Talk:Give It Away (Red Hot Chili Peppers song)

River Phoenix?

River Phoenix died 2 years after this song was released, so his death couldn't have inspired the song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.165.180 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The line was written before he had died, but is about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elthearosa (talk • contribs) 05:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Music Video

Could someone upload a screenshot from the music video? I would if I knew how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.33.215 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Disambaug

Can anybody make a disambaug page for this. Due to the song by george strait "Give it Away" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.123.62 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thoroughly done. Oldag07 (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Next track

"Proponents of this theory are also quick to point out that the next track on the album is "Blood Sugar Sex Magik"."

It's not a concept album... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.47.105 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is praising the band too much. Someone need to neutralize it.--Nog64 03:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is. Give me some examples and add it back, but I'm removing it for now.Xihix 02:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Give It Away Single Cover.jpg

Image:Give It Away Single Cover.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 05:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 12:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Black Sabbath - Sweet Leaf

Has anyone else noticed that the riff Frusciante plays at the end of the song is *really* similar to the main riff of Black Sabbath's "Sweet Leaf". Apparently this song was written in a spontaneous jam, I think it's very possible that at the end they were intentionally jamming on top of that riff. At the very least I think we should include a mention of "Sweet Leaf" somewhere in the article.

During recent performances (such as their special concert for Top of the Pops), the band has begun to include a heavy, energetic intro inspired by the 1987 Public Enemy single "You're Gonna Get Yours" (the first track from their debut album Yo! Bum Rush the Show), before segueing into "Give It Away" itself.

They used this intro even back in 2001-2002 (on Off the map DVD, for example). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.222.142.20 (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

DOes anyone think mentioning somthing about a Jew's harp being used in the song might help this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.5.204 (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Give It Away → Give It Away (Red Hot Chili Peppers song) — The George Strait song with the same title according to ITunes is almost as popular as this song. I feel the page "Give It Away" should first direct to the new disambig page. — Oldag07 (talk) 04:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

No one seems interested, so i guess my opinion stands. . . Oldag07 (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a couple of more days. . . Oldag07 (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Links

I cleaned up links. Most everything that used to link to Give it Away, now links to this page. Thank God for AutoWikibrowser Oldag07 (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Genre

Give It Away is funk rock not alternative rock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.81.201.149 (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's very much an alternative rock song. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It is funk rock, Kiedis raps a lot in the song + the guitar riff and the bass line are very funky, so it should be funk rock. 84.248.39.41 (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that mentioning funk rock as a genre is significant given the context, having directly preceded and led into the Chili Peppers’ huge success with “Under the Bridge,” which was (at the time) uncharacteristically not funk-based. Considering the link between the two songs, it seems misleading to label them as the same genre. Onomatopoeiaieopotamono (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen numerous sources stating that this a funk rock song too. This song is very funky too, so I can't see why it can't be listed under the genres. I would go as far as saying that rap rock should be listed as a genre too, since the vocals here almost exclusively consist of rapping. I'll go look for those sources again now. Kokoro20 (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Alternative rock is pretty sufficient for describing this song--bear in mind working in funk was a trend in alt-rock right before grunge hit the mainstream. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess the only thing that bugs me (slightly) is that it fits into the funk half of the Chili Peppers’ catalogue, and since the other half is usually described as alternative rock, it seems slightly misleading to someone who might be familiar with the band’s styles but not with the song. But I suppose in a more broad perspective it's accurate enough, and excess genres can get pretty stupid easily.Onomatopoeiaieopotamono (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact that it's a funk rock song though. I mean, Under the Bridge is an alternative rock song, but not this. Kokoro20 (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

---

• Give It Away (Red Hot Chili Peppers song) → Give It Away
• Give It Away → Give It Away (disambiguation)

– The RM four years ago was exceptionally weak. It may have been the right decision at the time, but I suspect the George Strait song was still riding high then. Last month, the RHCP song received 7,369 views versus 2,221 for the other topics on the disambiguation page. Given that recentism would be working against the RHCP song if it's a factor, I'd say we have a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. BDD (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I disagree with the nom's primarytopic claim. --Nouniquenames 17:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so based on the two main primary topic criteria, you either think last month was anomalous and this song doesn't usually get more views than other topics combined, or that this song doesn't have more enduring notability than the others. Is that correct? --BDD (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The nom has made a strong case for a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here based on page views alone. I don't see what the oppose !voter above disagrees with. Dohn joe (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment only. I am not convinced that primarytopic works for song articles. If anybody was specifically looking for a song by a certain artist then the name of the artist in the title space is a bonus and not a hindrance. Whilst I am not accusing anybody here of it, some of these requested moves appear to be more about aggrandizement of the artist than any Wikipedia requirement. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Two people hardly constitute a consensus. I feel the audiences who listen to country and those who listen to the Red Hot Chili peppers are so different that a disambig would make more sense. Oldag07 (talk) 06:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 3

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.

---

• Give It Away → Give It Away (Red Hot Chili Peppers song)
• Give It Away (disambiguation) → Give It Away

– Two days and (I got that wrong sorry) two votes is hardly enough time to state that a consensus was made (especially if the discussion took place on this page). I can understand if the move decision was unanimous, but it wasn't. While there are clearly move page hits for the RHCP version of the song, iTunes popularity charts show them pretty neck and neck. I can assume the overlap between the subcultures listening to these is small. A disambig page the term "Give It Away" makes more sense. Oldag07 (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I have posted a question for a move discussion on relevant wikiprojects. Oldag07 (talk) 06:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. In my mind at least, there is no fine reason for this page to be titled "Give It Away" while there are other pages that are about subjects with the title of "Give It Away". This page needs specification within the title that the subject is related to the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Besides, the first thing I thought of when I saw the thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums was Give It Away (Gaither Vocal Band album) instead of anything relating to the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 06:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Even without the borderline numbers here, I find it very difficult to ever see removing (artist name) from a song disambiguator helps anyone. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support because there are at least 2 other Wikipedia articles about songs titled "Give It Away". Disambiguation is therefore needed. Pageviews are irrelevant. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. There's no way this can be considered the primary topic for the general readership. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The proposal is most helpful for readers. Till 10:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Unreal7 (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply here. Disambiguation between artists is necessary when two or more articles with the same title exist. Till 11:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I respect the RHCP, but when it comes to influence of the artist relative to their genre, George Strait is far more important to the Country genre then the RHCP is to Rock. Oldag07 (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I can understand why some songs don't need to disambiguated. Just because a garage band decided to write a song Amazing Grace, does not mean that the Amazing Grace page should be disambiguated. However, the artists on the disambiguation page are not garage bands, their songs are notable within their respective genre, and this RHCP song is as notable as Amazing Grace. Oldag07 (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support, this is not the primary topic. Pageviews are irrelevant. Logical move. --Nouniquenames 10:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

How is primary topic determined in your opinion? --BDD (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support I understand that the Red Hot Chili Peppers song is important in rock music, but to make it the primary topic topic it should be important on all types of music. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Last time I merely commented with the following words: I am not convinced that primarytopic works for song articles. If anybody was specifically looking for a song by a certain artist then the name of the artist in the title space is a bonus and not a hindrance. Whilst I am not accusing anybody here of it, some of these requested moves appear to be more about aggrandizement of the artist than any Wikipedia requirement. Let's not mix up searchability with importance of artist. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose You can talk about iTunes charts all you want (which, naturally, will skew towards more recent music), but without some numbers, especially related to Wikipedia traffic, all I see is subjective opinions, which don't hold up to my previous finding that this song is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, outnumbering all other topics by almost four times. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Traffic isn't what determines primary topic. It is like saying Apple shouldn't be the primary topic over Apple Inc. These are fundamentally different songs, that appeal to different audiences. I can say the Strait version of GIA, is notable enough to counter claims that this particular song is the Primary topic. It is an award winning, song written by IMO one Country Music's most influential artists. Oldag07 (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Traffic is part of what determines primary topic. From that guideline: "if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." Apple Inc. isn't moved to Apple because of the second part of that: "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." Neither of these songs is particularly educational, but given that the George Strait song is 20 years younger and still less likely to be searched, we have a clear answer. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think the disambiguation page is educational. I haven't heard of any of these songs until I stumbled across this page. Oldag07 (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, all of Wikipedia is education in that sense. I think that clause is more about scholarly or intellectual topics. This was part of the rationale for moving Life on Mars (planet) to Life on Mars, formerly a dab page with several fictional works by that name. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

To quote WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors, often as a result of a requested move. Tools that may' help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion (but are not considered absolute determining factors) include. . . " In short subjective opinions still matter.

Hence my argument, that the Strait song is "... an award winning, song written by IMO one Country Music's most influential artists", still works. One could explain the extra hits that the song RHCP made simply is because it is part of a more popular genre. Oldag07 (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, for the reasons I supported last time. Those here saying that pageviews are irrelevant in determining WP:PRIMARYTOPIC fundamentally misunderstand that guideline, where article traffic stats are one of three principal methods of determining primariness of usage. Dohn joe (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Guidelines that are more suggestions rather then rules. As mentioned several times on this page, there are good reasons why page count should not be the only determining factor in determining of it is a primary topic. These include: the fact that the RHCP song is really genre specific, the fact that the some of the songs in the disambiguation are equality notable within their genres, and the fact that the songs have absolutely nothing to do with each other then a name. Oldag07 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Open thoughts. The problem with "primarytopic" for song articles, especially for a title as generic as "Give It Away," is that a new song with the same title could become more famous than anything we are thinking about. If we qualify with the artists' name it avoids continual requested move debates,helps ensures links are pointing in the right direction, makes searching for particular songs logical. It will also help to protect the RHCP article in the future. For me it remains a win-win situation. --Richhoncho (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Anyone wanting to look up the RHCP song could still easily find it, but as of now people looking for other songs titled "Give it Away" should be brought here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_It_Away_(disambiguation) because it makes it hard to find other songs "titled Give it Away" otherwise. There's about 4 or 5 other songs with articles have the same exact title and each song including the RHCP one should be specified by band/artist. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Commnent- While there seems to be a strong disagreement to how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should be used, the discussion seems to be dead at the moment. Admittedly, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but the ratio of those who support to those to don't support the move is 8-3 ratio (9-3 if you include me). All three who oppose were the people who supported primary move 2. If there is no other comments, I am going to move this page on Saturday. Oldag07 (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be absolutely against the spirit of WP:RM. See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Conflicts of interest. Please wait for an administrator or another qualified editor to close the discussion. RM is backlogged, but process is important. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

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.

Bibliography

Hi, I'm translating this article into Spanish. I need to know where the Bibliography is, since I cannot verify sources just called "Apter" or "Kiedis". Could you please add it to the article somewhere? I have the intention to turn the Spanish article into a GA. Regards, мιѕѕ мαηzαηα (let's talk) 04:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Sampling - Onyx

Just like to point at that RHCP sampled Onyx's song "Atak of Da Bal-Hedz" http://www.whosampled.com/sample/72991/Onyx-Atak-of-Da-Bal-Hedz-Red-Hot-Chili-Peppers-Give-It-Away/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.181.138 (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Give It Away (Red Hot Chili Peppers 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206002037/http://redhotchilipeppers.com/timeline to http://redhotchilipeppers.com/timeline

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)