Talk:Blue Monday (New Order song)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Does anyone have a photo of this sleeve? I'm intrigued... -CamTarn

There are images in the discog - it's like an old floppy disk. Added an external link to it. - Neil

Contents 1 Page move 2 Infobox 3 I'm sure I haven't imagined this... 4 Shaun of the Dead 5 Did Apple use this? 6 Helps you work, rest and play... 7 YouTube links

[edit] Page move

• Support move - I can't see any reason not to have this at Blue Monday, especially as that currently redirects to here. sjorford →•← 12:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. At least until a disambiguation is needed. The guy who moved it may write an article on another song by the same name (if you can call 2 poorly constructed sentences an article), which could likely be taken care of with a dab header here. -R. fiend 16:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Just for songs, there have been "Blue Monday" songs by Fats Domino [1], George Gershwin Blue Monday (Opera à la Afro-American), John Lee Hooker, and more (Rolling Stone.com title search) . The Fats Domino/David Bartholomew song, in particular, has been performed by everybody from B.B. King to Buddy Holly and Cat Stevens. "Blue Monday" is also a very common phrase in Blues songs. "Blue Monday" was the name of a series of Blues music shows in San Francisco ([[2]]). It is also the name of a music group ([3]), and Goodbye Blue Monday is the name of another ([4]--possibly a Christian Rock group).

Outside of music, it is also the title of several books (amazon.com title search), and even the title for a graphic novel series ([5]).

"Blue Monday" is also the name for an economic theory The blue-Monday hypothesis: evidence based on Nasdaq stocks, 1971-2000. : An article from: Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics.

To sum up, if anything should be at Blue Monday other than a disambiguation page, it should probably be the Fats Domino song. My personal opinion is that it should be a disambiguation page, or a page that covers what I've quickly put together above and more. BlankVerse ∅ 13:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've already gone through this with someone else. The New Order version of Blue Monday has been covered or sampled by Kylie Minogue, Orgy (band), and others; its the biggest selling 12" vinyl of all time, and most importantly for the Wikipedia; it has an article. A disambiguation page full of red links is completely and utterly useless. There is no article for the Fats Domino track, or an album that it was on; or even a mention of it on his page. Theres no reference to the economic theory anywhere; or the graphic novel. This is the only article that uses the term at the moment, or for the forseeable future. Its also arguably the most notable that will ever use it - Fats Domino is unknown outside of a much older age group than the current and future internet users, and the song sold less in the first place, and cannot be argued as being influential - however, look around for how many bands cite New Order or this song in particular - U2, Underworld (band), Orbital (band), The Killers, etc. These are far more important to current music than a song with no article or no mention anywhere in the entire Wikipedia.

The page move was never justified or justifiable in the first place, and the redirect comes here anyway; as there is -no other article- for it. --Kiand 13:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"...or even a mention of it on his page." Read the Fats Domino article again. The "Blue Monday" song is mentioned in paragraph three. Note: One reason the song doesn't "score" as high on Goggle is that you would have to do a search for each of the dozens of recording artists who have recorded the song to find all of the mentions of the song. BlankVerse ∅ 16:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll admit I missed that. However, Orgy have released a direct cover of this song, Kylie Minogue has sampled it, etc.

The Orgy version alone has more hits than the Domino track, or the Gershwin opera, or the graphic novel. The Kylie Minogue live sampling gets more than Gershwin and close to the Domino figure

What is more notable here is extremely clear. --Kiand 16:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

George Gershwin's "Blue Monday" has an historical importance because it was the precursor to his Porgy and Bess. The fact that it doesn't get that many Google hits makes absolutely no difference because, of course, the internet is going to be heavily skewed towards more modern music. There are plenty of 21st century one-hit wonders that will get more hits than the Gershwin piece, but in the end, they will just be ephemera, but the importance of the Gershwin operetta will remain. BlankVerse ∅ 17:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And New Order's Blue Monday was basically the first European dance music track. In terms of the music of the past 25 years, it carries far more weight than an operetta. --Kiand 17:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And the arguments for other songs, books, whatever are pretty much nullified by the fact that they have no articles. If they're that important and worthy of being full links of a full disambiguation page, why has nobody covereved them in the, what, 1.1 million pages we have ranging from stubs up? --Kiand 17:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is now Blue Monday as a disambiguation page, plus Blue Monday (Fats Domino song) and Blue Monday (opera). BlankVerse ∅ 14:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And now there is Blue Monday (comic) on the Blue Monday graphic novel. BlankVerse ∅ 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some figures:

• google.ie for Blue Monday New Order - 5.28 MILLION hits
• google.ie for Blue Monday Fats Domino - 96,000 hits
• google.ie for Blue Monday George Gershwin - 46,000 hits
• google.ie for Blue Monday economic theory - 556,000 hits
• google.ie for Blue Monday graphic novel - 216,000 hits
• google.ie for Blue Monday Orgy - 217,000 hits - note that this is a single cover of the track.
• google.ie for Blue Monday kylie minogue - 89,000 hits - this is a live-performance sampling of the track

I feel this establishes something:

1. New Orders Blue Monday is the most common usage for the term
2. The economic theory is the next (but hasn't got an article)
3. The graphic novel series would be next (and hasn't got an article)
4. THEN the Fats Domino track comes in (no article either)
5. Then the Gershwin opera (and no article)

IF, and only if, 3 of the other 4 eventually have articles, should they have a Blue Monday (disambiguation) page, linked to from the top of the New Order track. If only one or two of them get pages, they should be dab-headered in. There is an obvious, and huge notability difference here.

--Kiand 13:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A search of Google.com for "Blue Monday" "New Order" [6] find "about 131,000" websites, with a much less dramatic drop in the results for the other searches when quotes are used around each word pair. A search for "Blue Monday" comic [7] get "about 48,800". If you try to filter out most of the download, ringtone, and commercial website, a search for "Blue Monday" "New Order" [8] drops to "about 52,800". The problem with your first google search without the quotes is that it involved four fairly common words so most of the websites that you found had nothing to do with the music group New Order or the song "Blue Monday". BlankVerse ∅ 14:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are also NO articles linking to Blue Monday that do not refer to this article. Absolutely none. --Kiand 13:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And yet more: Blue Monday (New Order) is currently #33 in the UK Dance Music Charts. 22 years after its release. Don't see any of the other ones even being -mentioned- anymore. --Kiand 13:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are numerous covers of the Fats Domino song "Blue Monday", and there are still new ones being recorded. The B.B. King version still gets airplay on my local jazz radio station. In 50 years will there be several dozen versions of the Blue Monday (New Order song) and will it still be regularly played? The fact that it is currently #33 probably says as much about the normally disposable nature of the songs on the Dance Music Charts as it does about the notability of the New Order song. We should remember that the Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia, and not just a compendium of recent pop culture phenomenum. BlankVerse ∅ 13:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm the "someone else" to whom Kiand referred above. And I certainly see even more reason to oppose his proposed move. I had heard of Fats Domino's song, but not New Order's OR several others mentioned here. Kiand seems to have gotten into a crusade here; he can't seem to understand that there are lots of people who aren't into his genre of music and couldn't care less about New Order's "Blue Monday." I definitely vote to have "Blue Monday" be a disambiguation page; all the others can be linked to from there. -- BRG 13:52, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

crusade' his genre? eh?

I'm into more than one genre of music. This is about notability. The other songs, etc, aren't notable. Theres a good chance a 1-liner stub on the Fats Domino track wouldn't even survive VFD for that purpose. Theres FAR more people who couldn't care less about a 50 something year old RnB track - so many, in fact, that nobody has ever written an article on it. Implies theres around 600,000 things that people do care more about. Including the New Order track. --Kiand 13:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As to his "There are also NO articles linking to Blue Monday that do not refer to this article. Absolutely none. " --- I was about to create one, when I discovered that his article existed! It was the resulting misdirected link that has led to the controversy here. -- BRG 14:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

And have you created one? No.

And why couldn't you pipe direct the link to Blue Monday (Fats Domino song), when its clear from this article, Google, etc; that this is the most common and most notable use of the phrase, in any menaing? --Kiand 14:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right, he's created it. And its got a dab header. There is really now no reason not to move the significantly bigger and more notable article back to its original location. --Kiand 18:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support move unless/until there are actual other articles for multiple other uses. I could swear it's written somewhere more explicitly than I can find at the moment, but in general, doing any disambiguating before it's necessary is discouraged. There's no real point to moving [[Foo]] to [[Foo (specific)]] if [[Foo]] is going to be left as the resulting redirect to [[Foo (specific)]] (the only exception I know of is if another naming convention comes into play, such as [[Seattle]] being a redir to [[Seattle, Washington]]. Since the New Order/Orgy song is the only usage that currently has an article, no disambiguation is necessary. Since the New Order song has substantially more common usage, an article on the Fats Domino song can be name Blue Monday (Fats Domino song) (or whatever) with a header disambig from the first one. Most of the other books, etc. mentioned above have more to their title than just "Blue Monday"; if they get articles some day, they should be at their full title, referenced from Blue Monday (disambiguation). Niteowlneils 15:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only reason that "Blue Monday" was left as a redirect was that, before I got around to changing it to a disambiguation page, Kiand got into this argument, and I've been spending all my computer access time arguing with him. Had that not happened, "Blue Monday" would have been converted to a disambiguation page several days ago. -- BRG 13:20, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Support Significantly more popular and idenifiable with New Order than with Fats Domino or any other artist, as Google indicates. Hn 01:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Well I am not quite sute what I am voting - or against - for other than Fats Domino and Earl Palmer [the drummer] created a classic in 1956 - and if we are going to let the number of hits on Google decide ANYTHING then we are in trouble. That is like saying that the US of A policy in the Midle Easst is just fine because Bush got more votes than What's His Name. That's like saying the most important news story in the Universe is what Lindsay Someone or Another's Dad is doing because it got the most google hits. We really don't want to go there. [opinion] Carptrash 06:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Google is a good indicator, and you can't really deny (regardless of what you think of the song or the group) that New Order's song "Blue Monday" played a bigger role in the evolution of music and is culturally more significant. It was the biggest selling 12" ever by the way, if that and Google don't satisfy you as to its popularity, I'm not sure what will. Significantly more people will be searching "Blue Monday" for the New Order song than the Gershwin opera or the Fats Domino song. Plus, please note that this has the same implications for the other pages that a disambiguation page does - it's not like the links are hidden down the bottom of the article in a minute text size - they're the first words you read .--Hn 08:46, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Just to make it clear to someone just tallying "support" and "oppose" votes. My other comments make it clear where I stand and why. -- BRG 13:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sometimes less important things get articles first. Sometimes the need for disambiguation isn't obvious at that point, but in this case it is. Is there a name for bias towards more contemporary things? "Timeism", perhaps? --up+land 13:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose--keep new disambig page at Blue Monday. Some of the other articles now exist. Also, since "blue monday" gets 450k hits, but "blue monday" -"new order" -kylie -orgy still gets almost 200k hits, that suggests at least 1/3 are for other uses than the New Order song, which seems to indicate it doesn't deserve primary disambiguation. Niteowlneils 12:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose--I think there are enough versions of the term to merit it being a disambig. Also, if people whack in Blue Monday and go straight to the New Order page, they won't learn about the other meanings. And by the way, Blue Monday comic gets 675000 hits, so add that to the graphic novel mentions. Steve block 13:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - SoM 16:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - The argument that there aren't enough articles for other uses of "Blue Monday" has been pretty well trashed, because there are several now. At this point there needs to be a disambiguation page. I've been a fan of the Manchester band since shortly after Ian checked out and have the 45s to prove it, but I think the other uses are signficant enough to recommend against the assumption that their "Blue Monday" is the one people are "really" interested in. Tverbeek 22:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Not that it looks as though my vote is needed. The reasons are pretty convincingly spelled out above by others. older ≠ wiser 03:06, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Feco 17:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons above. I'd support a disambig page. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:21, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. violet/riga (t) 18:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

I've added information for all three releases to the infobox. It seems to hold up, albeit the result is quite cluttered. The 1988 release might be significant enough to warrant a separate infobox under the current one... although then there would be no good place for the 1995 release (which would be no great loss, IMO). Any thoughts? --Unint 05:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm sure I haven't imagined this...

But I swear I heard one of the band members saying in a filmed interview that the programmed elements of the song were lost once completed and that they then had to redo it all again. Ring any bells UK TV viewers and New Order fans? - Aaron Jethro 23:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

More likely that it was mentioned in NewOrderStory, I'll check sometime. --Kiand 23:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This just in from The Guardian newspaper, (24 February):

Peter Hook (bassist, New Order): Bernard [Sumner] and Stephen [Morris] were the instigators. It was their enthusiasm for new technology. The drum pattern was ripped off from a Donna Summer B-side. We'd finished the drum pattern and we were really happy, then Steve accidentally kicked out the drum machine lead so we had to start from scratch and it was never as good. The technology was forever breaking down and the studio was really archaic. Kraftwerk booked it after us because they wanted to emulate Blue Monday. They gave up after four or five days. It was a collection of soundbites - it sort of grew and grew. When we got to the end I went in and jammed the bass; I stole a riff from Ennio Morricone. Bernard went in and jammed the vocals. They're not about Ian Curtis; we wanted it to be vague. I was reading about Fats Domino. He had a song called Blue Monday and it was a Monday and we were all miserable so I thought, "Oh that's quite apt."

- Aaron Jethro 01:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shaun of the Dead

If I'm not mistaken, Blue Monday was refernced in one scene of "Shaun of the Dead" where Shaun and Ed were flinging vinyl records at the zombies. Doberdog 03:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Doberdog

[edit] Did Apple use this?

I am sure Apple used this song in some promotion or other (I think it was QuickTime). However, I don't want to put it in the article until someone can back me up. (Searching yields no result). --80.229.152.246 21:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helps you work, rest and play...

A scary reference - I heard it on a TV advert for Mars bars the other day. A strangely shortened version to get as many of the instrumental "hooks" in as possible, and ending on the vocal "How does it feel". Doubt it'll help shift any chocolate, though. --Renny Barrett, 10 October 2006

[edit] YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 05:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)