Jump to content

Talk:Vogue (Madonna song)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Swayzeiee (talk | contribs) at 09:03, 26 November 2023 (→The Initial Recording Studio). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Chart success

I have removed the text stating the song 'kept several songs off the number one spot in May 1990'. Every number one song keeps several songs off the top spot by definition! Smurfmeister 09:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

The music video section of this article is hardly neutral - it definitely needs some reworking. Triggy 00:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

It is assumed in this section that the timbre change in her voice was not intended. Often timbre changes are intended for emphasis. Can someone provide a reason why it would not be intended in this case? Laikalynx 01:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is apparent from all audible factors (notice i also stated the recorded atmosphere), that the work was revisited. One can even hear a difference in the "bleed" from the headphones of the singer if one uses a hi fi system and good headphones. That is exactly how I first noticed it, and I have no special musical credentials whatsoever: the fact is readily apparent and creates its own impression. I also never said it wasn't intended, I merely pointed out that is a case of audible overdubbing and suggested a rewrite as a possible reason (Madonna disclosed on the MTV documentary that accompanied Ray of Light's release that she had rewritten a song during production: namely "Skin", and Mirwais would reveal that she rewrote material during production of American Life as well. Almost all artists do this, it's part of their creative process. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that it would NOT be intended. I did not intend any negative connotations whatsoever, merely that it's a rare case of noticable overdubbing, full stop--Tednor 14:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain this a little more thoroughly? I don't hear the changes you're talking about. I've listened to every version of the song I have on CD (I'm Breathless, Immaculate Collection and remixes from the Vogue Single) and can't hear any change in the vocal during the rap. I'm assuming that when you say the rap you're referring to the "Greta Garbo and Monroe..." section. -- Davecool, 09:43, 5 February 2007.

The alternating stanzas within the rap were recorded at different times and likely in different places. 04:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Tednor

Late entry to this thread but, re this discussion, I think you guys are seriously overthinking it, the answers to these questions all appear to be "no" according to Shep Pettibone, who oughta know. He says all the vocals for the song were done very quickly, and although he doesn't explicitly say so, the clear implication is that Madge's vocals, including the rap and the coda (which were his ideas) were all cut in a single session, all done in a small studio in NYC and he is explicit that it was all tracked in order, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, and it was all first-takes, no later overdubs or punch-ins. See the new section I added yesterday, sourced from Shep' s 2015 Billboard interview. The whole thing was done amazingly cheaply - $5000! ... the backing track was written and recorded in two weeks, Madge came to the session with all the verses and chorus written, and the title, the vocals were all done in one hit, and after about a week more tweaking it was presented to Warners, so about three weeks flat from commission to completion. Sharp.

Dunks (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Madonna-Vogue.jpg

Image:Madonna-Vogue.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 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 21:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request move

Vogue (Madonna song) → Vogue (song)
The other two songs by this name aren't notable enough, did not have similar global succes.--79.112.52.120 (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can we verify this?

I'd like to know the way to verify that Madonna is performing the song the images provided claim she is...--Jetstreamer (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

I think the list of samples should be reviewed.
In the current section it states:
"Vogue" contains samples of some songs from the disco era. The bassline is from by MFSB.
It cites the following as the source: http://www.villagevoice.com/2003-09-23/nyc-life/love-is-the-message
The source is an interview with Danny Tenaglia and states:
"What is your favorite record ever? "Love Is the Message" by MFSB. It's a mini Broadway play to me. It is the mother of all House music. It can be heard in Madonna's "Vogue" and countless other spin-offs."

No mention of a bassline. Just a DJ's opinion.

While I personally believe there are samples from the song, I don't believe it to be the bassline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jizzaster (talk • contribs) 17:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to unpick IMHO because both "Love is the Message" and "Ooh I Like It (Love Break)" by Salsoul Orchestra contain elements in common, and although I am yet to confirm the former, Shep Pettibone definitely did the remix of Love Break in 1983, which is the source of the string and horn-stab samples, and the vocal "Love Break" sample which features on the 12". They got sued over Love Break but won that, as is noted. Dunks (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

I am curious that there is no reference to VMG's 2012 suit against Madonna; her former record label, WB records; and "Vogue" producer Shep Pettibone, claiming that Madonna's "Vogue" track illegally samples a 1977 song, "Love Break." Pettibone also produced the 1977 track. Madonna won this lawsuit won this lawsuit in 2013, when the court ruled that "no reasonable audience would find the sampled portions of a 1976 composition significant, nor would they recognize the appropriation." [1]

I'm curious if you feel that this information is interesting and relevant or rather, extraneous to the article since the lawsuit is over and Madonna was victorious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy041 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/madonna-music-producer-win-vogue-657052
It's relevant, yes. It's been added by myself and Tinamaria2014. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Organize

There are two pictures that are Madonna performing live that are in sections that do not correlate with the description. Some organizing of this article will greatly improve. All three pictures relating to the live performances should be put in that section to keep the article organized. Does that make sense, or should the pictures be removed and replaced with something more relevant to the topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinamaria2014 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Vogue (Madonna song)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Would be B-class if referenced. High-importance because of the way it has been used to define fashion as an industry, as described in article. Daniel Case 16:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 01:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Who were the musicians?

Does anybody know the names of the musicians who played on Vogue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbillionaire (talk • contribs) 05:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Were there any? Or is this like one of electronic albums with a list of 50 "producers" and 2 musicians? Kellymoat (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shep Pettibone's 2015 Billboard interview mentions having to pay "musicians" out of the $5000 budget he was given, but it's unclear to me whether he was talking about session contracting in general, or that specific project, and he doesn't mention any specific players. Still searching... Dunks (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The musicians on the record were Fred McFarlane Keyboards, Bass and Programming, and Alan Friedman Drums and Programming...btw Fred McFarlane co-wrote Robin S.' "Show Me Love", and Alan Friedman was the programmer for C&C Music Factory. Swayzeiee (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Vogue (Madonna song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vogue (Madonna song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2018

Track listing (please add): Canadian 7-inch Promo[1]

  1. "Vogue" (LP Version) – 4:50
  2. "Vogue" (Single Version) – 4:19 Just1kidding (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Promo releases were not for sale in retail and should not be mentioned as they are just unnecessary promotional material. —IB [ Poke ] 06:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Vogue (Canadian 7-inch Promo liner notes). Madonna. Sire Records. 1990. PRO 98637.{{cite AV media notes}}: CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes) (link)

Vogue a feminist song? Not really

I have just checked the Slant article cited as the source for this claim and I respectfully dispute this point. I suggest that this is a misinterpretation, and It is clear to me that, in terms of feminist messaging, the author is specifically referring to "Express Yourself", not "Vogue", in that section:

"Vogue” falls in line with a startling arc of growth and self-consciousness of which “Express Yourself” was the warning shot, an unmistakably feminist missive that explicitly excluded straight males from its directive and then commanded they respond to its demands."

What say you, oh perfect masters?

Dunks (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would suggest that, lyrically, "Vogue" is a deliberately "non-gendered" song, and indeed that its only "engagement" with any discussion of race/gender is the bland, generic statement: "It doesnt matter if you're black or white, if you're a boy or a girl") and that it contains no obviously feminist lyrical content or messaging whatsover. In fact, I've recently read a number of comments that critique the song for its deliberate avoidance of any discussion of the fact that vogueing developed as a specifically gay male/trans and "ethnic" (black/Hispanic) performance art, a fact that was specifically referenced in McLaren's earlier "Deep in Vogue", which also included the authentic voices of major figures in ball culture, in the form of dialogue samples from 'Paris is Burning. Dunks (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dunk, as explained before, this is your original research in the politest way possible. Start with finding reliable sources and facts else this is not a forum. You were correct about the feminist anthem piece and I have removed it. —IB [ Poke ] 05:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indiabio, thanks for your attention to the feminist anthem point, I appreciate it. Yes, I get that the main article is not a place for original research, but since the critique I had in mind has already been mentioned in a previous Talk item, and given your obsessive interest in this page, I foolishly assumed you would be aware of it and saw no need to reiterate it. My bad. Cheers. Dunks (talk) 07:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is far from being anything remotely good I should say and needs much, much work to bring it upto the standards of the articles that is seen in the WP:MADONNA wikiproject. We can of course remove any unsourced info completely and without any hesitation. —IB [ Poke ] 10:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Awards 1990 performance

Re the live performance section, there is IMO no basis, and no citation, to support the assertion that Madge bore "great resemblance to Marie Antoinette" ... she was wearing one of Glenn Close's Dangerous Liaisons frocks, true, but Glenn didn't portray Marie Antoinette in that film, and the Queen of Reinvention looks *nothing* like the former Queen of France. Can we remove that please?

Cheers, Dunks (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its present in Carol Clerk's book in great detail. I have moved and amended the line. —IB [ Poke ] 14:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not a supportable assertion IMHO. One person claiming that she resembled MA doesn't mean that she actually did. She just wore a Rococco costume; check the portraits - she looks NOTHING like Marie at all. It's like saying she greatly resembled Babe Ruth because she wore a baseball cap! 😉

Dunks (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to add or remove content based on what you think. If a reputable book source from an author is describing her, then it is present. Again, you are going time and time into original research and your point of view. If after all these years in Wikipedia you don't know the difference between the two, I suggest you read the five pillars again. Thanks and adios. —IB [ Poke ] 14:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric, get off your high horse - what's the point of a Talk page when all you do is tell me to shut up? I have not altered that comment, so stop foamimg about a reasonable discussion on a Talk page being "original research". I am challenging that because it's garbage. At the least, the entry should properly be amended to state that *only* in the opinion of that author did Madge resemble Marie Antoinette at that event. Regardless of who said what where, suggesting or implying by inclusion such a stupid, vacuous comparison is valid is no different to me suggesting that my mum dressed in a sari greatly resembles Indira Ghandi. It's BOLLOCKS and it should be removed because it's meaningless, totally inaccurate and contributes no added value to the article, because its patent nonsense with no basis in fact. Plenty of authors of "reputable" books spout opinions that are totally wrong. That doesn't mean any such rubbish opinion should be inserted, unmediated, into Wikipedia.

The prior discussion Madge and her crew had was about the connection between voguing and Dangerous Liaisons, hence the costumes. They werent even going to do Vogue that night until they hit on that idea. NOTHING to do with Marie Antoinette whatsoever except the 18th century look.

The easily verifiable concrete facts are that Madonna looks *nothing* like Marie Antoinette, facially, or in any other way, and only "resembled" her in the sense that any 30-something white woman dressed in Rococco clobber, a powdered wig and white face paint is going to look vaguely similar to any other woman of roughly comparable appearance dressed in the same kind of getup. So what if the only name most dopey punters can associate with that look is Marie Antionette? It's a baseless, patently silly, laughably reductive, completely innaccurate JUST PLAIN WRONG comparison made by the hack writer of a fashion-centric Madonna hagiography. I don't call that a "reputable source". Camacho is a reputable source because HE WAS THERE:

"The idea [for the “Vogue” performance] came about during a game of charades. During the last days of the tour, we were in the South of France, in Nice, and one of the charades was Dangerous Liaisons. I was sitting next to her, and Madonna goes, “You know, that’s very ‘Vogue'."

https://allaboutmadonna.com/2015/08/making-of-madonnas-1990-mtv-vma-performance.php

Dunks (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dunks you need to stop with your WP:OR and mind your language and tone. Your garbage way of communication and personal attacks] is the reason why editors won't collaborate or listen to anything you have to say. You have time and time again gone off rambling about what you think which has no place in Wikipedia. Oh and pinging @Drmies: who had explained your habit of adding your POV and OR on your talk page. I clearly stated in the previous section that this article has many unsourced statements which can easily be removed and does not even need discussion. —IB [ Poke ] 16:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone updated list

Vogue is number 3 in the new, updated list: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/best-music-videos-1194411/fatboy-slim-praise-you-2-1195889/ I think Vogue needs to be a better edited/written page. Iwish i could help at writing but my english aren't that great. I can search and find usefull links and accolades tho. Johnny Gnecco (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Gnecco Sure, I agree with you. This article requires an attention and have at least a GA status. There is two advantages about this song as with other Madonna's Magnum opus works: both literature and references are unfathomable and perhaps Madonna has more active/semi-active users in all-Wikipedia versions than any other (female) artist. Sooner or later, an user will work with it. Personally, my strong areas are find foreign material, such as sales or chart positions; I could however find also useful links. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Reception paragraph should move in the Legacy section maybe? Also, in the link i shared above, David Fincher says how many hours Vogue needed to be directed, that's an info that could be added in the Music Video section too. Someone who has english as main language could add it. The page needs to be way more "richer". I've seen some of her least known songs being better written and have more information. I also think a page about her biopic should open too, it's confirmed that its happening . Johnny Gnecco (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriation or Appreciation

The ballroom scene of “Vogue,” which has predominantly black and Latinx LGBTQ+ members, is monumental in creating a sense of community among those those who were marginalized in the dominant sphere. Although some critics recognize the ballroom culture and its diversity when discussing Madonna’s hit “Vogue”, there is little additional discussion on whether her song should be seen as appreciation of ballroom culture or appropriation of it. Using the art style of individuals within the ballroom scene and profiting from a movement spearheaded by marginalized peoples themselves is very problematic. While Madonna found stardom and benefitted socially and economically, queer performers were left unrecognized and under-resourced. Considering the lack of recognition of the black-queer individuals by mainstream culture this cultural appropriation, Madonna’s “Vogue” can be considered both an example of white individuals taking from Black performers, and a colonization of ballroom culture.

Works Cited

Bailey, Marlon M. Butch Queens Up in Pumps: Gender, Performance, and Ballroom Culture in Detroit. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2013.

“How Today's Ballroom Leaders Are Fighting a History of Appropriation.” VICE, July 22, 2019. https://www.vice.com/en/article/a3xmje/how-todays-ballroom-leaders-are-fighting-a-history-of-appropriation.

Saveriano, Marco. “The Complicated Case of Madonna's 'Vogue'.” FanSided. FanSided, March 27, 2020. https://fansided.com/2020/03/27/madonna-vogue-cultural-appropriation-question/. MarvelousDrew (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarvelousDrew: The charges about "appropriation" are actually documented in its main article, Vogue (dance) where perhaps it fits better as the historical context and criticisms (usually understood from) black gay community and have WP:UNDUE as it is largely perceived as well, from mainstream that she brought it to the awarness. It is also mentioned in the Madonna as a gay icon article. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but how queer performers were left unrecognized? They were dancers on her tour, they were giving interviews like celebs, they were in her doc, some of them even thanked her for boosting their career, and she still mentions them from time to time even to this days. How she left them unrecognized??? Johnny Gnecco (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GA nomination successful following sufficient improvements

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Vogue (Madonna song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 20:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this one. Expect my initial comments to be posted within a few days. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My review will begin with the infobox and lead section.

Infobox

  • Can a specific timeframe (maybe 1989 or 1990) be provided for recording?
No timeframe was ever mentioned as far as I know. Alex reach me! 14:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the "24-track basement studio at West 56th Street" (what I found from a glance at the body) has a name, then I'd add it here
No recording studio was ever mentioned on any release of the song either. Alex reach me! 14:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure both Sire and Warner should be listed here, especially when the former doesn't get mentioned outside of this or the lead plus is part of the latter.
This release of the single mentions both labels, so I added Warner Bros. in the lead Alex reach me! 14:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • You don't need to link commonly recognized terms like "lead single", "music critics", "black-and-white", "music video", or "popular culture" per WP:OVERLINK
  • "as one of Madonna's most iconic" feels like puffery/fancruft language, just say that critics regard this as "one of Madonna's best" or "one of Madonna's greatest" videos instead.
  • Unless you can give a precise count of places this charted at number one (and I'm hesitant to take the "over 30" claim at face value when only counting 13), let's just name the nations it went to the top within. You can also cut the non-number ones it reached the top 10 of.
  • Since "modern" is another way of saying "present" or "current", can't you just say "futuristic" instead of "postmodern"?

More will follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background and release

  • "hits" from "16 consecutive top-five hits" is too informal
  • Contrary to what the text implies with "However" and "only managed to reach number 20", that's not by any means a low number even when not as big as prior achievements, plus I don't see "Oh Father" anywhere in the attributed ref.
  • While I did find "voguing" and The Sound Factory here, it doesn't discuss a "gay scene" or anything underground
  • Per WP:REPCITE, you don't need to use the same citation more than once within a paragraph, so ref#2 can safely be removed from the "already liked it the way it was" bit when already covered under the use at the end of "should be released as a single"
  • "'Vogue' was included on the album soundtrack I'm Breathless, which contained songs from and inspired by the Disney film Dick Tracy, which Madonna starred as Breathless Mahoney; the singer had been approached by director and co-star Warren Beatty to write a song that would fit her character's point of view, as she was 'obsessed with speakeasies and movie stars and things like that', and the idea served as an inspiration for 'Vogue'"..... Talk about a mouthful! I definitely recommend splitting that overly long sentence by turning the semi-colon into a period. It might feel like nitpicking, but another thing I'll bring up is how Disney was never brought up within this for Dick Tracy.
  • Is it known why "Vogue" didn't get featured in the movie?
Not as far as I know Alex reach me! 14:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my previous comment on WP:OVERLINK regarding "lead single", which isn't mentioned here

I'll probably go through the rest of this section-by-section. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recording and composition

  • Something weird is going on with File:VogueSample.ogg where one part read of the file page says it's 27 seconds long before you click to play yet changes to 26 later to match a prose file description. Not sure which total is correct, but I regardless don't see how the sample benefits the page per criterion#8 of WP:Non-free content criteria, so we can safely scrap the sample entirely.
I'm opposed to removing the sample, it doesn't fail any criteria and gives context to the instruments used Alex reach me! 14:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the revised caption, we now at least have better context for its inclusion. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • More WP:REPCITE with the section's first paragraph; ref#16 (album liners) only needs to be placed at the end of "along with all tracks present on I'm Breathless".
  • I don't find anything on the track having dance influences within the attributed citations, but this outright calls it "one of the most memorable dance songs ever".
  • Nothing here mentioning salsa or soul at all, and I don't see Salsoul Orchestra either. Furthermore, the song title named in it simply says "Love Break".
  • "The song opens with Madonna asking the listener, 'What are you looking at' as a way to establish the visual nature of the song's lyrics." is uncomfortably close paraphrasing to what Jason Hanley uses, with the only difference being you have "song's" and he uses "song". Please rewrite this so it isn't presented as fully being your own words.
  • Using "vital and important" from "how vital and important a silly dance-floor ritual can be to its practitioners" is redundant. Just have "vital" or "important".
  • Add a hyphen to "namechecking"
  • "sampled a 0.23-second segment of horns from "Ooh I Love It (Love Break)" without permission"..... even with a piece from Los Angeles Times, you still haven't provided adequate support for a title beyond "Love Break"
  • "VMG said it attempted to give notice of copyright infringement twice before in July 2011 and again in February 2012" is another super-close paraphrasing case when the only difference from MTV's words is it has the present-tense "says" in contrast to your past-tense use of "said". You'll have to change this as well.

OK, I have to say it's not a good sign that one section alone has two cases of paraphrasing being quite close to original text and not properly attributing it as such. Luckily neither are cases of outright plagiarism, but they still need to be changed. Before going further into "Critical response", I boldly went ahead and fixed one heading to something more accurate as its use of "contemporary" was misleading. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS Hi! I have addressed all of the issues mentioned up until now (I guess). Alex reach me! 14:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you did so, and I'll continue. Just unlink "futuristic" per WP:OVERLINK, and here is something you could add for "Vogue" being the first I'm Breathless single.

Critical response

Initial reviews

  • See my above comments on linking "music critics".
  • While there aren't any copyright violations with File:Madonna à Nice 26 (cropped).jpg and I see why you added this, it feels out of place here, and would be better off for "Live performances" (assuming you keep it).
  • Not sure "déjà vu" or "numero uno" should have italics
  • Maybe it's just because I lack a subscription, but I don't see how this is from The New York Times as opposed to Florida Today
This NYT review was published by Florida Today, I've added a clarification in the source Alex reach me! 11:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades and retrospective reviews

  • Why are awards lumped into the same subheading as these reviews? You'd probably be better off splitting it out.
  • The first sentence of this subsection is overly long, and I recommend splitting it by turning the semi-colon after " being nominated for 'Favorite Pop/Rock Single'" into a period.
  • To avoid WP:SYNTH, it would help to have a ref discussing overall favorable/mixed/unfavorable retrospective response like you do with initial response
  • Just one passing mention of the track here, which doesn't use "sleek" or "stylish" at all
  • You've misused a semi-colon after "the 'shoe-horned' and 'still-preposterous' song" when a period would work better, especially when the next word is in upper case.
  • Slant doesn't say "hugely influential"

I'll get to "Commercial performance" with my next batch of comments. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to remove the "retrospective reviews" bit as the reception is not much different from the reviews from 1990. Alex reach me! 12:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have misunderstood me: I wasn't saying to scrap those reviews altogether, and in fact having them can help show how people continue to hold this in high regard years after its initial release. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial performance

  • Even though this track came out long before streams started being counted towards certifications, I'm hesitant to have things like "shipments of ____ copies" as this section does for the US, Australia, and Canada. You'd be better off trying to implement specific sales figures for the song, whether physical, digital, or both as you do with the UK. Even the digital-only numbers for the US are preferable to basing sales on certification levels.
The certifications in these countries came before the digital era, so a change isn't needed Alex reach me! 11:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is 2010 the latest update for American digital sales of this? If so, then it'll suffice, though a hunch tells me something more recent may have come along when it's now been over a decade since that was given.
Yes as far as I know, unfortunately Alex reach me! 11:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vogue" got certified double platinum for Australia, not just single platinum
  • No mention of "Keep It Together" here, just "Vogue"
  • The section neglects to mention Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, Peru, Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland despite reaching the top 10 in each of these. The absences for Japan, Portugal, or Sweden are especially glaring when "Vogue" topped their respective charts.
Do you want me to mention ALL of these countries? Alex reach me! 11:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At bare minimum I'd add the places it went number one, preferably with number twos as well. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's too informal to use "hit" the way you do with "Madonna's biggest hit at that time". I'd recommend using something else such as "biggest success" or "best-performing song" instead.
  • While definitely well-intentioned, I'm skeptical about using an August article to back up "best-selling single" for a calendar year when 1990 wasn't even close to finished at the time of publication as other songs could've potentially sold more over the remaining months.
I've added a mention to clarify it was up until August only Alex reach me! 11:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, not a bad section. Not sure how long "Music video" will take me to assess once I get to that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS Sorry for the delay, guess I was enjoying my holidays too much :P. The new comments have been addressed! Alex reach me! 12:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Music video

Background and development

  • File:David Fincher (2012) 3.jpg doesn't seem to have any copyright issues, just remove the italics from "pictured"
  • See my above comments on WP:OVERLINK
  • I hope you don't mind me making a slight change here where "Thakur" appeared to be a misspelling of "Shakur"; I didn't see any other way to repair those three HARVref errors (there's also others but I wasn't sure how to repair them). One of them was for this section.
  • More WP:REPCITE with the second paragraph; ref#92 only needs to be used at the end of "opportunity to choreograph the video".
  • "whittling them down within a matter of days and inviting them out to clubs to make sure they 'could deliver'" is taken word-for-word from ref#93 and presented as your own text, but at least you had some bits before that which thankfully were paraphrased. Try to rework this part as well.
  • I'd replace "iconography" from "leans on static iconography" with "imagery" or "symbols"

Synopsis

  • File:Voguem.jpeg has an appropriate FUR, which reminds me that I forgot to mention earlier how the same goes for File:Madonna, Vogue cover.png
  • It seems odd to have a citation attached to one sentence from the second paragraph while the rest is unreferenced. Any particular reason for this setup? Unlike movie, TV show, video game, and book plot sections, I couldn't find any policy or guideline on citing music video plot details, but feel free to point out any standards I may have missed.
    • Apparently it's another case of "summaries don't need cites", but the parts regarding recreations of Horst's photography (something noted in the previous subsection) mention specific pictures and the cites - one of whom I added in my edit - back up that the video aimed for those.
  • "several" from "name-dropping several Hollywood actors" is an understatement (the lyrics mention even more than the ones you named earlier)
  • "conic bra" → "cone bra"

Reception and analysis

  • While it appears safe to declare File:Miss Monroe's negligee, by Juel Park 1952.jpg public domain, I'm not entirely convinced this inclusion is beneficial. Were the comparisons only made for similar hairstyles?
  • "different from her previous music videos"..... you'd be better off with unlike or in contrast to
  • The Backlot (ref#108) isn't loading in archived or unarchived form, so it sadly doesn't look usable
    • Found a working link.
  • Link Slant Magazine
  • It's not clear whether Media Culture: Cultural Studies, Identity, and Politics Between the Modern and the Postmodern is giving a positive, mixed, or negative review from the text you've used. Same goes for Queer Tracks: Subversive Strategies in Rock and Pop Music.
  • Link Lucy O'Brien and use full name here when it's the first time this author gets mentioned
  • Too much quoted text from Guilty Pleasures: Feminist Camp from Mae West to Madonna, it feels like a WP:QUOTEFARM
  • You'll need something stronger than the dubious Rock On The Net for a "100 Greatest Videos Ever Made" ranking
  • I'd specify how "Vogue" ranked at #9 on VH1's "Best Music Videos of All Time" list
  • What does view count have to do with analyzing the video or whether critics liked it?

OK that took longer than it should have. From a glance, "Live performances" seems quite lengthy, which I expected when she's sung it many times. I'll wait a few days for you to address above before I delve further into that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live performances

  • It appears the file source used for File:VogueBlondAmbitionUndergGround (cropped).jpg has expired (based on how I got redirected to the homepage upon clicking it), and I can't find this image through the given website's gallery for Blond Ambition Tour, which makes it harder for me to verify copyright status. If you cannot repair the link, then I recommend using a different pic.
  • Since there isn't any evidence suggesting otherwise, I'll assume good faith that File:Vogue New York.jpg is in fact the uploader's own work.
  • When "eight of concert tours" isn't correct grammar, I'm guessing you intended to add "her" between the "of" and "concerts". Also, is this first sentence just meant to provide as a summary of tour performances?
  • Slant Magazine doesn't say anything about flesh-colored bodysuits, black leotards, or how "Give It To Me" was part of a mashup with this track and "4 Minutes"
  • MTV News has no mention of "Vogue" at all during her Super Bowl halftime show, though I did thankfully find the details attributed to that link here
  • The Hollywood Reporter uses "The true crowd-pleasers were purist renditions of 'Like a Prayer' and 'Vogue' that elicited as many squeals as they did goosebumps." Don't refactor the quote by taking song titles out in a way to imply the review didn't list them after "crowd-pleasers" or use "purist renditions".
  • All seems fine with File:MadonnaO2171023 (67 of 133) (53270845589).jpg
  • Rolling Stone never brings up bikini tops for Rebel Heart Tour
  • More deceptive quote refactoring: The Sydney Morning Herald actually says "You've never seen Vogue (normally a slick dance number) performed with such darkness."
  • "a pride party" → "an LGBT pride party" (don't presume all readers will know which pride this refers to)

You've got some work to do, but it's manageable. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: 11JORN seems MIA, so I fixed your requests. See if I missed anything. igordebraga ≠ 06:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns on music video commentary aren't yet resolved for the books I mentioned, and unfortunately one issue that came up with paraphrasing is how "mix[ing] gender signs" uses a "ing" suffix that the book didn't. You also didn't address the deceptive quote altering for live performance reviews. In the meantime, "Cover versions and usage" will be assessed below. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cover versions and usage

  • Using "comedienne" for "comedienne Julie Brown" reads awkwardly, just go with "comedian" (which is a gender-neutral term and seems to be more commonly used overall)
  • Not sure Meryl Streep is relevant when discussing The Devil Wears Prada, focus more on the Miranda Priestly character instead. Sue Sylvester for the Glee bit should similarly be the priority over Jane Lynch.
  • With or without an official release, I think it's worth noting how Rihanna's cover not only was recorded in a studio, but later got leaked
  • It looks like the flash mobs for this were from 2013, not 2009
  • "covered 'Vogue' on several live performances"..... the term "several" is vague and best avoided when possible, especially for times when specific counts are known
  • "The Prismatic World Tour" → "the Prismatic World Tour" (this doesn't formally have "the" in its title)
  • This is about NYC's 2015 Pride Dance on the Pier, not 2016
  • "iconic Black women in music, and also names legendary ballroom houses"..... the use of "iconic" and "legendary" here blatantly violate WP:NPOV, also I'm not convinced "Black" should be in upper case here

After I assess "Legacy", the hard part will be over. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Addressed those, along with almost all that I left from the previous batch (found the full quotes from one of the books you questioned but not the other, need to try again). Waiting for the next part. igordebraga ≠ 03:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something 11JORN neglected to do that I'll bring up again now is this: the retrospective reviews for the track should be restored as they help show that "Vogue" continues to get lots of praise many years after its initial release.

Legacy

  • Everything with File:Madonna Vogue impersonator.jpg is A-OK
  • "100 Greatest Songs of the 90s" is missing quotation marks, which would help show that this is a title VH1 uses. Same goes for "Best Singles of the '90s" from Slant Magazine
  • Why is "queer" linked in this section instead of during its first mention (namely within "Reception and analysis" from the music video section)?
  • "Madonna’s" from "Madonna’s gay dancers were shown" should be "Madonna's" (using straight quotation marks) per MOS:CURLY, and similar changes should be made for the curly apostrophes currently used within "doesn’t mean one can’t still revel in the song’s brilliance, nor do they necessarily suggest anything malicious on Madonna’s part"
  • When discussing how the vogue dance was "performed mostly in bars and disco of New York City on the underground gay scene", ref#208 (Encyclopedia of Gay Histories and Cultures by George Haggerty) needs a page number
  • Per WP:REPCITE, this section's third paragraph only needs to use ref#209 at the end of "incorporating it into their music videos and performances".

I expect to get everything else in one go with my next batch of comments. Either way, apologies for this taking longer than many other GAN's do. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK without further ado, I'll post the remaining comments now:

Track listing

  • Replace the semi-colon from "US 7-inch and cassette single; Japanese 3-inch CD single" with a comma

Credits and personnel

  • Flawless!

Charts

  • There's no good reason to make things harder on the eyes by having "with 'Keep It Together'" and its ref appear in a smaller size font.
  • "2009-2010" should be "2009–2010" per WP:DASH

Certifications and sales

  • Perfect!

See also

  • How come only links for six of the many nations this charted in get listed here? Such cherry-picking feels quite arbitrary.

References

  • All citations need authors and publication dates when known
  • There are HARVref errors for ref#94 (Guilbert 2002, p. 140) and ref#131 (Fouz-Hernández & Jarman-Ivens 2004, p. 34)
  • The title of ref#167 should just be "Club Chipmunk: The Dance Mixes" when AllMusic instead belongs as a publication name plus Alvin & the Chipmunks are the performers/authors
  • On a similar note, take out the "Album by Madonna" bit from the title of ref#221 (Which only uses "Vogue – EP" while Madonna is the artist/author here)
  • NineMSN → Nine.com.au (without italics)

Overall

  • Prose: After giving some thought, you can take out any commentary on futuristic/postmodern bits as they're vague at best and don't add much value
  • Referencing: Some citations are improperly formatted
  • Coverage: The retrospective reviews still need to be re-added
  • Neutrality: No remaining bias after I pointed it out
  • Stability: Looks good without any edit-warring or content disputes
  • Media: Everything seems A-OK
  • Verdict: I'll put this nomination on hold. Starting now, you have seven days to address the remaining concerns. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


@SNUGGUMS: Found the other book I didn't, restored the retrospective reviews, and fixed just about everything, can you point out what could be missing? (particularly references that might need formatting) igordebraga ≠ 18:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following citations are missing author names:

  • ref#173, Peter Fawthrop
  • ref#176, Mad'House (and I forgot to mention earlier how its page title is also just "Absolutely Mad")
  • ref#216, Eric Henderson
  • ref#227, Madonna (yes the artist counts when linking to their music files)

On another note, "Bibliography" is frowned upon as a vague section title when it can also potentially refer to books written by a subject (doesn't only mean focusing on someone), so let's go with a more specific name. If you aren't going to implement a 1990 VMA performance or "Madonna's 'Vogue' Through the Years" as in-text citations, then I don't see any point in listing them under "external links". Japan, Portugal, and Spain should be mentioned by name under "Commercial performance" as countries this topped the charts of. I'll let you decide whether to add weeks spent at that spot or any debut positions before reaching number one. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the refs, changed "Bibliography" to "Works Cited", discovered two of the chart-toppers were wrong (Portugal was #2, and in Japan it only topped by excluding local artists - added an extra column to the chart to note this) - but Spain was already mentioned even before you called me out - and cut the External Links section, as the Slant link was already a ref, but if you think the VMA performance is extraneous I won't disagree. igordebraga ≠ 07:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now (my bad on overlooking chart bits), and I'll pass! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Initial Recording Studio

Vogue was initially recorded at Homeboy Recording, situated at 410 West 53rd St. This studio served as the recording space as it was Fred McFarlane's personal studio, housing all the necessary equipment. Given McFarlane's frequent collaboration with Mr. Pettibone, they chose this location for its efficiency, eliminating the need for cartage to transport Mr. McFarlne’s equipment. The recording setup featured a Harrison M3R mixing console and an Ampex MM1200 24" tape machine, using Ampex 456 +6/185 tape. Swayzeiee (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vogue_(Madonna_song)&oldid=1186920021"