Talk:Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1 Archive 2

Calculating Sales of Hallelujah

If one was to count sales figures of Hallelujah recordings it appears the number would easily top 10 million prior to the latest surge in interest in the song in the UK. Adding up all the commercial sales worldwide of all the versions of Hallelujah would be an enormous job for anyone. It's even a big undertaking to just look for the certified stats for each country - http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/international-award-levels.pdf - (definitions for which range greatly). Grossly simplifying the task, one can at least add some perspective to the discussion. The Rufus Wainright version (on Shrek) was certified gold in 2001 by the CRIA ( http://www.cria.ca/cert_db_search.php ) for sales over 50,000 in Canada. In 2002, it was certified double-platinum by Aria ( http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations.htm ) for sales over 140,000 in Australia. On December 17, 2004, it was certified double-platinum, for sales over 2,000,000 in the USA by the RIAA ( http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS ). By 2004, then, sales of over 2.19 million were achieved, and there are dozens more recording industry associations whose numbers need still be tallied. Jeff Buckley's recording of Hallelujah on Grace was certified gold, for sales over 500,000 in the USA by the RIAA on November 8, 2002 ( http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS ). In February 2003, it was certified platinum, for sales over one million copies in Europe, by the IFPI ( http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_news/plat_month_20030311a.html ). As well, on April 22, 2008, Buckley's Hallelujah in single (rather than CD album format) was certified platinum for sales over one million in the USA by the RIAA ( http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS ). By April 2008, Buckley's certifications alone totalled over 2.5 million copies of Hallelujah - and this is calculating only USA and Europe sales. Sales from other countries around the world, no doubt, would add considerably to these totals. (Same as for Wainwight). As a more typical example, to be found amongst the more than one-hundred other covers of Hallelujah, on April 19, 2005, kd lang's recording of Hallelujah, on Hymns of the 49th Parallel album/CD, was certified platinum for sales over 100,000 in Canada by the CRIA ( http://www.cria.ca/cert_db_search.php ). In Australia lang's recording has been certified double platinum for sales over 140,000 copies by Aria ( http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations.htm ). Again, these figures represent totals for only two out of many dozens of countries/selling territories in the world. It can be seen that just this "tip of the ice-berg" can account for millions in sales. To tell the full story, one would have to add in all the other countries of the world, for these, and all the versions, many of which sell in the range of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands, and, depending on the relevant sales territory certification levels, would not trigger gold/platinum certs. Add to this the many hundreds of thousands, potentially millions, of sales made by those recording artists whose sales are not reported upon by the mainstream industry agencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.188.160 (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line being that the recent UK sale profile and publicity for Hallelujah certainly represents the greatest commercial success to date for Alexandra Burke, but, it's not the greatest commercial success that's been enjoyed by Leonard Cohen's song Hallelujah nor by the Jeff Buckley cover of Hallelujah. It could become that, but, there's a long way to go before that's based in any proportional reality.

Keychange citation needed?

  • Why has the fact that the Alexandra Burke version adds a keychange been marked as "citation needed"? It's like needing an external reference for saying the New Testament is about Jesus. ;-) If it wasn't possible to listen to the song (say, if it was a 17th century manuscript) then this would be valid, but for a pop song available for download, on CD and on Youtube, this just isn't necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.119.40 (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

  • "Rufus Wainwright also covered the track, emphasizing the piano – and his version was included on the Shrek soundtrack in 2001, although it was John Cale's recording from the tribute album I'm Your Fan that inspired Wainwright's and was used in the film itself. (Wainwright apparently replaced him on the soundtrack because he is signed with Dreamworks SKG and Cale is not.) The Shrek theme music was also based on "Hallelujah."
  • I think this means that the music in the Shrek movie is Cale's version while the one on the CD Soundtrack is Wainwright. The first sentence isn't clear though. How about;
  • Rufus Wainwright covered the song, with an emphasis on the piano. This version was inspired by John Cale's recording from the tribute album I'm Your Fan. Cale's version is used in a scene from the movie Shrek, while Wainwright's is used on the Shrek soundtrack album, due to Wainwright being signed to Dreamworks SKG. The theme music for Shrek was influenced by "Hallelujah."

Ozchrisb 16:44 28 October 2006 (AEST)

  • I've heard that Cohen actually covered this song. However, I have not acquired any credible sources for the statement - is it a myth or what?

Jobjörn 13:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean covered this song? He wrote and first performed this song.--Prosfilaes 14:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • A recent Boston Pheonix article (week of 3/5) quotes Zack Snyder (Watchmen) as saying he originally intended to use Alison Krauss's cover of "Hallelujah" for the film, but later changed his mind (the movie features Cohen's version). However, a fairly thorough Google shows only a few references to a Krauss cover, and no YouTube footage or mp3s. One page references the Krauss cover as appearing during the season finale episode of TV show "Close to Home"; another blog mentions her cover but not in any context.

I'm wondering if anyone can confirm that a studio cover (or even a popular live version) of this cover actually exists? I'm beginning to suspect Zack Snyder, among others, has Alison Krauss confused with Allison Crowe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdnh42 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Chord progression

If the tonic is C-major, what chord does V/vi denote? I've half a mind to change it back. – Hattrem 16:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You first treat vi (A minor) as a temporary tonic, and then take the V (E major). The "V/vi" symbol describes what the chord really does, while "III" is non-standard and looks like it's supposed to be the relative major of a minor key (but you're in major). rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! – Hattrem 17:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
It's a beautiful chord. I think it's what makes this song so great. This song is in C, so it is a secondary dominant on the vi chord, Am. In normal diatonic harmony, the iii chord should be minor, but by making it major, you have a really nice leading tone to the vi chord (G#-A). Coming from the V chord initially provides a really nice chromatic bass movement. I'm pretty sure the bass moves from a G to a G# and then to an A in the recording, and that would be the most ideal movement. Anyways, that's my little music theory blurb for the day. This song is still absolutely gorgeous, whether it's because of a secondary dominant or not :-p. Kntrabssi 17:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
So... What's going on with that chord... the V/vi describes the chord correctly... what's there doesn't make senese...

Chord Progression, part 2

While roman numeral analysis is appropriate here because of the self-reference in the song, it is not the best idea to attempt to list the actual chords. First of all, different recordings of this song will naturally be in different keys. Secondly, as was a previous issue, it is difficult to tell whether the borrowed chord, the E major chord, is a seventh chord or not. In theory, it is the best idea, obviously, because it serves as a false dominant to the false tonic that follows it. However, since the only actual way of verifying this truthfully would be to get the music from Leonard Cohen, it is not Wikipedia's place to list something like that here. Thus, I have removed the chords, but left the Roman numerals and the part about the self-reference. Kntrabssi 02:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Song not written by Cohen?

I don´t think the song is written by Leonard Cohen. See this YouTube video. In it he says that Icelandic performer Gunnbjörg Ólafsdottir (though I´m not sure on the name as it´s really hard for me to catch) did the original and gave him the record. --Thor Andersen 10:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't say she recorded the original in that video. In fact, when he talks about it afterward, it sounds like hers is a cover, and he's trying to remember his original verses to glean what she is singing when.
There are two versions of the song that Cohen himself has recorded. The original version from 1984's Various Positions, and one with different verses from 1988's Cohen Live. When Cohen says in that interview that she recorded "the original", he is indicating the version of the song (the choice of verses), not the authorship. Leonard Cohen is most definitely the author of this song. Kraken137 05:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Rammestein (Spelling?)

the same one played by these guys??

this is definitely not the same song that was performed by Rammstein! Jud 17:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Dave Dobbyn

Dave Dobbyn did indeed sing a song named "Hallelujah Song", but it was not this one. I can only find limited information[1] on the song he wrote, his version however contains lyrics that talk about an assassination attempt against the

1981 Pope John Paul II assassination attempt, his assassin is not initially caught). Can anyone confirm this, and if so, maybe we can correct this article? --Zaf(t
) 19:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there anywhere you can get all the 15 verses?

The Original version together with the live version makes 7 verses, where are the rest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.231.181.61 (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would love to know this as well. --PulpAffliction (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[I'm gonna post the following stuff here (after which then I may (or may not?) find time to extract a point or two from it for the article(?)).]

[Amazon Prime]: "John Cale relates that upon hearing Cohen perform the song live, he asked if he would send him the lyrics, and was later overwhelmed when Cohen sent him not merely the verses he sang that night, but all the verses he had written. Cale took them, and redacted the version that nearly all performers have followed since. In truth, while Leonard Cohen is the composer of the song, John Cale deserves credit for establishing the definitive version."

[So, hmm, maybe Cohen saw competing versions of the song as a work in progress, with there still being some competition between variant renderings of verses and maybe more verses that have never been formally been incorporated into the song? (But I'm just speculating.) Anyway, here are the known lyrics.]

"Allelujah"

1. Now I've heard there was a secret chord That David played, and it pleased the Lord But you don't really care for music, do you? It goes like this he fourth, the fifth The minor fall, the major lift The baffled king composing Hallelujah

2. Your faith was strong but you needed proof You saw her bathing on the roof Her beauty and the moonlight overthrew her She tied you to a kitchen chair She broke your throne, she cut your hair And from your lips she drew the Hallelujah

3. You say I took the name in vain I don't even know the name But if I did, well, really, what's it to you? There's a blaze of light in every word It doesn't matter which you heard The holy or the broken Hallelujah

4. I did my best, it wasn't much I couldn't feel, so I learned to touch I've told the truth, I didn't come to fool you And even though it all went wrong I'll stand before the Lord of Song With nothing on my lips but Hallelujah

---[Leonard Cohen]: This mad period started with Various Positions. I remember writing this song "Hallelujah"; I filled two notebooks with the song, and I remember being on the floor of the Royalton Hotel, on the carpet in my underwear, banging my head on the floor and saying, "I can't finish this song." After I wrote the one version [for Various Positions], 1 wrote another lyric which I'm doing now, which goes like this:

Baby, I've been here before. I know this room, I've walked this floor. I used to live alone before I knew you. I've seen your flag on the marble arch, But love is not some kind of victory march, No it's a cold and it's a very broken Hallelujah.

There was a time you let me know What's really going on below, but now you never show it to me, do you? I remember when I moved in you, And the holy dove was moving too, and every breath we drew was Hallelujah.

Now maybe there's a God above, As for me, all I ever learned from love Is how to shoot at someone who outdrew you. and it's no complaint you hear tonight, and It's not some pilgrim who's seen the light it's a cold and it's a very lonely Hallelujah.

[--That was the prototype of the defeat. --Cohen.]

(Variations on the Last Verse)

Maybe there's a God above, But all I ever learned from love Is how to shoot somebody who outdrew you. It's not a cry that you at night It's not somebody who has seen the light It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah.

Now maybe there's a God above, But all I ever learned from love Is how to shoot at someone who outdrew you. But it's not a cry that you hear tonight And it's not some gleeful laughter From somebody who says he has seen the light, It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah.

Now maybe there's a God above, As for me, all I ever learned from love Is how to shoot at someone who outdrew you. But it's not a cry that you hear tonight It's not some gleeful christian who has seen the light It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah

 — Justmeherenow (   ) 22:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Use in The O.C.

Isn't one of the uses of this song in the O.C. by Rufus Wainwright? It says that there are two by Buckley and one by Imogen Heap... 24.136.45.122 08:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ummmmm...

What is the song about?03:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

ummm, what is your question about? Paul B (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Cover Versions

Ok, American Idol songs are not cover's of any song they sing on the show. They're not even complete songs, they're snippets of songs sun in a notable competition, but they are not themselves notable versions of the song. If a song becomes notable AFTER the show because an artist featured on the show re-records it, then it warrants inclusion. In 5 years literally nobody will remember that some kid on American Idol sang Hallelujah, nobody will remember that some kid same Hot Blooded or Imagine, or You're So Vain, etc, etc, etc. If Jason Castro leaves American Idol and performs this song on an album, then that would be a cover version and that would warrant inclusion, every joe blow who sings a song on one of the MANY Idol shows is not a notable cover. Additionally, there's no evidence of a correlation between the song being on the show and it being so popular on iTunes. Sure it MIGHT make sense to some, but there's no evidence of if, and including that bit is original research. Batman2005 (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding yourself if you think there's no correlation. Why was the song nowhere to be found in iTunes top selling songs on Monday. Jason performs the song Tuesday to glowing reviews, the judges mention that Jeff Buckley's is probably the most well known version of the song, and BOOM two days later Jeff's version is #1 on iTunes. You're joking if you think that that's not extremly notable, and there's no reason it should not be included in the article. The song's achieved a level of popularity not seen in years, if ever, and has reached a whole new generation because of the performance, sure sounds notable to me. The only reason you don't want here is because you obviously don't like the show American Idol, but that doesn't change the fact that it has given this song a new life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.0.219 (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Batman2005 never said that he thought there's no correlation. I'm sure that we all think that there is, but that's not reason enough to include it in the article. The reasons not to include it are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, which are binding policies on Wikipedia. Unless a reliable source outside the project comments on the correlation, it doesn't matter how "obvious" we all find it to be. -- Jao (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
First off Jao is correct, I have never said that there is no correlation, I have said that there is no proof of a correlation. Secondly, I do in fact enjoy American Idol quite a bit. I am not one of the people out there, and there are many, who think that just because some kid sang a song on American Idol, that it needs to be listed as a cover version on te songs site. Surely, if Jason Castro, at a later time, records the ENTIRE song for an albumn, it will become notable enough for inclusion. What he did on the show was about 2 verses and the chorus and that's it. It's not even a cover version, it's a snippet in what amounts to a Karaoke contest. Additionally, I assure you that Hallelujah has achieved a level of popularity much higher than what it is seeing right now. This song being sung on Idol didn't do anything "bring it to a new generation." Shows like The OC and Shrek brought this song to the attention of the generation that Jason Castro belongs to. Furthermore, it doesn't matter what seems notable to you. It must be verifiable and must not be original research. The balance of that paragraph was original research, which is why it was, and will stay, deleted. Batman2005 (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I added it back in. And if you want to start discussing rules, Batman2005 is in clear violation of the 3 revert rule. 66.182.71.226 (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's a link for you guys. [2] (Did anyone try a simple Google search?) [3] [4] Now, I recognize that
search results don't end the discussion. But this endless reverting by a few is getting a bit silly. 66.182.71.226 (talk
) 05:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I am in violation of nothing. I am however, removing original research. There is still no proof of a correlation between the two. Batman2005 (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Then what's this? [5] [6] [7] [8] Here's the
rule. 66.182.71.226 (talk
) 17:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I know the rule, and I did not violate it. I reverted 3 times, and then removed information that consensus had already established was original research. You'd notice, if you'd actually look at articles, that now that there is a source outlining a correlation, that I have left the information in. Either way, i'm not going to argue policy with a user who has a history of about 20 edits. Batman2005 (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you did violate it. And isn't it obvious that I have more experience than 20 edits? I'm not signed in. 66.182.71.226 (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Is this better? TK421 (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Not better. Instead of trying to dupe people, how about signing in and posting under one name? I violated nothing. End of discussion. The information is remaining on the page now that it's sourced, ergo, discussion over. Batman2005 (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough with all the listing

Paragraphs consisting of long lists of people who've covered the song, or tv/film uses of the song, make for a bad article. Can you imagine anybody actually reading through the 'Cover versions' section in its current state? Let's just cut it down to a statement that yes, there have been a lot of covers, and give a handful of examples. Just a handful (five at most) and only the particularly notable examples as well. Then can people please stop adding their favourite covering artist to the endless list? --VinceBowdren (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


Pete Wentz's attempted suicide?

What reference is there that says the song was playing in a car that Pete Wentz supposedly attempted suicide in? I was to believe that the song was called Hum Hallelujah because the song samples the Cohen song —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.195.137.186 (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

X-Factor "cover"

I removed the X-Factor section for the following reasons:

1. The song is not out yet, so why there is expected chart positions and info boxes is beyond me. 2. There are plenty of covers of this song so I don't see why X-Factor gets special treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riksweeney (talk • contribs) 11:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe it should go in the cover version list. Having a separate section - at the moment - is unecessary. Keep that on Alexandra Burke. If it becomes the fastest-selling single of all time, then maybe. By the way it has been released for download as of midnight. Panthro (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it gets special treatment because its gonna be huge? Generationtalk 123
Jeff Buckley's version is huge but it doesn't get its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riksweeney (talk • contribs) 08:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I just put it there to save trouble considering you overlook every other "Rumoured cover versions" why did Leona get her own page for her cover of "Run"? She is the winner of X Factor 2008, c'mon. This has to be claimed here otherwise she will get her own page. Major covers get their own part. Just like the X Factor contestants did on their cover of Hero. Generationtalk 123
There are only two (popular) versions of Run, one by Snow Patrol and the other by Leona. There are numerous cover versions of Hallelujah. Alexandra's version, in my opinion, shouldn't feature the music box as it currently does. The single, at the moment, is of no particular importance and the only relevance is that it's being released as a cover. Stoosh (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Tell you what, I'll leave the info box in there for all the 12 year old fans and then in 6 months when no one gives a toss about her anymore, I'll remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riksweeney (talk • contribs) 08:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I also disagree with the infobox and the position of that particular cover. If it's notable by itself by all means create an article about it. If it's not, a
one liner will suffice. -- lucasbfr talk
14:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Since all mention of the Alexandra Cover (y'know, the one thats HAS been released as WILL be UK christmas number one next week) was removed in what must have been a mistake. I have placed the info back in the article. I urge users to come here first and give a VALID reason for its removal before actually removing it again. If it gets removed again without any valid, I will have to revert the edit as vandalism. Thanks!

chat
) 14:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure:
vandalism. -- lucasbfr talk
14:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I see removing info because you are anti-X Factor as vandalism! Not saying thats your position, but some of the editors round here clearly do hold that opinion! Any, before this gets nasty, see my message on your talk page :-)
chat
) 14:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the matter is finished now anyway. Glad things turned out okay!
chat
) 14:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Ow, I missed Sceptre's request while I was working. I split the article into two pieces with
bold suggestion, but I think it should please both sides. -- lucasbfr talk
14:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd support the two being in the same article. I can't think of any song (apart from "Run", which I'm going to make the same point) which has two versions as separate articles: cf
Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds, With a Little Help from My Friends, (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction, Yesterday (song), Bang Bang (My Baby Shot Me Down), Personal Jesus, Live and Let Die (song), All Along the Watchtower, Cum On Feel the Noize. Phew. Sceptre (talk
) 17:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I forgot: Popcorn (instrumental) and Axel F are also in one page, even thought the cover of the latter was a worldwide hit (unfortunately). Sceptre (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that Cohen will appreciate the royalties - but there can't be any justification for have a whole section dedicated to what is musically or artistically (I know this is generally a subjective area, but PLEASE) an insignificant cover. The tone of the entry seems more appropriate for Smash Hits. Depressing... If the cover really justifies this coverage - put it on its own page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arfurdaly (talk • contribs) 13:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I wholly agree with you that it doesn't deserve its own section. She's got a lovely voice, sure, but the woman merely sang a song that someone else wrote and released over 20 years ago. Personally, I think the whole covering business is interchangeable with theft, but nonetheless she has done nothing more than sing a song that she had no part in writing. That's just laziness and doesn't constitute any more recognition than she already has. This comment is wholly opinionated, so don't point out bias. Just read the point within and appreciate that it has a proper meaning. 86.25.3.16 (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
If Burke gets her own section then does anyone have a problem with me adding sections for every other artist I can find who has covered the song? Unless someone gives me a reason why I should not do this, or Burke's version is removed, then I shall start work on this tomorrow. I will do this because Burke deserves no more than a comment on the page, not a whole section to herself. Codu (t)⁄(c) •  22:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I already replied to this argument below. The only relevant criterion is
notability, not "fairness" or "equity". What you personally think her version "deserves" is of no relevance whatsoever. Burke's is the only version to have sold 100,000 plus copies in one day, and is already sufficiently notable to have its own paragraph. The other versions generally aren't - the exceptions are the Cale and Buckley versions which should also be mentioned at similar length, Cale for first drawing the song to wider attention and Buckley for also having a hit version. Ghmyrtle (talk
) 22:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
In this case she should be mentioned in the "Accolades" section. We could write "Burke's is the only version to have sold 100,000 plus copies in one day" or something to this effect. Otherwise, using your thinking, it is at least fair that we put up info boxes for Buckley's and Cale's versions. I will be more than happy to do this instead.
I should make clear that I have no problem with Burke being mentioned, it would be crazy for me to do so. However, she does not warrant her own info box covering half the page, nor her own section. Codu (t)⁄(c) •  22:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
See comments below. I don't have a problem with the Buckley version in particular having an infobox as it was a hit single (was Cale's, ever?). Let's try to keep neutral (eg over whether or not Cohen is a "more important artist" than Burke - interesting, but not at all relevant to this article), and base the article on notability - which can cover a wide range of factors, including volume of sales. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
That is true, the volume of sales is importance. However, the success of the artist is also important. If this Burke girl goes on to become a megastar then she would definitely warrant her own section of this page. However, we do not know this will happen. This is only her first song, successful as it may be, she could be forgotten at the end of January. If she is, will she still be considered notable enough then for her own section? Codu (t)⁄(c) •  22:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
We'll have to see. The article will change as the world changes - there's no such thing as a perfect article, written in stone and never capable of improvement. What concerns me is that people are using irrelevant arguments and making highly opinionated POV statements in relation to this article - which, as it is inevitably an article which is going to be widely viewed over the next week or so, makes it even more important than usual that edits to the article reflect good Wikipedia practice. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sales of 100,000+ downloads - even one million downloads - may be deemed notable in that singular respect. However, there are many versions of this song that have achieved more notable and long-lasting impact and these are being given short shrift in comparison with an overnight commercial promotion. Jeff Buckley's "Grace" version for almost a decade carried the torch for Hallelujah. John Cale created the artistic template for Buckley and almost all versions that followed Cales. Rufus Wainright's Shrek version has sold many multiples of the number sold by Alexandra Burke. None of these, and other artists, have their own boxes on this page. And, it's not just sales (particularly in an industry as rigged as today's mainstream recording racket) that register a particular version as notable. There are numerous artists recording covers of Hallelujah who do not register their versions for inclusion in the commercial pop charts. It's a new era - there are quite a few versions of Hallelujah that have much farther commercial and artistic reach than the latest version to appear - and as has been pointed out by numerous folks here, this page needs to not be disproportionately weighted toward a temporal marketing phenomenom. There are Hallelujahs that have sold more, been downloaded more, been viewed more (as videos), endured longer, influenced more, etc. etc. - and, so, to give such disproportionate play to the X Factor marketing success of this week is just plain out of whack. And, I have no bias for/against the show. I have almost a decade's experience with the song and its place in the scheme of all these things and ask that, as the general consensus here is pretty much right on, the few folks who're caught up in the hysteria of the moment, stand back and consider - this is Cohen's song and all other versions need to be kept in perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian22 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... I don't think you've read the discussion. Of course it's not just sales that make a version notable, but they are one factor. Do you have evidence that "Rufus Wainright's Shrek version has sold many multiples of the number sold by Alexandra Burke." - if so, fine, add it to the article. You could also add infoboxes for the Cale and Buckley versions if you're concerned about "balance". And "there are quite a few versions of Hallelujah that have much farther commercial and artistic reach than the latest version to appear" - evidence, please. The current reference to the Burke version is not "bias" - it is a reasonable reflection of the song's current importance. And, as someone who bought their first Cohen record 40 years ago, I can outdo your experience I'm afraid. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

p.s. there is also a lack of global perspective in the weighting being given what is a regional - UK - sensation. In North America, there are versions of Hallelujah with higher sales, higher download, higher video view, greater influence etc. etc. But, these versions - such as those by kd lang and Allison Crowe (the latter with whom I work, and have direct knowledge), are long-term notable successes - building their stature over a period of years. Kate Voegele fans, and many more could raise valid arguments as their place in the more immediate term. And on. Hallelujah is Leonard Cohen's song. There are covers, and they range in many ways. To start turning this page into a billboard for Alexandra Burke because of her X-Factor win and current sales push is just not right. Again, perspective and proportionality need be maintained. Consider the big picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian22 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree that it shouldn't be unduly UK-centred. But if you're right that "In North America, there are versions of Hallelujah with higher sales, higher download, higher video view, greater influence etc. etc.", why don't you firstly provide some evidence, and secondly add them to the article to provide better balance and improve it, rather than deleting text unnecessarily (though I accept that some people are seeking to add far too much). Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have read the discussion, Ghmyrtle. And if you really need to make things about one-upmanish, and you're proud of your age, I don't want to deflate you too much, nor will I "sigh" - however, the fact is, I purchased my first Leonard Cohen record more than 40 years ago. And, imo, that's irrelevant to the discussion points made vis-a-vis Hallelujah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian22 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Touché. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The essence being that there are numerous cover versions that are more notable, in a range of ways, than is the current X Factor single being marketed for the Christmas #1 derby in the UK. Obviously, one should not negate the existence of this latest cover - but, to suddenly turn an article on a Leonard Cohen song into a disproportionate billboard based on not much more than short term sales figures - just makes no sense. And, rather than having to do write-ups for all the covers that can justifiably be considered more notable than this new version, which would, again, tilt the article to being more about the covers than about the song by Leonard Cohen - isn't it more judicious an use of space to exercise greater restraint in the coverage of this one version? As the comments throughout this discussion note, the weighting and visuals appears greatly disproportionate. And, rather than inflate the number of words devoted to numerous other covers, so that the version by Alexandra Burke can be seen in a more global perspective, it seems more appropriate to keep that particular cover's space to scale. It's sure to be bigger than some people will consider deserved, but, common sense can also tell us that when the page can look more like it's promoting X Factor's new single, than it is illuminating Leonard Cohen, things have gone off-track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian22 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

p.s. The original Shrek soundtrack containing Rufus Wainright's cover of "Hallelujah" was certified double-platinum in 2003 - http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS Those sales of more than two million have, no doubt, increased since that certification. Still, even if time stood still, based on the sales formula - the son of Loudon Wainright III and Kate McGarrigle should, at this moment, have a box/text ten times the size of that for Alexandra Burke. And, of course, I am joking to make the point. Sales are not the whole story in any instance, as Ghmyrtle points out. The Wainwright version of Hallelujah in the movie can be seen and heard to have had a profound impact on introducing the song to mainstream audiences in mass numbers. School choirs, even in younger grades, started to pick up on the song thanks to Shrek. And, again, this is just one example of an artist's cover that dwarfs the notability of the current X Factor single and has proven itself over the years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian22 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. The editor who put up the Alexandra Burke single infobox here has now removed it and added it to the article on Burke herself, where it can rest as far as I'm concerned. As it now stands, I don't feel this article is particularly disproportionate - for example, none of the cover versions are mentioned specifically in the lead, though I wouldn't oppose a balanced approach there either. So far as Wainwright's version is concerned, in my view that is worthy of a paragraph of similar size to the Cale and Buckley versions, particularly given the importance of the Shrek soundtrack. I'm not sure whether it "dwarfs" the notability of the X Factor version, but it certainly deserves a bit more text in my view. So long as the overall article presents a fair balance, there's no reason why it shouldn't be longer (but not by too much, obviously). Incidentally, the BBC article that I've added as a link also provides some guidance on the iconography of the song, which in my view could also be added in to the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC) By the way, I've just downloaded the Allison Crowe version. Take it as an apology if you like... :) Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all your latest post, Ghmyrtle. With the infobox now placed on Alexandra Burke's page, and the other changes that have been made, things can roll along and settle out through time. Is there anyone who'd like to write up the Rufus Wainwright content? I could take a stab at it, but I'm confident there's folks here who could do a better job. If no attempt ia made, and I get time/opportunity, perhaps I'll revisit. I'm hopeful, though, someone knowledgeable will step up. It's all looking good. (And, no apology needed - still, that's kind of you - and may the music reward!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian22 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added a brief para on Wainwright - it could, I suppose, be included in the Cale section, or alternatively - chronologically - it should really go after the Buckley version, but it'll do to be going on with, and we'll see what people think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
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 no support for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Primary topic; one of the most well-known songs in history, and even discounting the jump in views due to last night's X-Factor, it gets more views than the other songs combined. — Sceptre (talk
) 14:33, 14 December 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
Wikipedia's naming conventions
.

Discussion

Any additional comments:
Sorry I missed this poll while I was splitting the article :/ Renaming it is not a bad idea, but I think the content of that particular article ought to be about the original song. Covers should be of course be mentioned but it'd be a bad idea to have Leonard Cohen's version be relegated as "yet an other version". -- lucasbfr talk 14:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree to renaming this article, the Leonard Cohen version should take priority over the cover versions.
    chat
    ) 14:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Switched to oppose as Alexandra's cover now redirects here.
chat
) 22:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Er Sam, i'm getting pretty sick of users on here making out that The X Factor only provides people with 15 minutes of fame (like say Big Brother).
chat
) 18:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I didn't mean this. You are right. But evidently the sudden burst of interest in the song will fade a little with time. Sam5 (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
You're right, the interest in this article will have shorly died down in 6 months time. But Alexandra's cover will always be worthy of a mention. And with her cover getting its own article, it makes sense to make it clearer that this version is the original. Cheers!
chat
) 20:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I said even discounting last night's X-Factor, it's visited more often than any other "Hallelujah (x song)" article. Sceptre (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Sceptre, I misread your comment. Still, it's hard to tell; I get ~20k hits per month for Messiah (Handel) (40k in December 2007), versus ~30k for Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song). On that basis it's not clear what the majority is (though it's not a very fair comparison). Sam5 (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hallelujah Chorus, combined, get about 100 hits per day. Sceptre (talk
) 18:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: "Hallelujah (song)" is ambiguous with Handel's work (whose relegation to "secondary topic" leaves me speechless). - Ev (talk) 12:54, 17 December 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.

Alexandra Burke version

This appears to have dissapeared from everywhere on wikipedia. So should be re-added

"Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song)/Archive 1"
Song
B-side"TBA"

Hallelujah is the début single from

The X Factor. The song, a cover of Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah, was released as a download on 14th December 2008,[1]
and will be physically released on Wednesday 17 December 2008. This is unusual as most new singles are released in physical format on a Monday to gain maximum sales for the UK Singles Chart the following Sunday - however seeing as the version that would be released was only decided on the Saturday it would be impractical to release the physical format on Monday.

However, since the announcement of the song as the official 'Winners Song' of

The X Factor, there has been a strong upsurge in interest of other versions of the song, especially that by Jeff Buckley, and a Facebook campaign to get the Buckley version to Christmas number 1 has gained over 33,000.[2]

The Music Video has not yet been released but has already been filmed. In the week before the semi finals, everybody recorded their own song and music video, including Diana Vickers.[3] The making of the music video is available to watch on her official website.[4] No official release date for the music video have been confirmed.

Record Number of Downloads
Press Association press release: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5inEUuCaxXC-Mq9lzkpnk9nIdvNeQ Quote: X Factor winner Alexandra Burke's debut single Hallelujah has set a European record, beating Leona Lewis, a previous champion of the show.

Burke's single has been confirmed as the fastest-selling download single ever across the whole of Europe.

The single sold over 105,000 copies in the UK on download only in just one day, smashing the record of 82,000 downloads in one day achieved by previous X Factor winner Lewis with her debut release A Moment Like This. /endquote —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.190.253 (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Charts

Chart (2008) Peak
position
UK Singles Chart
 TBA
Irish Singles Chart TBA
European Hot 100 Singles
 TBA

Release history

Region Date Label Format Catalog
United Kingdom December 14, 2008 Syco Music Digital download 1
December 17, 2008 Syco Music CD single –

Discussion

I don't agree. With regard to a separate article being created: Burke's version is not a different song, which would be confusing to readers of Wikipedia. On a similar tone, the given information is minimal and could exist in the main Alexandra Burke article. With regard to a separate section being created: If this version were to constitute its own section, then surely all the other cover versions should be entitled. That includes the Kermit the Frog's version and that of Jon Bon Jovi. As the artist has done nothing new with the song except put a different voice singing it, I don't feel she constitutes any special recognition.

If it becomes a Christmas number 1, maybe it would deserve its own section in this article. But even then, it should only be a small section. The song is - and always will be - Cohen's. Merely re-releasing it shouldn't grant an artists specific merit.

ggt500
16:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Burke version should be removed, but it will take a braver man than I to shunt it down into the 'other covers' section. Khcf6971 (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel that it is worthy of a section since it a) Is a single b) Is likely to be a #1 record in UK and Ireland and c) Has set sales records. If it is felt that it is getting undue recognition then I would suggest developing the sections of other successful versions. Just because it may be of little musical and artistic merit does not mean that it is totally without value.Mysticmartin (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In response: a) So are other covers of the song; b)
ggt500
 11:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
a) Well then give them a section b) The article is not on whether it will be number one or not. But when it is number 1 we can discuss it further. c) It will be the biggest selling version of the song in the UK. All of which gives it enough merit to discuss the other factors contributing to its success which cannot be discussed within a single sentence. As is customary with other covers an entirely new article is not appropriate but a subsection is.Mysticmartin (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I support Mysticmartin on this. The article should clearly be based around Cohen's version, writing, etc., but later recordings by others which are significant for one reason or another deserve their own sections within this article. That would cover the Cale and Buckley versions, and the Alexandra Burke version which is clearly going to be a major pop hit (Cohen's first no.1 ?) Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I would very strongly agree that this song should be on a separate page. Rayboy8 (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Rayboy8

X Factor/Alexandra Burke

I have removed the section titled "Alexandra Burke version" and replaced it with the following text in the "Cover Versions" section.

UK Singles Chart. The single sold 105,000 copies in its first day of sales, beating the previous record of 82,000 set by previous X Factor winner Leona Lewis
.

I have taken these actions for the following reasons:

  1. Alexandra Burke deserves no more recognition than other cover artists of this song.
  2. The previous section contained no more useful information than my replacement contains.
  3. The "Charts" section contains no information at all.
  4. The grammar of the section is atrocious.
  5. Part of this section is about Jeff Buckley, who is not Alexandra Burke.
  6. The information on the video is irrelevant, uncited and useless.

Please direct all discussion here before reverting changes or re-adding this section.

ggt500
 19:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
When the song reaches number one in the UK singles chart it should have it's own section, just like Leona Lewis has her own section in the article A Moment Like This following her win. It would then deserve more recogntion than the other cover versions, the Charts sections will contain chart information, the grammar would be improved.

Information about the video is relevant to Burke's version of the song. 81.96.131.189 (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

For consistancy, I don't why a cover of the song getting to #1 means it should have its own section: a note in the bullet for Jeff Buckley's points out that his version went to number one, and that seems appropriate. Khcf6971 (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
As an extra note you might want to mention that the Jeff Buckley version is selling again and I think is currently number 3 in the UK chart, we may well get two covers of the same song in the top two spots, heres a reference: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20081216/ten-x-factor-winner-challenged-in-chart-5a7c575.html I will let someone else add if it is deemed notable. Dark verdant (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Leonard Cohen's original is also in the chart so it could even be a three-horse race!: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7786171.stm

It seems a bit of recentism to grace one cover version with an infobox. It is unnecessary,, the information can be covered in prose. If it spins off into its own article, find, slap up an infobox, but really, no. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with Alex Burke having her own section for this song, as long as every other artist who released it also gets their own box. Otherwise it is unfair to give her such attention when others don't even have their names mentioned. Codu (t)⁄(c) •  21:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Issues of "fairness" are not relevant. We are dealing with
notability. Burke's is the only version to have sold 100,000 plus copies in one day, and is already sufficiently notable to have its own paragraph. The other versions generally aren't - the exceptions are the Cale and Buckley versions which should also be mentioned at similar length, Cale for first drawing the song to wider attention and Buckley for also having a hit version. Ghmyrtle (talk
) 22:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the infobox shouldn't be on the page but am willing to let this slide if others will agree that no more is needed about Burke's cover on the page. So I call for support that the current state of the page (with "Cover Versions" as a single section and an infobox about Burke's singing it) be the one that - at this stage - we keep. I also propose that no extra sections are added to the page and that any extra information is kept relevant and to a minimum. Does that satisfy people or are there still nay-sayers?

ggt500
22:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't care very much whether the Burke infobox is there or not, though on balance I think it should remain (most no.1 singles have one, and in the current world there's no chance and very little logic to it not having one). What's important is that the content of the page is based on notability, and not on different individuals' preferences for one version over another, or on whether they like or dislike X Factor. Whatever happened to
maintaining a neutral point of view? Ghmyrtle (talk
) 22:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Burke does deserve a mention, but not a place in the table of contents or its own article; Wikipedia standard is that cover versions belong as a mention/section in the article for the original song (e.g. Against All Odds (Take a Look at Me Now), which was a No. 1 for Steve Brookstein. We have to remember that Buckley's version was #1 too, so to promote one over the other is wrong. I also don't like Burke getting an infobox while Cale and Buckley don't, but I won't remove it either. Sceptre (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I came to this article thinking it was about the song Hallelujah written by Leonard Cohen, but I see that it is actually about the winner of X-Factor. I watched X-Factor and I'm glad Alexandra won, but that does not mean that this article should focus on Alexandra's cover. The page isn't about her so surely that information should go on Alexandra's Wiki Page if she has one (I haven't looked). I'm in favour of a mention regarding her version like with the other covers, but having its own section and a picture of the CD is just rediculous, there isn't even a picture of Leonard Cohen's version which makes Alexandra Burke's version seem more important than the original song, the one that this article is about, by the person who originally wrote it. Dark verdant (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you read the discussion on this page. Obviously, the whole article is about Cohen's song. Equally obviously, the Burke version is "notable" - whether or not it should have its own infobox, or whether other versions should also have an infobox, are matters for reasonable discussion and agreement on this page.
Assume good faith, please. Ghmyrtle (talk
) 10:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Was just about to say that if it is to stay then it should be moved underneth the covers section, but this has already been done and looks a lot better, and the other notable versions look like they have been given more weight. Not sure about the info box specifically for Alexandra's version though, does this happen in any other song with cover version pages? Dark verdant (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I strongly feel that if Jeff Buckley's cover has an infobox, Alexandra Burke's cover is going to need one as well! Afterall, they are both as well known as each other now.

chat
) 19:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Note - I've now added the infobox. Please do not remove without a discussion here. Thank you!
chat
) 19:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Now that Jeffs Infobox has been removed, can we remove Alexandras'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ParalysedBeaver (talk • contribs) 21:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Paramore live cover (12/08/08) Chicago IL.

Im aware of another artist who performed a part of the song. Paramore performed the first verse of 'Hallelujah' during the 'The Final Riot' live show in Chicago IL on the 12th August 2008. It was used as an introduction to a song that the band uses the same name for. This peformance was filmed and recorded for 'The Final Riot' live CD and DVD released by the band's label FueledByRamen. I believe that the footage has been made avilable on YouTube somewhere. Anyways its only the first verse not the complete song. This is based on my own knowledge and I did not read this anywhere but the CD sleeve.

Eddbanger08 (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't constitute an entry in the article, in my opinion. Partly considering that it's original research but mainly because it wasn't a noticeably important performance. Greg (t • c) 16:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article is a bit of a mess in the respect that it mentions Alexandra Burke and Jeff Buckley far too many times. Fair enough that they have a section in "Notable cover versions" to themselves and a note of the chart positions of their covers. However, the sections "Commercial Success" and "Accolades and Achievements" are just repeating what's already on the page.

Someone needs to clean this up big time, taking out the fact repetitions and waffle. This goes for within the article and information elsewhere on wikipedia (the artists' articles, for example). We need to get the information provided to all be useful and relevant, rather than just - in places - singing the praises of these two artists.

I mention this now because I think enough time has past for the event to have worn off and people to be able to provide a fair review of events (in which these two artists aren't so notable). Greggers (t • c) 19:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there needs to be a cleanup, which should reflect both the verified) commercial success and the artistic importance of different versions of the song, and to reduce the unnecessary duplication which still exists. But this does not necessitate the unilateral removal of material on the commercial success of the post-X Factor versions, apparently largely on the basis of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Eventually there will need to be a consensus through this page on the most appropriate balance, but clearly at the moment some editors are still pushing their own agendas. This article is about the song, including its wider cultural impact including X Factor, not about Cohen. Individual editors should not take it upon themselves to remove material which is helpful and supplementary to other material in the article. Ghmyrtle (talk
) 09:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Hallelujah (Jeff Buckley).ogg

The image

requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation
linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Rufus Wainwright cover

FYI, according to this site (chartstats.com), Wainwright's cover peaked at #100 in the UK. Article editors may want to find a way to incorporate this information in his section and/or in the chart positions section. Thanks! -

talk
) 00:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Covers

I'm new to this article, so apologies if this has been run over again and again, but this song's definitive quality seems to be the incredible (notable) covers is spawened, and the place it has in the culture of singer-songwriters. So my question is should we be treating this article like a top level article and forking the notable covers with {{main}}(Cale, Buckley, Wainwright, Burke maybe Crowe?), or folding all discussion the covers within this article? Whats the typical way of handling notable singles in general?--Tznkai (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I'm trying to get some research done on which covers are major ones, and which one are minor but worth mentioning, and which ones are done by notable people but otherwise to be ignored. I could use whatever help others can give me. (Disclaimer, the notes are what I've gleaned from browsing net, I can't cite all of them definitively yet)--Tznkai (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Known covers

  • John Cale - One of, if not the oldest cover - used in Shrek, helped bring song into more mainstream awareness.
  • Rufus Wrainwright - cover related to the above, used on soundtrack
  • Jeff Buckley - considered the iconic version, brought the song fame back in 94
  • Allison Crowe - critically acclaimed
  • K.D Lang - Sung at Grammys (2k5?)
  • Damien Rice - ?
  • Sheryl Crow - ?
  • Alexandra Burke - X-factor
  • Bob Dylan - ?
  • Bono - apparently one of the worst versions - spoken word.
  • Kathryn Williams - ?
  • Kate Voegele - One Tree Hill


Good question. The problem with this kind of article is that it easily descends into a tedious list, where everybody adds their favourite mention along the lines of 'And also, Fred Bloggs has covered the song'. We went through a phase of stern editing a while back which reduced it to Cale, Buckley and Wainwright (the three most significant cover versions at that time) then there was a storm of editing when the Burke version came along and now that the dust has settled we're in danger again of ending up with another long boring list of covering artists.
IMHO the article would be best with an overview of just how many covers there have been (and why), with spotlights on just the few most important (currently Cale, Buckley, Wainwright and Burke). Also the article needs have a serious overview of how often (and how/why) the song is used in tv/film soundtracks; I've found a good article to cite here [9] but haven't got round to the hard work of doing the editing yet. --VinceBowdren (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like the covers (as a whole) to take up a larger portion of the article, and higher up in the organization, the article reads a bit haphazard as it is. I don't particularly like the current set up, because there isn't a clear explanation to the reader why the 4 covers with lengthy blurbs are so treated, and why the other versions don't get the same treatment.
The use in movies and televsion (or sampled in other music for that matter) I think is far more prone to very boring lists of everyone's favorite mention. In the end they're both bad writing, but probably more encylopedic, I'd like to find the balance between.--Tznkai (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The article needs to have the right balance - giving due emphasis both to Cohen's role as the song's creator, and to the rationales behind the most significant cover versions and their impacts (including Shrek, X Factor, etc.) The problem until now has been trying to get a balance between the musical purists, if you like, and the pop music followers who wanted to give undue prominence to recent covers (which, um, perhaps did not carry the same weight with some other editors ;-)) But what we definitely do not want is a long list of everyone who's covered the song (half the world, apparently). Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a real challenge to strike the right balance as noted. There's such different criteria being used by people. If we're talking straight certified sales, then, Rufus Wainright is being underplayed. He's certified at more than two million in sales, whereas Alexandra Burke's version is certified as having one million in sales. So, why does Wainwright not get almost twice the coverage of Burke? And so on... It's also a geographical issue. People in the U.K. have heard plenty of Burke and Buckley these recent months - but, in North America, that's not the same situation. In Norway, the most successful and popular version is by the four Norwegian singers cited. In other countries, there are versions that are much better known, but which may be little known to listener in the UK. It varies according to generation and genre as well. There is also emerging differences between what was biggest in the physical format era, and what is now selling in the digital age. So, unless some uniform criteria can be applied, you end up with numerous people claiming different versions to be paramount, and feeling equally right in so saying.

p.s. kd lang performed a version on the Junos (Canadian awards), not the Grammys (American awards) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian22 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Its not just the popularity, but trying to find a causal chain. The impression I've been given is Cale covered in 91, which was well recieved by cohen fans. It in turn inspired more covers, including Buckley in 94 - which has since become one of the "definitive" versions, and boosting the popularity of the song into the mainstream. Later, Shrek came out, and Cale and Wainwright's versions got involved, again, introducing the song into greater popularity, which eventually lead to Burke's version, the latest in a series of covers from music artists, especially singer songwriters Somehow, we need to tell, or at least leave the information of that story.---Tznkai (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Another link in the chain, which has not yet been mentioned, is that the song was performed in the 2008 series of American Idol by Jason Castro, following which it was picked up (no doubt via Simon Cowell) and sung in an earlier round by UK X Factor contestant Diana Vickers. I'm not commenting (at least, not favourably) on the musical value of those versions, but in terms of the story of how the song has become so well known I think those should be mentioned - but to do so without specifically listing them as "notable covers" is not that easy, given how the article is currently structured. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Good catch. Next step might be to try to collate some research - if others could help with that, I'm also going to work on a restructuring of the article in my userspace and have a proposal in a little bit.--Tznkai (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Burke vs Wainwright popularity

Regarding this edit. Rufus Wainwright's version has not sold more than Alexandra Burke's version, solely by the fact that Rufus Wainwright's version has never been released as a single and only reached #100 in the UK charts. Burke's version, in my opinion quite unfortunately, was officially the biggest selling single in the UK in the whole of 2008. Wainwright's version on the other hand did not achieve specifically "two million sales" but only attained sales as part of the Shrek soundtrack and to judge that as more sales would constitute original research (e.g. I'm sure the large majority of people bought the album for the other twelve tracks too). I'm restoring the information. Stripping it out is an incredibly pointless exercise

the lead should fully reflect the article. Sillyfolkboy (talk
) 09:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Charts

I don't know if it's warranted (in terms of actual placing,) but I think at least because Leonard Cohen is Canadian, Canadian chart information should be found and included in the article. I find this doubly warranted considering some of the other nations that are included on that chart. 70.48.103.67 (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Song rights?

Is it true Cohen no longer owns the rights to the song and hence would not have received royalties from the Christmas chart success?

Trevorsem (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting this article to get to FA

It's a long-term goal of mine to get this to FA by Christmas (I'm hoping to get this run on Christmas Day), but I need help in finding sources, et cetera. Is anyone willing to help me in this goal? Sceptre (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but you wouldn't want to rely on me! Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

K.D. Lang version

Several of the most notable cover versions have been dealt with in the article with their own subsection (e.g., Cale, Buckley, Wainwright and Burke). All well and good, however there is a glaring omission from this inner circle of famous Hallelujah covers:

2005 Juno Awards and the 2005 Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame on the occasion of Cohen's induction into the Hall of Fame.[10] Cohen has said that he considers her version to be the definitive one. I intend to rectify the omission by writing a paragraph on this version. Sunray (talk
) 21:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Include a citation for Cohen's statement about it being the "definitive" version and I'll agree with all of this. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, it was Anjani Thomas who spoke for Cohen, saying it was the definitive version. However, Cohen, in a recent interview singled out Lang's version, saying that it had really touched him. I've included both quotes. Sunray (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Leonard Cohen, as has been corrected, has never called any version of Hallelujah definitive. His partner, Anjani, has been highly complimentary of kd lang's performance as noted. Still there are numerous versions of the song which are as, or more, notable in a public, commercial, or critical context. This includsion can only lead to the problem that recurs - people putting forth their favorite versions and artists without consideration of the global picture. There are versions from Scandinavia, America, Canada and elsewhere that deserve as much prominence as the version by lang. To prevent this article bulging disproportionately, as in past, these versions are appropriately listed under other covers, and this section should be returned to some chronological order and standards maintained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.51.237 (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, Lang has sung her version at significant events such as the Juno Awards and at Cohen's induction into the Canadian Songwriter's Hall of Fame. That makes it notable. Cohen, himself has recently said that he was "touched" by her rendition of the song. The section is sourced. Please don't remove it without further discussion and agreement on this page. Sunray (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

By taking such a localized view of what constitutes notable it would be possible to include quite a number of additional versions and some of which are, certainly globally, as, or more, notable. Seems the nature of these pages that there will always be fans such as yourself advocating well for their favorites and those notable artists who don't have such devoted fans on Wikipedia get short shrift in the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.156.138 (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hallelujah in films etc

From today's Guardian: Leonard Cohen: "But I was just reading a review of a movie called Watchmen that uses it, and the reviewer said "Can we please have a moratorium on Hallelujah in movies and television shows?" And I kind of feel the same way. I think it's a good song, but I think too many people sing it." -- Evertype·✆ 08:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added a ref to the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That comment was made in a CBC Radio (Canada) interview with "Q" program host Jian Ghomeshi - this aired across Canada in April 2009. Print versions appeared in several Canadian newspapers at the same time. The interview has now been picked up by the Guardian in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.156.138 (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've put the ref back in to him saying "I think it's a good song, but I think too many people sing it" - if you watch the interview he clearly does say those words (at about 36.00). Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
@User:66.183.156.138 - please discuss the structure of the article before you make further changes, and make sure you use
edit summaries - many of the changes you are making are fine, but others are contentious and other editors will have opinions on them. Ghmyrtle (talk
) 19:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
@Sunray - I disagree, in my view Cohen's thoughts are sufficiently important that they should be placed upfront in the Cover versions section, hence I moved it back. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

K.D. Lang also performed "hallelujah"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.219.106 (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Another cover!

Elisa did a cover too in 2003 Elisa's Cover

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.47.213.89 (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Charts, again

I've deleted an entry in the Alexandra Burke chart; making note of no.1 is OK, and 4th in the world, but 46th in Portugal? Where would it end?
On the notion of charts in general, do we need a rationale for this? The "Chart Positions" table lists 6 versions over 10 charts; there are over 200 versions of the song, and hundreds (thousands?) of charts. How big do we want this section to get? What about some cut-off points? Swanny18 (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If I remember, as a rule of thumb we stick to 10 charts max, usually the highest charting or most local to the act (in this case the UK and probably the US considering the popularity.)
weburiedoursecretsinthegarden
 21:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, good: And is it worth limiting them to, say, artists with top ten appearances, or number one spots? I don't know how well most of them did, but I don't know that we want a list of over 200, saying how each one got on. Swanny18 (talk) 07:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, done. I've deleted Jason Castro, and Kate Voegele, from the chart, as their versions came outside any Top Ten. It's a bit ironic that Leonard Cohen's version of his own song is so low on the chart. Did he do better anywhere else?
Also, does anyone know how to trim the chart; it's got too many columns now. Which is the main chart in the US? Do we need 4 US Charts represented? Swanny18 (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Idiotic assertion needs to be deleted

The article states "John Cale, the first person to cover the song...." I would love to know how in the world the person who wrote that has such intimate knowledge of every human being on the planet and what each person has sung or not sung. Shheeish. --Desertphile (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"..to record a
WP:AGF. Shheeish. Ghmyrtle (talk
) 14:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Lyrical Interpretation

While the article mentions the reference to Samson in Judges 16 (and cites the BBC for this), most of the references of the relevant verse pertain to David and Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11), not Samson and Delilah. The phrase about hair cutting is certainly related to Samson (Jdg 16:17-19), but consider two things: (1) David saw Bathsheba bathing on the roof of his palace (2Sa 11:2-3), while we're never told how Samson and Delilah met (Jdg 16:4). (2) David and Bathsheba fornicated, and David killed Bathsheba's husband to cover up their adulterous affair and Bathsheba's pregnancy, after which God "broke David's throne" by sending violence and strife upon his line (2Sa 12:10-12). Samson, on the other hand, was a judge, not a king: he had no throne to break.

At best, the song is a mish-mash of Biblical themes, but since most of the lines talk about David (including those in other verses), "most notably evoking the story of Samson and Delilah from the book of Judges," should be amended for accuracy. In truth, only half a line pertains to Samson and Delilah. Nfitzkee (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

“You tell someone you're a Metatron, they stare at you blankly. You mention something out of a Charlton Heston movie and suddenly everyone is a theology scholar!” - Metatron - Kevin Smith's Dogma

OK so Charlton Heston wasn't in Samson and Delilah but he did host the animated Greatest Heroes and Legends of the Bible - Samson and Delilah DVD. I agree with Nfitzkee on this, the only reference I see to Samson and Delilah here is that a haircut is mentioned and even then that could just be an aside mention. Wikipedia's article on King David mentions this song (and Samson's doesn't), why on earth does this song's article not mention David? There's at least two citations easy to find on the net (in the telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/3554289/Leonard-Cohen-Hallelujah.html) and there's another article by the BBC that mentions both (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7787355.stm).

I really don't think Samson is the most relevant reference in this song. I personally believe that the "cut your hair line" may have been comparing David's situation in some way to Samson's but still being about David (just my own 2p there), but yeah, David's story, tum tum, best reference, etc etc, bored with this sentence now, would edit it myself but I can't work out how to include citations. If nothing else mention both. Tally Ho! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broken godhead (talk • contribs) 11:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

imogen heap

imogen heap also covered this song —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.216.196 (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

She did. Two versions, in fact, if I recall correctly. Sceptre (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"initial success"

Hi there, I've deleted the assertion in the opening paragraph that Hallelujah achieved only limited initial success. This is a POV assertion. The song has only recently become popular among the radio-listening public in the UK but the song, like Leonard Cohen himself, has been well-known, and loved, by a wide audience for a long time. Defining things like "success" in terms of the chart positions in one country seems a bit silly. 216.239.81.177 (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted. By any objective measure it's true that it was a limited success (if that): Cohen was generally pretty unpopular, had difficulty even getting the album released in the US, the single apparently did not make the charts, and as far as I can find out contemporary reviews did not even consider Hallelujah as a song worth mentioning when reviewing the album (e.g. allmusic, Rolling Stone. --VinceBowdren (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, It's really that word 'success' that I find problematic because it is simultaneously vague and value-laden. (The word 'famous' is similarly so.) Would you agree to something more neutral? For example, "Originally not considered a stand-out, it has since gone on to become one of Cohen's most well-known songs internationally." 216.239.89.128 (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Canada

Why no chart position for Canada? Are we saying that the song never charted in Canada? That's hard to believe, given that both k.d. Lang and Cohen are Canadian. This seems to be a major oversight to me. Chrisrus (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Billboard - http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts#/charts/canadian-hot-100 - the song has indeed never charted in Canada, in any of its versions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Alexandra Burke

This section was removed last Christmas and it's back again. What makes this version so special to warrant it's own infobox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riksweeney (talk • contribs) 15:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The section is in because the general consensus was, and as far as I'm concerned still is, that it was an important version and a major hit record in the UK and elsewhere. How is the content "not neutral"? The infobox is in because someone reintroduced it in this edit - it's not something I have a strong view about. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the infobox should be removed or infoboxes for the other covers should be added otherwise it makes Burke's cover more significant than say, Buckleys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riksweeney (talk • contribs) 17:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Her follow-up single - Bad Boys (Alexandra Burke song) - has an infobox within its own article, and I think you'll find that most if not all UK #1 records have an infobox. The best solution might indeed be to add an infobox for the Buckley version, which was at least as commercially successful - the other versions were much less so, and commercial success is after all much easier to quantify than artistic success. You haven't answered the question as to why the Burke text is "not neutral". Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Alexandra's version of the song is the most successful out of all the other covers, and so it deserves an infobox. In fact, it deserves its own page, there is so much more to write about the song's production and other information about it. If every other X Factor winner can have their own infoboxes for the songs they cover, then so should Alexandra, otherwise all the others should be removed too or it's just unfair. Codywarren08 (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Burke's cover is only really notable to people in the UK. Since Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, all the weight given to her version adds unfair weighting to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarfy (talk • contribs) 18:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
However, Burke's version wasn't just a regular cover, it went to be #1 in the UK, and the
Christmas #1 therefore I believe the infobox is needed. Candyo32 (talk
) 03:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
In any case, Buckley's version charted in many more areas and has been more influential (I recognize the problematic nature of quantifying that, but I stick by it) than Burke's. I've gone ahead and created an infobox. Either have both or have neither. BwaB (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Good move - keep infoboxes for Cohen, Buckley and Burke. Each is justified in its own way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Burke's version is not noteable for an encyclopedia. This isnt merely a database, but an expression of the topic by those with knowledge. Scoring #1 in the uk is notable, but he version of the song, and the artist are not remarkable in any sense. Remove it all together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.188.5 (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

How can the artist not be remarkable being the winner of the X Factor and having two #1 singles from her debut album. Also to keep in mind, Burke's version was released as a single, unlike most of the other versions. Candyo32 (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Burke didn't just score #1 in the UK, but with this song, she became the biggest selling female of the decade! She placed #5 in the Top 100 Singles of 2000-2009. Every other X Factor winner has an infobox for their winning single, so let Alexandra keep hers, it's more fair. --Codywarren08 (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The opinion that Burke's version is not "remarkable" seems to be a personal opinion based on taste - which is irrelevant when it comes to writing an encyclopedia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Alexandra Burke wins 'The X Factor'". Retrieved 2008-12-14.
  2. ^ "Jeff Buckley for Xmas no 1". Retrieved 2008-12-14.
  3. ^ Extract from The Sun:And what makes it worse for Diana is that she and the three remaining finalist already recorded their own versions of the tune – and their own videos – but she didn’t even get to take a copy home". http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/x_factor/article2031565.ece
  4. ^ "Watch the Making Of 'Hallelujah' & Enter an Exclusive Competition in the VIP Area!!!". Retrieved 2008-12-14.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hallelujah_(Leonard_Cohen_song)/Archive_1&oldid=1136784027"