwise the creation of an encyclopedia would be unattainable (you, for instance, could follow the sort of reductio ad absurdum logic and say that everything is original research, since its being [re]written from some new, subjective editorial viewpoint). However, there are limits to this reasonable extrapolation, meaning that Wikipedia requires we abstain from adding "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." The key here is sources that are "reliable [and] published". Those reliable and published sources indeed come from someone who generated them from a subjective viewpoint, but they are a) reliable (in that they have been peer-reviewed/copy-edited/proofread/looked-over/etc. and seen to somewhat accurately reflect what is by and large accepted as 'reality') and b) published. Furthermore, your addition of a YouTube video as a source is an example of "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources", which is, again, explicitly forbidden on this site. Finally, I feel that you are implying that the style that "Melanie" is lampooing is "plainly knowable" as that of Owen Paul's. This does not seem to be 'plain' or 'known' at all (just look at a quick Google search: no hits whatsoever). All-in-all, however, I feel that your issues are a post-modern criticism of the Wikipedia project itself, and not really something that can be answered on a talk page of a Weird Al album.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Toto

Isn't "Melanie" also a Toto song? Here's a link for it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSQDbDnvx38 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.226.118 (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I Think I'm a Clone Now

I reverted an edit where someone had noted that "I Think We're Alone Now" was covered by Girls Aloud. The cover version being referenced wasn't done until 2006 – somehow I doubt that Weird Al's recording was influenced by a rendition nearly 20 years after his. EJSawyer (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Even Worse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 23:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I am starting this review. So far I've done a little copy editing. I have noticed that one source is incomplete.

• Even Worse - "Weird Al" Yankovic". Billboard.

I will complete the review tomorrow.

MathewTownsend (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC) GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Just one question: what does "themed all but one of its parodies" mean in the lede?

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   One bad reference: Even Worse - "Weird Al" Yankovic". Billboard. No date, no link, no way to figure out what article.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Needs only the one reference fixed. And a prose question answered (above). Otherwise it is a wonderful article! Very enjoyable and the sound samples are great! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think I cleared up the two spots that were rough. The lead was poorly questioned, and I tried to re-word it. Hopefully it makes sense now! And the Billboard Visualizer looks like it is missing from the site as well, so I re-wrote that whole section. Hope these changes worked!--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• I still don't get what "themed all but one of its parodies" means. What does it mean? MathewTownsend (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to say that all the songs that were being parodied were re-makes of older songs. It doesn't really matter and it is a little confusing, so I just removed it. Hope that fixes it!--Gen. Quon (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It would have been ok if you just said that! But anyway, this is a GA PASS!

Congratulations on a very good article! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Cameo =

Not worth a mention that in the "Fat" video the guy with the stop watch is the same guy the played the cameraman that was dozing off drink the full pot of coffee to stay awake is less important that one of the extras was a pizza delivery guy??????? Seriously?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfshell (talk • contribs) 08:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)