Jump to content

Talk:Bad Romance

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jodywhitesides (talk | contribs) at 10:22, 3 February 2010 (→Chord progression of the Chorus: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

New York not a single

Just want to let you know that I think she actually does have a single called New York, as on Saturday Night Live, you hear her say brief things about New York not in Bad Romance? Just sayin Slrkn54 (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She is from New York, she's just talking about growing up there. ---Shadow (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Fans Opinions

i was wondering, i have read on alot of fans blogs that fans think that the demo was better than the final version. should we include this as a fact about the song. http://www.jonnyalisblog.com/2009/10/lady-gaga-bad-romance-official-download.html --Apeaboutsims (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but fansites are not allowed in Wikipedia because they are not reliable and not professional to opine about the music. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charts

You could also add the greek singles charts by billboard.She was 1st last week has 5 weeks in that chart http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/charts/chart_display.jsp?g=Singles&f=Greece —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prevezanos (talk • contribs) 08:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know its in the actually charts section but there should e something about the Irish singles chart in chart performance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.21.123 (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently #20. --Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 12:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As of Nov. 25, it has only peaked at #9 on the Billboard Hot 100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.19.251 (talk) 04:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

Shouldn't it be noted that some of the reviews were based on the demo version and not the final one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.30.39 (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Bad Romance

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bad Romance's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "dutch":

  • From Just Dance: "Dutch Top 40". MegaCharts. acharts.us. Retrieved 2009-04-28.
  • From LoveGame: "Dutch Top 40". MegaCharts. acharts.us. June 20, 2009. Retrieved 2009-06-20.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This time its FAIL anomiebot! :) --Legolas (talk2me) 06:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indroduction to the article.

Currently, the intro is

""Bad Romance" is a song by American pop singer, Lady Gaga. It is the first single of The Fame Monster, which is the re-released deluxe edition of her debut album The Fame. The track was produced by RedOne."

I personally think that it is necessary to separate The Fame from The Fame Monster, as The Fame Monster has 8 extra tracks, therefore it is a deluxe re-released edition. If you look at The Fame, you will see that in the Singles released section that it has "Bad Romance" under the heading "The Fame Monster singles" (or similar). So they are different albums. I don't want someone to go out and buy The Fame and expect "Bad Romance" to be on it. --Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 12:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But they sold The Fame Monster as a separate album, or an EP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diforeverf (talk • contribs) 21:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music Video Snippet and new single covers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Fe6uHHhLok

Alejandro and Dance In The Dark single covers: http://ego.globo.com/Gente/foto/0,,32879573-EXH,00.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.96.81.144 (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the section about the music video says it takes place in "what looks like a psychiatric hospital." That is incorrect. In numerous interviews Lady Gaga has stated that it takes place in a Russian bathhouse. She has also stated that the plot of the video is she is getting sold into sex slavery. DisposableMonster (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the interview please? --Legolas (talk2me) 05:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the music video for Bad Romance was set to be debuted on the Lady Gaga website on Monday 9th November, after many posts on the discussion board from fans - the pop-up window advertising the videos release date was changed to say Tuesday. does anyone know why this was pushed back? static_silence —Preceding undated comment added 03:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

http://gagadaily.com/2009/10/new-lady-gaga-radio-interviews/ she explained it in a radio interview with the Morning Zoo show on 97.1 ZHT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotpocket69 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im afraid we don't accept fansites as source. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Music video is out and there's still no information on it!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.182.156 (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Sha also said in an interview to MTV (http://www.lady-gaga.net/2009/11/09/lady-gaga-says-bad-romance-video-is-about-tough-female-spirit/#more-4397) that the models were forcing her to drink vodka before being sold to the russian mafia.Arthurvv19 (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Edit in the Music Video part

Only Lady GaGa's white egg pod has the word monster in it Linmonsteelix (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another tiny edit, nunchaku is linked to the article literally about the weapon, while it was referring to a video game controller for the wii.--173.20.69.144 (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will take a look guys, thanks again. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed Reviews?

Folks, mixed reviews means some critics didn't like the song, and some did. The only evidence of a negative critical opinion here is that one critic said it was similar to Poker Face. The rest is all positive. This article shouldn't say the song received mixed reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.242.82 (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Bear is fake

She is not wearing a hide, it is fake and was part of designer Benjamin Cho's Spring 2004 runway show designed in collaboration with the Humane Society. Link to a reference, if needed http://buzzworthy.mtv.com/2009/11/11/star-style-get-the-look-from-lady-gagas-bad-romance-video/ ElenaMB (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Semi Protected

{{Editsemiprotected}}

TWO THINGS NEED TO BE CORRECTED/ADDED IN THE RELEASE HISTORY SECTION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE:

A. Change the Digital Download release date of the United Kingdom from October 26 to October 25 - SOURCE

B.Add that it premiered on October 19, 2009 to U.S. radio - SOURCE


86.96.229.88 (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the fact that the above link to amazon says 27 Oct 2009!. It was 26 on iTunes, iTunes says so here :http://itunes.apple.com/uk/album/bad-romance/id336388428 and yes that is a UK link even when it says in $. The other link http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?id=336771537&s=143444 verifies that but you would require itunes installed to check it. SunCreator (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to an official press release by gaga's label Ocotber 25 is the official release date for the UK digital download........i cant find a link for the press release, will show it as soon as i find it....anyway, here is proof that October 25 is the correct date for the UK : Proof —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.228.86 (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your correct about that, it was expected on Ocotber 25, and if you have a source and want to say that, fine, but it was not available to buy on iTunes until 26. That's why it says 26 on iTunes in the release date column. SunCreator (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, its known that in recent months that the release dates that iTunes put are not correct.....everyone knows that......and by the way.....no, you cant review anything on iTunes before its released........yes, you can review it even if u dont purchase it, but there is no way you can review something on iTunes before its made avialabe for purchase........so, one of the reviews on iTunes is dated October 24, meaning it was avialbe for purchase starting from Oct 24......anyway...thats another story...

Yeah, sometimes they appear incorrect because for example the album release is prior to the single release date. SunCreator (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil Hot 100

Brazil has official charts complied by Billboard [1]. I just guess Bad Romance didn't charted yet on the official one. --PlatinumFire 23:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, no stable archiving for these charts exist, and their frequency is not clear. These will undoubtedly become valid, but it is best to wait before adding links to these charts. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is valid if you cite the physical magazine properly. 190.234.156.54 (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that's a problem because google still hasn't archived the magazines from 2009 yet. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It dosen't need to be online to be reliable, if someone have the physical copy of the magazine is like having a copy of a newspaper, not every company publish every single issue, that dosen't make them less valid. 190.233.223.94 (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional review?

While reading some music-related articles I came across this page, which may be relevant to this article:

http://www.bphc.org/Newsroom/Pages/TopStoriesView.aspx?ID=132

Apparently the Boston Public Health Commission has rated "Bad Romance" as #10 on their "Top 10 List of Songs with Unhealthy Relationship Ingredients." Lady Gaga is also the only artist to have two songs on the list. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the Critical Reception section? Just a thought. 99.146.195.175 (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable; it's been mentioned on Good Morning America and reported in media. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been any movement on adding this? (99.146.193.121 (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Whoops missed it. Will add it in article. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video Phone in Lady Gaga chronology

To whoever keeps deleting Video Phone from the Lady Gaga chronology: Yes, Lady Gaga IS in fact in Beyonce's song "Video Phone". Actually, let's rephrase that -- Lady Gaga IS in fact in Beyonce's SINGLE "Video Phone." Seeing as it's a single chronology, Video Phone should be included because the version that's being released as a single is the version featuring Lady Gaga. So to whoever keeps deleting deleting Video Phone from the chronology, please stop. [: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookblade19 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much everyone deleting it because Gaga has not released Video Phone as a single, Beyonce has. The chronology is for Lady Gaga singles, not singles of other singers that Beyonce is in. Also, only the extended version features Lady Gaga, the regular version released as an official single does not. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my point was that the extended version featuring Lady Gaga IS in fact the single. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the normal version wasn't released as a single; it's just a song. And if you look at it, it's not a song chronology, it's a single chronology. Besides, Chillin is in the chronology and it's not Gaga's song? :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookblade19 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the Video Phone track listing, the US CD single has only the album version (and instrumental) which does not include Lady Gaga. The European version has the Lady Gaga version in addition to the regular album version. So there is nothing saying that the Lady Gaga version is "the" single, rather it is just a version. As for Chillin, the original song is with Gaga. It is not a special remixed version as we see with Video Phone. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Videophone should be in the chronology. The single features Gaga. Besides this, if its going to be taken out, take it out on all pages not just the Bad Romance page, considering it's still listed in the chronology on the Video Phone page and the Telephone page, as well as being listed as a featured single on the Lady Gaga main page. eagle2ch (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Semi Protected - Part 2

{{editsemiprotected}}

  • In the release history section, add that it was released as a Digital Download in the United States on October 26, 2009 - Source

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.229.85 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 December 2009

 Done Added first part, second part already done. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Semi-protected - Part 3

{{editsemiprotected}}

Both done Josh Parris 23:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Song is not pop/rock!

How is this song pop/rock??? That makes no sense.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reservoir99 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the source says so. It is an extremely reliable source. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've happened to be dropping by here in the past few days and have noticed the shifting genres. I have to agree with Reservoir on this. There is no form of rock anywhere in the song, therefore the song cannot be pop rock. If you go to the homepage of allmusic, you'll see that with the genres listed at the top, there's not one specifically for pop and not one specifically for rock – they are combined into the category pop/rock. Every pop artist/album/song and every rock artist/album/song is listed as pop/rock on allmusic.
I see the way allmusic organizes their genre listings this way: if it as listed as "contemporary pop/rock" in the styles section, the artist/album/song is being referred to as pop rock. Otherwise, it's just a way to combine somewhat-similar genres and place them into one category.
But I think we should gain some consensus on what to do here. Allmusic normally is reliable for music information as Legolas noted, but I don't think the listing "pop rock" on this article is correct. Chase wc91 06:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. No way the song can be rock, but WP:V is what is stopping us. Lemme search in the reviews for what the song has been described as, and from there we can pick up the genres. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some editor (probably an IP, I didn't bother checking) changed the genres to "Dance-pop, electropop, synthpop," and I would say I agree even though they are uncited. Allmusic is obviously incorrect about the song being pop rock in this case so I suggest we just drop it and ignore all rules. Chase wc91 02:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only source says pop rock, so the best thing would be to just leave the genre field empty until a more convincing source comes along. We can't just find a consensus to choose a genre developed by original research. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick look and found something WITHOUT Rock. "Pop/General" at Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Romance/dp/B002TA4MSU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1261891067&sr=8-1 if that helps you any? —Iknow23 (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen, the norm here for wikipedia song articles seems to be that original research is okay for genres unless controversial. Most song articles don't have genre sourcing, such as Hollaback Girl which is FA. I hate to be waxy but I really don't see a problem unless the genre is highly debatable and definitely needs sourcing, like if someone were to say that a Britney Spears song was heavy metal. Why don't we just gain consensus on what to use? I think "electropop, dance-pop" would be something most editors would agree with. What do you all say? And Iknow, Amazon normally isn't reliable. Chase wc91 05:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember there being several discussion on whether or not to remove the genre field all together from infoboxes. The main reason cited for removal was failure to source the information. I'm not gonna lie, I also chose genres on occasion without a source, but not as specific as is being proposed here. "Dance" and "pop" would be fine. "electropop", "synthpop", etc are too specific imo. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Could mention of synths be used to source synthpop? I've seen several reviews that note the use of synths, if I remember correctly I found most of them from The Fame Monster article. Chase wc91 05:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can definitely be used, as per the definition of synthpop. --Legolas (talk2me) 13:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Remixes Cover

Do you think we should add the Remixes cover? http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/bad-romance-remixes-ep/id345754804 --It's Flo (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. We don't include extra covers unless they significantly enhance the readers' understanding of the article's subject, such as at The Fame Monster. Chase wc91 05:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

End of Year UK Chart

Can someone please add that the song ended at number 17 on the UK end of year chart for 2009 here is the source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/chart_of_the_year_2009/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsimpson1992 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Headphones

In the Music Video section it currently states she is wearing headphones by Dre. Dre, which is true. But she also designed the headphones called Heartbeats by Lady Gaga. We should probrably put that in somewhere, does anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diforeverf (talk • contribs) 21:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree ONLY IF it is relevant to the article. It should NOT just be inserted like an advert.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, she designed them herself, shouldn't that count as something?--Diforeverf (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe put it on Lady Gaga's page as something she did. But carefully so it doesn't look like an advertisement. It doesn't really have anything to do with this article (song), or does it?—Iknow23 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, her headphones are far down on the trivia list. There's practically no mention of the musical instruments, or equipment used for the sound or the video, which, when you stop and think about it, is central to the success or failure of the song. Another Wiki excursion into mindless citation of statistics, as if somehow being 9th instead of 10th in a chart somewhere makes any difference to the quality of the music. Welcome to a society that, to quote Oscar Wilde, understands "the price of everything, and the value of nothing". Piano non troppo (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That information is definitely trivial. But I don't know why are you saying that is practically no mention of the musical composition or the technical part of the video, if there are no valid or reliable sources that have that information what should we do, make it up?, speculate about the video? And no the chart performance of the song don't make any difference in it's quality, which by the way is subjective, you may like it, but I don't, but that is how the Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs suggests it to be, if you don't like the guidelines, make a discussion there. Frcm1988 (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a product placement section could be added? The visual aspects of Lady Gaga's videos are clearly important given her high fashion aspirations.Evil genius (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, you do state that they are by Dr. Dre, so would you consider that trivial?--76.100.120.205 (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are by Dr. Dre, and were designed by Gaga. It is listed on the official website. It is obvious to the eye that they match the pair used in the video, but everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable, so please make sure you use a citation.. • вяαdcяochat 11:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is looks like it was removed from the article. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diforeverf (talk • contribs) 02:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics

Hi, I've listened to the songs a couple of times and consulted many lyrics websites, and I think there's a mistake. In the music and lyrics section, it says "want you in my rear window, baby your sick" when it's actually "want you in my room when your baby is sick". Could someone change this and make it tie into the article?

-Luke Farrelly-Spain (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're wrong. The lyrics in the booklet of The Fame Monster say: "want you in my rear window, baby you're sick". The "want you in my room" line doesn't make any sense in this context anyway. --It's Flo (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USA Certification

You should add the USA RIAA Certification of 2 x Platinum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.223.4.192 (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. RIAA certified BR as Platinum only and that has been added. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has sold 2.3 million copies making it capable of receiving 2x platinum status, but it has not been awarded yet. Certifications are not automatic. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Music Charts

Please add "Polish Airplay Chart" - 5th position. http://www.nielsenmusiccontrol.com/index_pol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.52.9 (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GOLD CERT. IN SPAIN AND 2X PLATINUM IN AUTRALIA

PLEASE UPDATE THE CERTIFICATIONS www.promusicae.org >> 'Bad Romance' #1 for the second time in the official Spanish Singles Chart and gets GOLD.

www.ariacharts.com.au >> Autralian Charts, BR 2xPlatinum

GOLD CERT. IN SWEDEN

Bad Romance achieved Gold in Sweden www.hitlistan.se —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.19.132.195 (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sing-and-Tell Bridge? Full-Mouthed Chorus?

In the opening of the article, it states "Bad Romance" features a sing-and-tell bridge and a full-mouthed chorus. Could we see some sources for this or at least a link to a definition? I honestly have no idea what these two phrases mean (and when I Google search, all I find are pages that copy the Wikipedia entry - go figure). Further on in the article it states The bridge is in a sing-and-tell format with Gaga voicing the line "You know that I want you/ And you know that I need you." It is followed by the full-throated chorus, where Gaga sings "You and me could write a bad romance [...] Caught in a bad romance." This is sourced, but when you go to the page cited, it's a review that does indeed say "full-throated chorus," but doesn't contain the other descriptions. These phrases seem fairly confusing to me (and probably to others) and I'm not sure they belong in the article unless they're sourced and/or explained. - Holly (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, I was very confused myself. In all honesty, I have no clue what those terms mean so I can't clarify. Sorry.--Diforeverf (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read carefully, the source is present exactly adjacent to the line's ending and I would also like to direct you to WP:LEAD. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I still don't see any source that says "sing-and-tell bridge" and "full-mouthed chorus" or what they mean. Holly (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked also. Nothing about 'sing-and-tell'. So removed from the article. SunCreator (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Chart

There seems to be an argument over the peak position of the song in the Dutch Top 40. According to this site, the song peaked at 7, while people tend to use this site in this case, saying the song peaked at 10. Which one is the corect one? Alecsdaniel (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Top40.nl which is the Dutch Top 40, the other is the component chart Megacharts Top 100. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Certification

Bad Romance was certified 'Gold' in Germany. http://www.musikindustrie.de/gold_platin_datenbank0/ (Type 'Bad Romance' into the box.) Please add it. --It's Flo (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MUSIC VIDEO VIEWS

The music video has over 100 million+ views now! And in such a short period of time! There should be something about the video having 100 million views in the "Reception" part of the music video section!

Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrO4YZeyl0I

First of all, youtube is an unreliable source, secondly, not reported in any third party notable source. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chord progression of the Chorus

The chord progression in the chorus is currently listed as: F major, G major, A minor, C major, F major, G major, E minor, A minor. This is not entirely correct. The bass is playing a G# in the second half of the chorus, thus the correct progression for the hook and the chorus is: F major, G major, A minor, C major, F major, G major, E major/G#, A minor. [F-G-Am-C-F-G-E/G#-Am] Playing an E minor over a G# in the bass would be horrible musicianship and highly unlikely.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bad_Romance&oldid=341657781"