Talk:Regina Spektor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Discography

Sorry to sound a bit pendatic, but the copy interupting the discography read like reviews. In my opinion it takes away from the nature of the section, if not the page, does anyone else think that this could be deleted or removed? Baba Alex 21:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right about this. BTW what does "corker" mean? Is this some kind of slang term we don't know here in the States? Badagnani 22:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

'a corker' is something that is really good, it's British slang. If nobody else has any objections I'll do something about the discography.Baba Alex 07:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Regina's views on websites containing MP3s and lyrics of her songs

As requested, here are Regina Spektor's publicly stated views about the presence of MP3s of live performances of her unreleased songs, as well as printed lyrics appearing on websites:

First interview

Quote from http://www.reginaspektor.net/xfm/2004-11-16_Interview_w_-John_Kennedy_Pt_3.mp3 (scroll to approximately the 4 minute mark, or about 2/3 of the way into the interview; sound quality isn't very good so the transcription below is approximate):

Interviewer: ...and we don't know where to go to get them, because most of them haven't been released, really.

Spektor: I mean, actually, I think that playing these songs at live shows is what really like helps me stay sane, because I write all this, and I want it to go to the people. And really...so far, the only way I can get it heard is at live shows. So to me it's really great that I get a chance to play them...somehow get them out to people. I know there's a lot of people that record stuff on their own, and, just for the record, I am totally pro-that, and I love it. I think the Internet is a great thing, and people communicate and trade, and I'm all about free music and, you know, stuff like that, and so... Then, for now, that's...just keep doing that

Interviewer: That's the best way to get hold of all of those different songs.

Spektor: Yeah, definitely. Get in touch with other people, and there's tons of shows, and [?] exposure showing me a lot of people have heard that. And it's cool that in America people get to see it on the Web, and stuff.

Interviewer: That's good. I like that idea.

Spektor: Yeah.

Interviewer: It's a worldwide thing.

Spektor: I know--it makes me so happy! It's kind of comforting.

Second interview

"[T]here are a lot of [my fans] who ... have tons of unreleased demos, and know songs from tapings, by other fans, of live shows. Those are the very active fans. It's amazing, there is a site I found called reginaspektor.net which has one of the most complete listings of my songs I've ever seen; over 120 songs with transcribed (sometimes incorrectly) lyrics, and some recordings. So, when I would get to Glasgow or South France and have people yell out a song I wrote a month before and only played once in NYC, I'd thank the Internet." PDF file of full interview --Badagnani 02:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttal

Unfortunatly, her website does not provide free downloadable music, and her recording company are against copyright infringement. If you can get legal permission from her record company, as well as her, even then it'd be unlikely that the lnks could be included. HawkerTyphoon 16:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a pity that a record company would disallow the distribution of live music, especially when sharing of unsold music has been shown to help sales. This is particularly true of artists outside the mainstream. However, I think HawkerTyphoon is correct that we should exercise caution. If Spektor's record company plans on selling the live tracks, then we should not encourage interference with a future market for the tracks by posting links to websites that host them for free. Do also remember that artists, even those as wonderful and beautiful as Regina Spektor, do not always remember the fiscal interests of the music world in interviews. And although your efforts are greatly appreciated, Badagnani, do remember that what she says in interviews is of course not legally binding.

I've sent an email to Sire Records asking for assistance. I'll post their response here.

Hawker, just a question: Why, even with legal permission from all involved, would the links probably not be included? Omphaloscope » talk 00:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There were so many links, all from fan sites that all offered much the same thing. WP:EL doesn't really allow for links to ootleg sites, and it might just set a precedent for other artist's bootleg sites to be included on their pages. I'm extremely wary of links like this spreading. _{Just to let you know, I love Regina too. I was at her recent Birmingham concert, at the Bar Academy}HawkerTyphoon 00:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Regina's live performances are not controlled by her record company. Only the specific recordings made for Sire Records are copyright controlled, as everything from her current catologue dates back to before she signed with Sire. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyC! (talk • contribs)

Lyrics link

The lyrics link needs to stay. It does not violate anything at WP:EL. As far as I can see, the lyrics site does not violate copyright; if you believe otherwise, you need to help us out with some proof. I agree however about the bootleg recordings clearly being copyright violations. The Crow 22:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have a look at WP:EL in 'links normally to be avoided', the linking to copyrighted material is only allowed if you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page is not violating copyright per contributors' rights and obligations., and no effort has been made!

The lyrics are copyrighted to both the artist and the label, and I sincerely doubt that the site has permission from all of the artists involved. In any case, surely the links should be left out unless proof can be provided that they are not copyrighted. Be assured I'm not doing this out of spite - if you see my contributions, I'm all about reverting vandalism and copyright violations. All I'm saying is, that per contributors' rights and obligations, proof has to be provided that the site isn't violating copyright, not the other way around! HawkerTyphoon 22:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

HawkerTyphoon is correct: lyrics are copyrighted. Some lyrics sites are illegal; see International Lyrics Server. Fortunately, some lyrics sites have been granted permission to display lyrics. Have a look at LetsSingIt's disclaimer. If Regina and her label have granted permission to LetsSingIt (or some other site), we should be able to link to that. So (if I'm not making this up) the correct next step would be to find a decent-looking lyrics site, check that it has been granted permission to display Regina Spektor lyrics, and link away. Omphaloscope talk 00:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have asked LyricsDir for their disclaimer, but haven't recieved a response yet. Please be assured that I'm not trying to break WP:DICK, I just feel very strongly about legal issues. We can't link to Lets Sing It, though, I wouldn't have thought - it's too commercial. A tricky one, is external linking. HawkerTyphoon 00:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Response posted: here! HawkerTyphoon 01:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

They don't seem to want us to link there, but it's not their choice. I can't find a disclaimer anywhere on the site regarding copyrights, so I'm assuming it's copyrighted material that they do not have permission to repost - is this a fair assumption? HawkerTyphoon 01:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

How about SongMeanings.net | lyrics | Regina Spektor? The site hosts lyrics, and users post interpretations. I've sent them an email. Omphaloscope talk 02:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, they're not for profit, so that's an excellent start. As long as they have a half decent statement on copyright, or the like, it should be fine? I can't find any statements anywhere on links to lyrics directories, so I might take it to RFC or something like that - It's an odd one. HawkerTyphoon 02:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a frequenter of the lyrics plugin forum and was directed here from there. I can't speak for the admin personally but I would agree with you that he probably does not have "permission". However, it easily is the best lyrics site for its incredibly clean interface, so I can see why you're interested. I would honor his request of not linking because I'm sure he wants to remain as far out of view of the RIAA as possible, as I believe they're starting to crack down on lyrics sites. (I'm Greg on the lyricsplugin forum) Hansamurai 14:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't recieved any further communication from Badagani, who is the main supporter of the lyricsdir link, so I think unless anyone else has anything to add, it can stay out? HawkerTyphoon 04:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not. This manner of editing (removing a simple, important link to the lyrics of an artist whose music is strongly lyrics-driven and in full support of the wide dissemination of her music) is extremist and robs our readers of invaluable context about this artist. No one beside such extremist editors could possibly object to such linking. I did not respond because it is clear that this editor will continue to obstinately remove links no matter what any other editor says, or what proof is given that the artist is in full support of such circulation of her music and lyrics. Badagnani 17:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Badagnani, I understand completely your point of view, and in princciple, I agree with you. But unfortuneately, it's not just Regina's opinions that matter, it's her record comapnies views too. Regina is in it for the music, we all know she is, and she's by far the best artist I've heard for a long time. But Sire Records are in it for the money, and we can't risked being sued by them or the RIAA, Wikipedia simply can't afford it. HawkerTyphoon 17:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

My name is not spelled that way. Please be realistic: you know and I know that we are talking about links to lyrics, not the reprinting of lyrics. If requested to remove the links to such lyrics sites we could decide to do so (or not) at that time. Probably the lyrics site, not Wikipedia, would first be asked to remove the lyrics if some record company objected. But they have not done that, and lyrics sites flourish across the Internet. They serve to promote the artists' music and fans' knowledge of them, something that is beneficial to such companies. I hope you won't continue to argue about nonexistent threats, and restore the link so that our readers will have easier access to the lyrics. Badagnani 17:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the mispelling, it's not intentional, and I'll correct it from now on :-). Policy says that we can't link to anything that's a copyright violation, and lyrics sites are almost always either a violation, ro they're advert-oriented. But I do want as many links on there as we can get that are going to be helpful. Do Regina or Sire Record's sites have the lyrics? We can happily link to those! HawkerTyphoon 18:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're not aware of the normal way things work as regards popular artists' lyrics as they appear on the Internet. Most artists' official sites, whether major label or otherwise, do not include lyrics sections. It's too much work and generally neither the artist nor the label has the wherewithal or inclination to sit and type them all out accurately (or, in the case of bands like The Ramones, to even figure out their own lyrics). This job is usually left to the fans. Thus, fan sites are almost always the sites that have the best compilations of lyrics. The commercial lyrics sites often scavenge lyrics from such fan sites and reprint them on their own (often with the same mistakes across the entire Internet due to this process). So every element of an artist's public is involved in the process: the artist creates the music and lyrics, the record company sells the CD and lists their tour schedule, and the fans figure out and put the lyrics up on the Internet. It's all part of a continuum or community, and it's worked that way for at least the past 10 years since I have been using the Internet. Badagnani 18:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That's as maybe, but policy is against the links. I asked you three or four times to link me to the 'policy' you quoted, and you didn't. Having read everything I can find on Wikipedia about this, I conclude that there was no policy on it, and that the policy you quoted was a mistake on your part. I am willing to have any and all sorts of external links, so long as they conform to policy! HawkerTyphoon 18:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel I need to clarify some things. WP:L&P addresses the use of lyrics within Wikipedia articles, and makes no assertions either for or against links to external lyrics sites. WP:C states that we only need to ensure that a reasonable effort is made to establish that copyright hasn't been violated; we don't need absolute proof. That said, if a work is shown to be copyrighted and express permission has not been granted for a particular use, that use is unambiguously a violation according to the law, whether or not the law is enforced.

As I had mentioned before, knowingly assisting another in actions that infringe on another's rights constitutes contributory infringement. If someone is distributing or publishing copyrighted material online without permission or a fair use justification, merely providing links to the material can be considered illegal. BitTorrent sites get plenty of heat just for providing "harmless links".

The "way things work" on the Internet is not a sufficient justification for actions on Wikipedia. It does not keep anime distributors from cracking down on fansubs, and does not keep the RIAA from cracking down on file-sharing or lyrics sites, even though it is often argued that these things are actually positive contributors to the market ecosystem. At any one time, Wikipedia is involved multiple legal disputes, and its reputation is not something to be taken lightly. We strive to be an upstanding participant in the world community. We do not wait for a cease-and-desist before we start complying with the law. By then, some of the damage is already done.

Having said this, I believe that lyrics that aren't part of a current or planned record don't fall under the purview of a record label, and are probably acceptable to link to in this article, considering that it has been shown that the artist approves of the practice. Dancter 19:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I won't put it back. But I wouldn't say the discussion is closed. If anyone wants to further discuss external links to lyrics, read what's been written so far and feel free to contribute. Omphaloscope talk 15:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Further Leno/Daly appearances?

Tonight Spektor appeared on Jay Leno ("Fidelity") and Carson Daly ("On the Radio"). The Leno was a repeat but I'm not sure about the Daly. Do either of these performances represent performances over and above the two performances we have listed for her on the Leno show, or the one performance on the Daly show? Badagnani 08:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Addition of cyrillic

The addition of cyrillic "инспектор" without romanization and removal of "Spektorski" goes against what the Spektor article states. Is, thus, the Spektor article incorrect? "Spektorski" sounds like a name to me (with the surname "-ski") but why would the surname omit the first two letters, "ин"? Whatever the case, these edits should be explained to make sure that they are completely accurate. Badagnani 05:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Spektor article is incorrect, as far as I know, yes. "Spektor" and "Spektorski" are both names, and both derived from the Russian word инспектор (which has essentially the same romanization as translation: "inspector"). To say that Spektor is derived from Spektorski is potentially misleading, as it may lead people to believe that "Spektorski" is the Russian word for "inspector", rather than just another form of the same name (much like "Spector" is another romanization of it). -Silence 05:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I'd say please edit the passage so that it's as factual and clear as possible. I don't know if the Cyrillic is necessary in the first place, as it can be easily romanized. Badagnani 05:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Covers?

The article states that she has done covers of songs by Leonard Cohen and Madonna. Does anyone know which songs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cornesy (talk • contribs) 13:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC). Leonard Cohen: "Chelsea Hotel II" and "Hallelujah"; Madonna: "Love Profusion". Visit http://www.ragette.org/Regina/regina%20shawn/Jewish%20Heritage%20Festival%20-%202005-09-13.htm - this is a link from Regina's forum: http://reginaspektor.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/454107688/m/6471088071?r=7491088171#7491088171 . 67.86.197.149 03:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"Style" section and POV

I had added the advert tag to this section. Another user has since removed it, claiming that he doesn't see anything that qualifies as POV. I'll reiterate what I said in the edit summary: I consider myself a fan, but this section is written in glowing tones and reads like publicity material for an album, or, at best, a glowing review. As adding the tag did not succeed in inspiring others to rework the section, I'm going to proceed with removing a fair bit of it for POV and tone concerns. Croctotheface 10:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Badagnani stated in an edit that the cuts were unjustified and needed discussion. So here goes. The Style section is extremely POV. Wordings like seemingly simple, strange noises and a breathy, angelic high register are obviously not objective. Also, the article makes claims like Unlike the songs of many singer-songwriters and The impression is that very little was done to tracks in the production phase, giving a general raw feel. How is a raw feel NPOV? I imagine that my interpretation of raw may vary wildly from yours or any other reader. I think the cuts that were made were justified and I hope someone reverts the article back to the more POV status. Lunapuella 20:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lunapuella and Croctotheface that this section is nowhere close to objective... as one example, she sounds like Billie Holiday? Says who? I completely disagree with that opinion. But the disagreement isn't why I'd remove it... the reason for removal would be that it's just a matter of opinion, completely subjective. I think Lunapuella did a good job with the edits and I will restore them. The Crow 22:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If someone believes those phrases are POV they can be altered to make them not POV, while retaining the descriptive quality. Several sentences were blanked entirely, for example changing the detailed description of the timbre of her vocal instrument in various registers and changing it to "she sings both high and low," which would essentially be true of any singer. That was the sort of edit I objected to. There's a fine line between being bold and ruining detailed description created by editors who came before. Badagnani 22:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is what you call "detailed description" is simply a matter of opinion. "Utilizes high and low registers" is a neutral description. "Angelic, breathy upper register" is entirely a matter of opinion. Notice that 3 other editors now disagree on it. Wikipedia should not include such easily disputable opinion. The Crow 23:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to point out the fact that 3 other editors disagree with you here on the talk page, and you're flirting with violating the 3 revert rule. The Crow 23:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing a bit more cleanup... specifically I'm removing the reference to "vibrato" because this is an incredibly common technique, and the reference to "timbre" because it also is not meaningful without examples (which are not given). What the author is grasping for is "vocal range" and I've made reference to it. The Crow 14:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Changes of timbre is one of the instances that make this singer unique. In fact, several concrete descriptions of such timbre shifts existed in the article, having been carefully written, but they were blanked approximately 1 week ago. The text was as follows: "Spektor also explores the various timbres of her voice, including a breathy, angelic high register and a Billie Holiday-like lower register that she often allows to break into a trumpet-like tone quality." While there is always room for improvement at Wikipedia, simply blanking is not the answer. We should respect one another's contributions. Don't try to use such deletions as a self-fulfilling prophecy, okay? Badagnani 16:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

They were not simply "blanked". They were deleted after 4 editors discussed it, and 3 of them agreed that these characterizations of her style were not objective, sourced fact, but rather one individual's personal opinion. Opinion does not belong in Wikipedia, what will it take for you to understand this simple matter of Wikipedia policy? Please have a read of WP:V and WP:OR. The Crow 18:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see you have brought in quite a number of sources. That's great. I hope they are reliable sources but at least we've got something behind all of these claims. The Crow 22:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The removed text, such as the bit that you have quoted, was not written from a netural point of view. You do not have ownership of this article simply because you created and contributed heavily it. Opinionated statements, no matter how "carefully written," are against Wikipedia policy. The only way to improve opinionated statements such as the ones you wish to include in the article is to REMOVE THE OPINION, which is what was done. There was no "blanking" involved. Croctotheface 03:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review?

When an article starts getting thoroughly sourced, I start thinking about FA status. Croctotheface 04:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. Let's start by having a photo of her playing her primary instrument (maybe the one with her playing the red Baldwin piano, which was deleted despite comments stating that it more accurately represented her work)? Badagnani 04:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Bug in references

See reference 12 for a serious bug. This reference code is so thickly incomprehensible, keeping simple single-bracket references would make things much easier for everyone (except FA nitpickers, who I can do very well without!). As the designers of WP believed, and I do as well, simpler is almost always better. Badagnani 04:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of consevatory

The words "conservatory", "conservatorium" and "conservatoire", although spoken in English dialects, may have different semantic meanings. This is not a mere stylistic mistake based upon a preference for a local dialect. The fact is that, in British English, a conservatory is a glass room attached to the back of a house.

In order to remove ambiguity, I have opted for the use of the more universal term "college of music" Shortstraw 21:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If we can get the name of the conservatory at which she studied, we can use that name, and this will solve the problem entirely. It doesn't matter that "conservatory" has different meanings; many words do. There are numerous institutions of higher music learning around the world that are called "Conservatory" both in English as well as in translation. Badagnani 21:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Spektor's Billboard chart positions

I think it's best to use the *highest* chart position each song has attained rather than keep changing the numbers from week to week. Badagnani 19:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

New photo

The newly added photo is not representative of Spektor and her work, as it illustrates her playing an instrument she doesn't use in many songs. Please replace with an image of her playing the piano, as the previous image did. Thank you. Badagnani 04:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Would any of these be more acceptable? —Chowbok ☠ 19:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If they're free-use, then one or two of them might be better, though all of them have problems. Of the ones on that page, http://www.flickr.com/photos/sam_ford/198710482/ is probably the best aesthetically, but doesn't provide a clear view of her actually playing the instrument, unlike http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrewdill/159032515/ (which would probably require some cropping if we use it).

By the way, I posted a comment about the previous photograph (which was quite visually informative, much more so than its replacement, which is prettier and more free but much less useful to our readers) to its image talk page, but it was ignored and the image deleted:

I've replaced this photo on the article page with a cc-licensed one. —Chowbok ☠ 02:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should replace this with an equally informative non-fair-use image if possible, but I don't see that Image:Regina_Spektor_(2006).jpg is altogether satisfactory, on the grounds that it much less effectively and informatively illustrates the article's subject matter: it demonstrates the subject in a very atypical situation (playing the guitar, which she only does for a couple of songs, did not do in the past, and is not well-known for), whereas the previous image demonstrated the subject in a very typical situation (playing the piano, which Spektor is famous for—and the image of the piano itself is very helpful to our readers).

The guitar image also, while quite nice aesthetically, does not really provide a very accurate idea of what Spektor actually looks like, due to (1) a low camera angle, (2) unusual and distracting lightning effects, and (3) a microphone obscuring part of her face. The guitar image is quite nice, but it doesn't really render the piano image obsolete (because it doesn't provide the same value to our readers as that image does), so unless there's some specific and/or immediate problem with that specific image (as opposed to with fair-use images in general), I'd suggest that we simply use both images on the article (perhaps the fair-use one lower down, so it is less likely to be problematic), at least until a more representative free-use image becomes available as a superior replacement. -Silence 04:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

-Silence 05:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean the red piano image was summarily removed without any meaningful discussion, response to your comment, or post to this discussion page? And it was deleted in favor of the guitar photo? That doesn't make any sense and I feel is indicative of the culture of disrespect to the community of editors that has developed in recent weeks with the epidemic of such summary deletions without serious consideration of discussion justifying fair use. Would the editor who did this please explain themself here? Badagnani 05:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with the deletion of the piano photo (although I do support that decision). I just found the guitar photo. The piano photo would have been deleted in any event. —Chowbok ☠ 07:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not see why the need for her to be performing is of such necessity. Rather we should try to get a clear photo of Regina Spektor herself, as many of the photos of her playing are blurry or distorted, or in some other way unsuitable. I think a good option would be the cover of Begin To Hope, though to be honest I'm not sure that would be an option because of copyright. At the moment however, I find the cat hat image quite amusing.

An image of her performing is not necessary, but it is certainly preferable, considering that she is a musician. Wouldn't you rather have an image of George W. Bush politicking than golfing? The hat cat image is cute, but will be deleted shortly because it lacks any source or copyright information. I also fail to see why the last image was removed, rather than moved to another part of the article; it was a highly valuable free-use image. But it will be restored in any case as soon as the hat-cat image is deleted from Wikipedia (which it will be unless someone shows up soon to tag it). We cannot use Begin to Hope to illustrate Regina herself, obviously: not only is it fair-use, but it's a terribly uncharacteristic photo of her which gives next to no information on what she looks like because of stylization. Besides, candids are always preferable to album covers. -Silence 05:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a performance image is preferable by definition. I think that the Bush example is actually a good one: the picture on George W. Bush is just a portrait, not a shot of him doing any one thing. In this respect, I actually think I prefer the current photo. I think it is most important that the main photo illustrate what Regina Spektor looks like, rather than that she plays piano. That said, a high-quality public domain photo of her at a piano would certainly be appropriate for the article. Croctotheface 05:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Despite the above comments, the fact is that the photo depicting Spektor playing her red Baldwin piano (which was deleted without comment, an extremely poor thing to have done) illustrated this artist and her work better than the "cat hat" photo or the "electric guitar" photo. Badagnani 19:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded this picture to wikimedia commons. Perhaps it could be cropped, and scaled down - if anyone wants to do that they are welcome. I am going to go ahead and put it in the infobox.--Macca7174 14:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Literary allusions/reverting good faith edits

I recently removed the mentions of Fitzgerald and Hemingway because, first of all, she's not referencing the works, just the authors, and second, because there are too many literary items mentioned there. It reads like a laundry list, and it's not really particularly informational to just say that certain authors are referenced. Additionally, my edit was made in good faith and explained by an edit summary. The reversion had no edit summary and was marked as minor, which really isn't in the spirit of collarborative work that WP endeavors to have. Croctotheface 06:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary read exactly as if the two authors were being removed simply and precisely because the editor believed the paragraph to be too long. If the allusions are there in the songs, the text and mentions are valid, and deserving of mention, giving a complete picture of this artist, specifically as regards her lyrics and the lterary influences shown therein. Badagnani 06:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. In the first place, the idea that the references set Spektor apart from mainstream folk is an opinion. Even if the interviewer or Spektor advances this opinion in the NPR interview, that does not pass WP:NPOV. At the very least, the opinion should be attributed. It's not necessary to list any and every mention of a novelist that Spektor makes. It seems like you want to include this because it somehow is flattering to Spektor to say that she's read X and Y and has mentioned them. That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article. In the future, please do not continue to revert other editors without comment and mark the edit as minor. Instead, you should mention the issue on the talk page and try to gather an consensus. You do not have ownership of this article. Croctotheface 06:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not write that text and certainly do not have any of the motivations you impute. Badagnani 06:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me if I misinterpreted your motivations--they may have carried over from the last time you insisted on your version of the article. One or two examples are sufficient to illustrate the concept of "she makes literary allusions." Attempting to create an exhaustive list of such references is really not the business of an enyclopedia article. I'm going to wait to see if anyone else has an opinion on this issue before paring the list down. I am, however, going to remove the opinionated part now. Croctotheface 07:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Literary allusions that exist in songs and are verifiable (and which have been noted as a distinctive stamp of the artist's output in several notable publications) do not represent something "opinionated." Regarding your previous blanking, a thorough description of the artist's voice and specific vocal qualities is something that does benefit a complete understanding of this artist, but was essentially gutted in favor of the very strange and hardly descriptive text that exists now. It would be best if you showed some command and deep knowledge of the subject at hand and, rather than simply blank or delete text, actually replace text you find to be overly POV or opinionated with equally descriptive or more descriptive text. You haven't shown an ability to do so up to now, but I do of course hold out hope for this. Badagnani 07:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Civility is important on Wikipedia. I suggest you read up on what "blanking" actually is before you level such charges over a content dispute where the consensus is against the version you favor. Regarding this content dispute, I'm not opposed to mentioning the literary allusions, so I'm in no way attempting to avoid noting it. However, the idea that it is a "distinctive stamp" IS an opinion, so I'm glad the article doesn't say anything like that. What I am opposed to is listing NINE references from SIX songs as a way of illustrating that concept when listing two references from two songs would suffice. Also, I'm not sure what "several notable publications" you're talking about, since the only citation relating to this section is to a single public radio interview. Croctotheface 07:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Vocal style/comparison to other singers

Regina Spektor's alternation, in her songs, between the pure-sounding high register of her voice and her jazzier low register reminds me most of the singing of Jewel, but I hesitate to add Jewel's name to the article for fear of comparing her to an artist who she doesn't otherwise resemble. Does anyone else notice this similarity? Badagnani 18:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth I don't think Jewel should be mentioned in the article. Might as well toss Tori Amos in there as well if you do :) Blogbourri 05:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The two names which do come up most frequently in critics' discussion of Spektor are Fiona Apple (I guess because she is female and plays the piano, maybe the only similarities!) and Bjork (maybe because of her playfulness and the unpredictability in her voice). I'm not sure they should be mentioned here either, though, unless to help people who don't know Regina's music to have a frame of reference. Badagnani 05:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually... go to reginaspektor.com and listen to the tracks from her out of print first album, 11:11. Her early stuff sounds TREMENDOUSLY like Fiona Apple at times (perhaps why Spektor has said 11:11 is the album she's most embarassed by!). She's developed her sound quite a bit since then though, and I could only see mentioning Fiona Apple being relevent if it were framed like: "Regina Spektor's earliest material can be described as akin to Fiona Apple in sound, but with subsequent albums she's gone for a more diverse, playful sound that incorporates influences such as trip-hop, jazz, blah blah blah." Blogbourri 04:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

How can an artist be both "folk" and "anti-folk"? That seems like a contradiction. User Badagnani, please explain how this artist is both folk and anti-folk. Just because she emerged from the same movement, does not mean she represents that style. [1] Review noting she came from the anti-folk movement but is vaguely anti-folk Another source Kevinh456 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

the recording of "Real Love"

I think correctness here is appropriate. Spektor's recording of John Lennon's "Real Love" was for the Darfur Project, in response to the Darfur Crisis. 1967ramrods 05:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So say that, then. It's a CD sponsored by Amnesty International, is that correct? Badagnani 05:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Music Box

So, her tune Music Box is now on a JC Penney's commercial (see http://tunesontv.com/feed/). I was surprised no one jumped on this yet. After reading this article, I would say Music Box is an excellent example of her style.

I saw this last evening. Would you add it to the article? Badagnani 20:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Pic

I have obtained a higher quality picture. I'm going to post into the talk page. If anyone has an objection than please voice. If their are none I'll put it up on several days. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/198710482_ffa7061ecf.jpg--St.daniel ^Talk 22:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoever put the new photo up top, it would be much preferable to have a photo showing her actually playing an instrument while singing (preferably a piano), and not straining in such a strange way. Badagnani 05:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I have never seen a longer list of externally-linked articles for a single person, no matter how notable. If they're important, use them for references and link them that way. The way it is now is just ridiculous. Trying to make someone look notable by listing/linking scads of articles about them isn't the way to do it. I'll strive to come back and do something about it, but it won't be today. Salamurai 14:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Citizenship

I don't think we know her citizenship (re: the changes in the cats to say "American singer-songwriters") but I assume she now has U.S. citizenship since the nation of her birth no longer exists. So it makes sense to call her "American." Does anyone have more detailed information? Badagnani 19:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The successor state to the USSR was Russia - She has Russian Citizenship if she had Soviet citizenship. HawkerTyphoon 00:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- though not every country allows dual citizenship. If she became a U.S. citizen since her move to the U.S. (which is likely), then it's possible she doesn't also still have Russian citizenship. I'll have to ask at the Respekt bulletin board, as those people seem to know everything.  :) Badagnani 05:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

People who emigrated from the former Soviet Union before February 6th, 1992 were stripped of their Soviet/Russian citizenship. Since Regina moved to the USA in 1989(as a refugee), her family was stripped of Russian citizenship and she was stateless until she got her US citizenship (which was at least 5 years later). --OmegaGX

Thanks for this good info. May I ask what is the source where you found this, so we can provide a citation? Badagnani 02:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Has she been naturalized? I was wondering that before I came in here.Sposato (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Referencing http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61671.htm - scroll to where it says: "In essence, this reaffirmed earlier provisions that granted citizenship to those with Soviet citizenship who were legally in the Russian Federation as of February 6, 1992." And yes, she has been naturalized and has US citizenship, otherwise she would have to apply for a visa every time she traveled on tour abroad, which is happening a lot lately. OmegaGX 13 May 2010

Regina's Guitar

The article mentions Regina's piano, but her guitar is not mentioned. Regina plays an Epiphone Wildkat, with a Sky-Blue finish. However, I don't have any references for that information, other than my own knowledge of guitars, so I won't be adding it to the article myself. If anyone can back me up with legit references, please add it to the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.72.105 (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Badagnani (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible Pictures

Here are some pictures I took of Regina Spektor at a recent concert in Manhattan. Because the new picture might be deleted soon, I am posting these for all of you to choose from. Jeffhardywhyx 18:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• You should put them on Commons so they are available to all other Wikis too. Funkynusayri (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

File:Regina Spektor BW.jpg Does anyone see a problem with this one?--St.daniel ^Talk 23:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Forgot to log in before adding this*

Jenny Owen Youngs

If it really is Regina being featured on the Jenny Owen Youngs song, should it be added to the Collaborations list?--82.194.207.80 (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Article image

This seems to have been discussed before, but why doesn't this article use Image:Regina Spektor black and white.jpg or even Image:Regina Spektor Tel Aviv 2.jpg? They both show her playing the piano, and I much prefer either of them (especially the first) over the image currently in use, which, while nice, is taken from a rather awkward angle. Mr. Absurd (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, and independently of you, after looking over what is available on Commons while looking for a better illustration for the Polish Wikipedia, I chose Image:Regina Spektor black and white.jpg, which is technically good, a fine image for encyclopedia, and has her facing the article, which is also a desirable trait for a biography illustration on Wikipedia, as it conforms to best practices in page design. I will make this change here, as well. --Mareklug ^talk 03:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I revisited, and found an outrageously bad photograph forced on us in the infobox, signed with an explicit credit underneath and linked to someplace with an external link. There's limit to tastelessness and self-promotion. Enough. Sam Ford's elegant composition in black and white does not make Regina look like a hag, and with her at the keyboard on sage, it is timeless. The article is already compromised with terrible photography in the text. No need to punish the woman with unpleasant, shocking ineptitude with a camera any further... You've been warned. Just say no to cruft. --Mareklug ^talk 13:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the same editor pushes her own inferior, even cheesy, work, reverting the excellent B&W photograph we are blessed with having. Please be on a lookout for this flagrant self-promotion. Writing to her on her talk page clearly has not worked. The person is intransigent, and is doing this doubtful exchanging all over Wkkipedia musician infoboxes. Very few are justified on the merits. Her edits obviously need monitoring. --Mareklug ^talk 14:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Written 700 songs?

She was JOKING when she said she has 700 songs! I can't believe this is cited seriously. 142.46.8.22 (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears from the Rolling Stone article that you are correct. We'd better change that to "a great number" of songs, or something similar. Badagnani (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone changed this to "over 9000", which I believe is an instantiation of a hilarious Internet meme. Given this discussion, I have changed that to "a great number" for now, retaining the original source. BurningSnowman (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

New title picture?

HI, I'm not totally sure how to edit pictures or anything, but i figured i'd ask any mods of this page if this picture I took would be a good picture for the top part of the article? Raffadizzle (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

http://s9.photobucket.com/albums/a80/raffadizzle/?action=view&current=DSCF4137.jpg

History Sections/Explanation of releases?

Excuse me for making an unsigned edit to this page, but I really want to point out that this article could really use an explanation of her releases. There is a section on how she began songwriting, and then a section on performances. As someone that's not a fan I'd really like to see when she released each album, and information about those releases. See the history sections of Radiohead or OneRepublic for decent examples I've seen recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.19.166 (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal Life?

Not much on her personal life is known. My own research across the 'Net is blank and inconclusive. Unknown if she's gay or straight, married or single, has children or doesn't, pets, goes to temple or not, etc. Even her politics are uneven, with performances at Marxo-Liberals events and causes, then a blog entry on "her" MySpace page and Twitter tweets in defence of Israel's attack or whatever on whomever in recent months. Just wondering is all. Coffee4binky (talk) 06:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor

Is Regina Spektor related to the famous Russian-Jewish rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor?--PloniAlmoni (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Discography

Are you guys aware that there is a Regina Spektor discography article page? Are you intending to move her Discography over there? Just Curious. Ti-30X (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. —Akrabbim^talk 21:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Patronymic

To whom it may concern (including anonymous IP user who rv this edit):

All people born in the former Soviet Union were born with a patronymic of the father's forename. In Spektor's case that would Ilyinichna (from "Ilya"), it is even included in the Cyrillic transliteration of her name: Регина Ильинична Спектор - Regina Ilyinichna Spektor !! Please do not vandalise or change just b/c you don't like it or because it evokes memories of the Soviet Union. This naming convention continues in present-day Russia and certain other locations. Please do not continue to vandalize or engage in revert warring and thus force me to seek to have the page protected. Thank you. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the proof that this is her middle name? (Source, please.) Badagnani (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be sufficient that the Russian Wikipedia is happy with it [2]; but also check out the Russian news site Lenta.ru (scroll down to "Regina Spektor – Far" story [3]), which would count as a reliable source. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Butterfly Farm in Luck, Wisconsin?

Not for nothing, but after several searches here and there I can find only one reference to the claim that Regina worked at a butterfly farm in Luck, WI. The reference is a blog post, not suitable for a cite - every other instance that I'm turning up is a mirror or lift from the Wiki.
If someone can cite the butterfly farm to a reliable source, it could only be a good thing. The information was initially added by a numeric-IP editor who was only active for a total of six or so edits. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Cited - see [4] Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Super - thanks. Mighty speedy! - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was skeptical but I looked it up online at the newspaper cited by HighBeam - "The Wisconsin State Journal (Madison, WI)". I really thought it wasn't true. Anyway here is the article in the Wisconsin State Journal -> Versatile Regina Spektor Floats Among Her Song Stories.

I actually wasn't skeptical - well, I was at first, because it just seems like the sort of thing some saboteur would slip in. But then I found a blog reference, in which a woman who had seen Regina perform mentioned that she told a story about the whole thing, including noting that in Luck, Wisconsin, you could always think for a moment, look up brightly, and say, "Well! I'm in Luck!" Which convinced me. But it really is the sort of unlikely thing that wants a cite. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to add that everyone has done a really good job with this article - considering there is probably a number of different contributors. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of media appearances

Such removals should be substituted with a summary rather than simple removal. Badagnani (talk) 06:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It just happened again. A citation and some text was removed in this most recent edit, here. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of material

Undid revision 344875633 by 86.179.64.34 (talk) Some text and a reference was removed by 86.179.64.34 without explanation. I am reverting this edit, possible vandalism. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of first name in English

Does someone know, is her name pronounced (in English) as /ɹəɛdʒinə/ or /ɹəɛginə/ ? For anyone who doesn't know IPA, the first pronunciation there is "Regina" with a "g" like "cage" and the second is Regina with a "g" like "gate" I notice the latter is the Cyrillic spelling, but the former is the normal English version of the name. It would be worth adding since you can't accurately predict how a name with different pronunciations will be (correctly) pronounced when the person mainly uses another language. - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 08:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Conan the O'Brian (O'Brien?) said REE GEE NA. Does that help any? And standing next to him, she's short! Coffee5binky (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I heard her say in a recent interview (and I'm sorry I'm not posting it here, I'll go find it if you like) that in Russia it's pronounced /ɹəɛginə/, but she really likes and goes by the American (?) version /ɹəɛdʒinə/ (and just in case I've got this all screwed up, this is REE GEE NA). I assume only family members and Russian friends would use the actual pronunciation. Tmi87 (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Or "Reg" as her MySpace frequently writes. Japanimation station (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Vocals

Does anyone know how many octaves her voice spans? What vocal type is she? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

JAZZ FESTIVAL IN MONTREUX

You made a mistake, like the newspaper 24.ch: it is Regina Spektor's cellist who passed away, and not a bass player. Thank you for the modification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.148.217 (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Spektor in Prince Caspian

Regina wrote and sang "The Call" in the Disney movie The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. Where would a mention of this be appropriate in this article?

Link to the song page on Pandora: http://www.pandora.com/music/song/regina+spektor/call#lyrics

Thanks!! Flowr6powr (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The mention was already in the article and I added the citation. Niluop (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Courage Campaign

Would it be appropriate to mention that Fidelity was used by the Courage Campaign's "Don't Divorce Me" campaign against Proposition 8? I mention this since Regina Spektor has become quite beloved by the LGBTQ community because of it, the song always makes me cry because it reminds me of the video

http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/divorce

Jademushroom (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Brother

Her brother's name is Boruch, not Barry! 70.29.252.46 (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Source? I've heard it's Barry C. Spektor, dob: 6/25/1990. However, by some accounts on the internet, Bear's name is spelled as Boruch in the acknowledgements of Regina's CDs. Boruch or Baruch is the Hebrew name for Barry meaning "Blessed". So you may be right after all. Krishyanity (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Unconfirmed, meaning we can't use these, sources, also have his name as "Boris B. Spektor", but I don't know anything more, nor do I care to. Other rumors are that Regina's real name could be Gabriella, and she changed it to protect her family. Another rumor, her dad's name is now David for business purposes, etc. Again, all rumors. There are no sources, as forums and chat rooms DON'T COUNT as sources. If that's the case, I should go to the Wikipedia article on Pluto and claim it's made of green salsa, according to one looney forum I was reading! Oh, and other rumors are her dad lives in New Jersey, her parents are divorced, etc. She's excellent at keeping her private life exactly that: private. Apple8800 (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Photos

I think that the number of photos on the article is coming dangerously close to a point where it's hard to impart much information as the pictures begin to be a distraction, violating WP:IUP. For musicians' articles, generally the most recent and/or best representation of the artist goes in the infobox, with other photos illuminating points in the text. None of the photos are "stellar" pics, but I believe the one best suited to the infobox is the same one used on Spektor's discography page. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Marriage?

Should there be anything about her marrying Jack Dishel? They married December 18 last year, I believe. There aren't any totally legitimate sources though. There was a Twitter post by a friend of Regina's which said something about it, an "unnamed source" on Tumblr, and wedding photos. Said photos were taken down off a lot of Tumblr blogs and other webpages. There's more on this in a discussion on the forum Brumstix - http://reginaspektor.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/454107688/m/38410917621/p/1 Yay or nay? Grandpa 129 (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You don't really need to ask this as you already know the answer: since you can't realiably source it, no. Viciouspiggy (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/jack-dishel Just stumbled upon (no pun intended) on that. There's another rumor picture I saw also that claimed to be their daughter (meaning she was born before the wedding, hence Regina Spektor losing weight after a slightly rapid gain). Anyways, I don't have any other citations, and if good sources can be found, find it then post it. So far, it seems legit. 70.180.188.238 (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Regina's Middle Name

Can someone verify Regina's middle name is Ilyinichna? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RainInaDesert (talk • contribs) 07:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not middle name, it's patronymic. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. My mistake. Could you, or someone else, verify the veracity of this name nonetheless? I've never encountered it heretofore. Thanks. RainInaDesert (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's come to my attention that this issue has already been addressed. So consider it resolved. RainInaDesert (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Russian names always have patronymics. It is between the surname and the forename and is constructed if you take the father's forename and add an affix at the end. GoP_T^C_N 17:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox photo

The best one we have for her on Commons continues to be the black and white one, with her at the electronic piano, with a spotlight shining through at the lens from the back, dating from 2006. It is also the image on which we settled a while back by consensus on this talk page. So, unless a staggeringly better photo surfaces, and we produce a new consensus in its favor, please do not change the infobox illustration without securing the said consensus on this page. --Mareklug ^talk 12:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Regina Spektor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090505175322/http://www.mountainstage.org/mtnstagepodcast.aspx to http://www.mountainstage.org/mtnstagepodcast.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070516063529/http://www.avclub.com:80/content/node/49632 to http://www.avclub.com/content/node/49632
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070625110606/http://www.billboard.biz:80/bbbiz/content_display/magazine/music/e3ib45af50decbdb4496f1d9fd83a0ee0b5 to http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/magazine/music/e3ib45af50decbdb4496f1d9fd83a0ee0b5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090131115331/http://www.nme.com:80/news/regina-spector/41116 to http://www.nme.com/news/regina-spector/41116

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)