Talk:Take On Me/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Is inclusion in

I believe not, it's too trivial. Frcm1988 (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Furry Roadkill 23:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC) added hyperlink to family guy parody
• I added the link to Bunty Bailey's MySpace webpage. Streltzer 19:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Do we really need a spoiler alert for a music video? —Chowbok 17:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC) The music video link is now dead. (10/17/06)

They don't really embrace at the end -- instead a snippet of the earlier animation (he helping her down as she enters the cartoon sketch world) is replayed under the shot of the "a-ha" magazine being thrown down. Did people really want to drink "nice cold ice cold milk"? (Milk with little chunks of frozen milk slush in it is very gross...) AnonMoos 03:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that no-one mentions that the method used to create the animated sequences is rotoscoping. Rotoscoping was invented by one of the Fleisher brothers, creators of Betty Boop. It involves projecting one frame of motion-picture film onto a drawing desk so that the animator can trace over live action or use it as a guide. Rotoscoping was used to fantastic effects in the Fleisher studios 1930's Superman serials, where they used it well as merely a suggestion to the motion, and rather poorly in some of Ralph Bakshi's works, like American Pop. Rotoscoping has often been used to at least a very small extent in most hand-drawn animated features.

In the article it mentions computer effects done by the studio, Framestore, but it isn't clear to me how the computer was used in the production of this video. Computer effects were still somewhat rare and expensive in 1986 and I don't see anything in this video that doesn't look like it could have been achieved with some kind of film effect. So I would like more explanation or a reference citation for that fact.209.144.236.194 08:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Greg Banville, Animator

I added a clarify tag to the trivia section, for the "Zulu awards" item. Perhaps someone familiar with the incident could clarify the entry.

Darguz Parsilvan 14:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed a-ha from the category One Hit Wonders down to the fact that a one hit wonder is actually when an artist is only known for one hit. Considering that a-ha had 8 top ten hits in the UK alone between 1985 & 1988 one of them being the #1 single

NendoShisu 09:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In the US they are primarily known only for "Take Me On", so they are often thought of as a "one hit wonder" in that country. Clearly from their international success they shouldn't be considering such here, but that's probably why it was. Pimlottc 02:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Linking to the music video on any site (not just youtube) is a copyright problem per

I'm curious about what 80s movies this song was used in. Wikifried 16:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

also the scene in the video in which he is throwing himself against the walls to get out of the comic is a nod to a movie...but can't think of the title...maybe with William Hurt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.29.18 (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The start of one of A-Ha's later videos shows the couple enjoying a walk in a park, when the guy starts flickering back to a drawing and runs off. Can't remember which one though.

The Sun Always Shines On T.V.. Those were the days...195.128.250.247 (talk

) 21:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Did the table that Bunty Bailey sit at have a hole in it? I found out that Morten Harket, the lead singer, lifted his hand through a hole in a table in that video.97.87.61.225 (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the scene towards the end of the video, while he's hitting the walls, phasing in and out of reality, is eerily similar to a scene at the end of the 1980 film Altered States. Does anyone know if anyone close to the band or director of the video has commented on this? Does it bear mentioning? The similarities are almost too close to be coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.160.35 (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Take on Me isn't the only sing along song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.115.229.11 (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

is the title of the third song on the original 12", which also features the song in an extended mix. Adding it. Sponsianus (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The article should probably also mention the cover by MxPx, which was released on On the Cover.--ragesoss (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The cover is alredy mentioned in the other cover versions. Frcm1988 (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I got confused by the other covers that had their own sections and overlooked that last one. You might consider removing some of those succession boxes in the middle of the article; they are a bit disorienting.--ragesoss (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I haven't yet been able to find a suitable quotable source for this, but I have corrected the vocal range given for the song as performed by a-ha in the article, which listed the correct notes but in the wrong octaves. I would question the reliability of the source cited in the article, sheet music site musicnotes.com, which in this case also got the lyrics wrong and misspelt all three of the songwriters' names! My musician friends question the reliability of sheet music for pop songs in general. The range in which Morten Harket sings Take On Me is in fact A₂ to E₅, not A₃ to E₆ as the article previously stated, which would be astounding for a male voice: E₆ is a very high soprano note. If you want to hear how high, listen to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl0fPD0DvGA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contains Mild Peril (talk • contribs) 07:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"... and moves at a very fast tempo of 170 beats per minute." Really? The version I have is about 101 or 102 on my metronome. I'm counting 4 beats each for the "Take" and "on" at the start of the chorus. I can't verify it, but my copy sounds like how I remember the video directed by Barron. Chouhouzi (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Album version? Yeah, it's almost the same as the video version - definitely the same tempo. I thought 170 BPM sounded wrong too. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)P.S. I notice the source given is the same sheet music site which got the octaves wrong (see my "Vocal range" note above). I suspect they've got the tempo wrong too. Would be interesting to hear the musicnotes.com version if anyone actually recorded it that way: Take On Me superfast soprano cover! I wonder if we could create a similar effect by playing the LP at 45rpm? :-) Contains Mild Peril (talk) 08:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I note that the succession tables have now been moved to what seems to me a strange and illogical position in the article, under the "external links". I think it makes much more sense to have this information in the "charts" sections where it used to be. Phoe has been making similar changes in several articles: is there some new policy of which I'm unaware governing the placement of succession boxes? If not, does anybody else here have a preference for the new version, the previous version, or perhaps some other option? The new version is potentially confusing because the succession tables do not specify the singles to which they refer. This was previously perfectly obvious because the table for the a1 version was in the a1 version section where it belonged, but the current layout makes the information unclear to those who are not already familiar with the subject. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree... but

WP:FOOTERS (should be modified, imho). Europe22 (talk

) 11:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely ought to be modified. I'll see what I can do about that later. This is a

good article which has been loused up by a change which surely can't have been intended or anticipated when the guideline was written. Contains Mild Peril (talk

) 12:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've asked for clarification and proposed an amendment to the wording of

here. Input welcome. Contains Mild Peril (talk

) 20:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've put the boxes back in their original positions, with Phoe's agreement. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Didnt The

• The norwegian comedian Kristian Valen as Morten Harket sings "Take on Me" in german, isnt that a parody? Watch on youtube —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.14.6.13 (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• An episode of Family Guy also has a long parody of the music video with the same art style and everything. Can't remember what episode that was in though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.203.82 (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That was in

Breaking Out is Hard to Do. 76.1.49.0 (talk

) 04:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought that too, but it is somewhat ambiguous <!-- Insert bad "is that a pipe wrench in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?" joke here --> In the "literal video" parody version, the line "I'm gonna kick some ass with my own pipe wrench" seems to be attributed to Morten's character (but maybe that was just to aid the marketing of the "Pipe Wrench Fight" T-shirts!) Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

In context, it's not ambiguous at all. They're holding a wrench, he isn't - next time we see him, he's laid out cold as if he's been hit. Seems pretty clear to me. MFNickster (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits suggest differences of opinion as to whether Take On Me is new wave, Hi-NRG, both or neither. We do have an Allmusic review cited in the article describing the song as new wave, but I'm not aware of any Reliable Sources calling it Hi-NRG, and I don't think it really belongs to that genre. If there is disagreement, perhaps we'd be better with synthpop as the only genre specified in the infobox (I'm not aware of anyone disagreeing that it qualifies as synthpop). Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is "take on me"? As a native speaker of English from America, I never could understand this sentence, which is ungrammatical ("take on" is a separable verbal phrase. At dictionary.com, we are told: -"Separable [optional] - International English" - "With some separable verbs, the object can before or after the particle, though when a pronoun is used it comes before the particle: Turn the TV off. Turn off the TV. Turn it off. In our phrasal verb dictionary, we classify these as Separable [optional]" 211.225.33.104 (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

How can this be a "good" article when it doesn't have the tempo? Is the song 3/4, 4/4 or what???????????211.225.33.104 (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The chord progression is correct, but the description of the key as "B Dorian" is incorrect. Dorian is a mode similar to minor, and this is an unambiguously major-key song. It is in fact in the key of A MAJOR, with a three-sharp key signature (granted, this would be the same key signature as B Dorian). The home keynote is clearly A, however. The low note at the beginning of the chorus (an A) is an obvious tonic. The famous high E is an obvious dominant. The chord progression is actually ii-V-I-IVM7-iii7 in A major. B never, ever feels like a tonic note. The song is in A major. I will refrain from making the edit, but I wanted to point that out. MahlerFan (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Changed my mind. It's obviously in A Major. Making the edit. MahlerFan (talk) 05:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Aria1561 swapped two images: first release on the top. I swapped the images back to what it was. Which each image shall be on top and below? --George Ho (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The first release's cover should be on top since it was released first. I see no sense in putting the second release first (the popularity of the second release isn't factor in this). Aria1561 (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Can

template:infobox single/doc? --George Ho (talk

) 02:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Or

MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation, Aria? --George Ho (talk

) 02:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure. Aria1561 (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am a newbie but soon noticed that there are people who favour there own preferences. Example: B-side layout. After screening many artists websites I came to this conlusion: 1. mention the b-side inbetween quotation marks. 2. If there are more b-sides, order them in chronological order. 3. Don't differentiate the B-sides between being a 7" or 12" and don't mention year of release either. This is were the "Formats and Tracklisting" is for. My question: why can't or won't somebody apply to the common consensus? Solution: stick to the common consensus. It will be more coherent for readers if they "scroll" through a discography of a certain artist. JustChecking1970 (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@

Template:Infobox single

which gives you a guide as to how to set out the information in the infobox. Basically, 1. Yes, the B-side should go in quotation marks, as should all songs; 2. Yes, chronological order; 3. Normally just the standard B-side of the 7" record is included in the infobox, not the extra tracks on the 12" – these can be noted in the track listing section.

In the case of this single, it becomes a little more complicated, as there were three releases all with different B-sides, as you have noted in your edits. I'm not sure of the guidelines for handling this. Of course, in the digital age, the addition of a "B-side" has now become meaningless... even the concept of a "single" is questionable, with official releases, radio promotional singles, etc. Richard3120 (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have a note from the NME music magazine that the second version of "Take On Me" was first released on 5 April 1985. Richard3120 (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

In a case like this when different releases have different B-sides even on the "standard" (7") version, I feel it's best to clarify this in the infobox. Having the B-side songs listed together without differentiation is confusing, and appears as though all the songs appeared on the same release, which they did not. It really doesn't add significantly to the size of the infobox to include this information, so I don't see what the issue is with making the information clear and easy to find. However, since at least one editor evidently has a problem with the infobox becoming infinitesimally enlarged, I would like other opinions on this.Contains Mild Peril (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Contains Mild Peril: we've recently had a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Should the infoboxes for singles and songs contain miscellaneous information? about what should or shouldn't be included in the infobox, and came to no conclusion. The question of B-sides didn't come up, but it's semi-relevant because it goes back to your question about how much information should be included in the infobox, and what should be left out and included in the article text. It seems everybody has different ideas, and we can't seem to move towards a consensus. Richard3120 (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can help here?--128.194.171.141 (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Belgian Band "Janez Detd" did a ska cover of the song in 2000. That one is best known for the insertion of the Bros line "When will I be famous?" in the middle of the solo, completely interrupting the song for a few seconds yet fitting it nicely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.20.246.26 (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I heard a hip hop cover on the radio of this song by Zo! and Tigallo and it is from their album "Love the 80s!" so this should be added onto the list of cover songs.71.162.251.168 (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Fictional music duo Jeffster! performed an orchestral cover of the song in the 2012 season finale of Chuck. --71.61.215.222 (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I am surprised there is no reference to Aguilera and Pitbull's extremely popular arrangement of this song. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 02:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Another example of Scandinavian mis-translation hit lyrics is the Ace of Base song where she says "All that she wants is another baby." It's clear that the composer meant that she wanted another boyfriend but in fact English-speaking listeners interpret this to mean that she simply wants to give birth to another child. --Megaforcemedia 01:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Here in the UK there are quite a few women who have multiple kids with different fathers just so that they can live off benefits, so the unintended meaning is not too far from reality! 81.157.40.136 (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you people never heard of ambiguity? Britmax (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

What does "take on me" actually mean? It doesn't really make sense, does it? But - I have a theory. "Ta på meg" in Norwegian means "touch me". But, if you translate "ta på meg" literally, word for word, you get "take on me" (ta=take, på=on, meg=me). So, is one of the most popular songs of the 80's actually the result of poor translation? (Which reminds me, in "Dancing Queen" by Abba, they sing "...watch that scene, digging the dancing queen". Scene? Doesn't sound right. So, theory number 2. The Swedish for "stage" is "scen". So I reckon Björn and Benny mistranslated "scen" as "scene" instead of "stage". But in this case it did help the lines to rhyme...) Perhaps someone should start an article on mistranslations in pop songs. Pikiwedian 11:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"Take on" is an English idiom, meaning "To undertake" or "To accept as a challenge".

This semester I think I will take on some extra classes.

Our community group will take on the renovation project.

In the song, I take it to be the singer telling the girl to try him out. Of course, the writers were undoubtedly aware of the idiom you describe, so the phrase has somewhat of a double meaning, both of which fit.

Darguz Parsilvan 14:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

But you wouldn't say "take on me", you would say "take me on", which they do in the song, but I think that that meaning is secondary to the title of the song, which I still reckon is a literal translation of "ta på meg" Pikiwedian 18:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"Take on me" is a somewhat awkward phrasing but it's perfectly acceptable. Pimlottc 02:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Pimlottc, to my native ears, it is more than somewhat awkward. It grates on me. Furthermore, I could only guess what it is supposed to mean. On what grounds is it acceptable? 211.225.33.104 (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The possibility that they mistranslated "touch me" is apparent, but I don't think it's actually so. The guys must have been too competent in the English language to make such a silly mistake. It's a mistake that a Norwegian twelve year old could make, but not adults writing songs in English and having traveled to the UK. Also, if they really meant "touch me", you would think someone else would've picked up on the mistake along the way. After all, the song was recorded in England with an English producer. --Kvaks (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting theory - but if they really didn't know how to translate "touch me" then how come "The Sun Always Shines on TV" includes the words "Touch Me ...., " [finding it hysterically funny that people are out here discussing this.] Perhaps, as there seems to be a link between the videos of these 2 songs it's all a deliberate ploy! Pal should really let us know for sure one day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.181.12.111 (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Pikiwedian, I'm pretty sure that unlike their earlier hit "Fernando", Dancing Queen was written in English originally, and not translated from Swedish. Benny and Bjorn already spoke English with near-native fluency even back then, and they were writing the song specifically to be an international hit, so writing it in Swedish wouldn't have made sense. So I'm sure that the word they intended was indeed "scene", as it not only rhymes with "queen", but it's also English slang for "a type of event or happening". ("I'm not big into the bar scene.") 96.233.155.80 (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Earthshine

I am uncertain on the capitalization of the song title in my personal collection. Shouldn't "take on" be in title case as a phrasal verb? (Like in "Hold On Tight" versus "Shines on TV".) -- J7n (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I find it incredible that it has not been possible to establish what they meant by the words "take on me". I´m a native Danish-speaker (extremely similar to Norwegian) and I would agree with the "ta på meg" theory above. To a Dane or a Norwegian "take on me" in English simply sounds idiotic. Someone should ask the band what they meant. Maybe they did indeed know the English meaning of taking on something. Maybe not.Foto (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a 1980's pop song. It doesn't have to mean anything unless you want it to. Britmax (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

That the music track (slightly altered) of Take On Me was also used in the 1985 porno flick Holly Does Hollywood with different lyrics. Your can hear the song with the new lyrics here. Since I can't find any sources about the similarity (can you?), it's useless for inclusion in the article. However, since both the song and the movie were released in the same year, I've always wondered: who stole the music from who? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

That means the first continental European band to do so (since Queen are a UK band, and the UK is geographically part of Europe)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I remember going to a movie in the mid-80's and the video for this was being shown on the big screen. (It actually ended early because of technical difficulties and had nothing to do with the featured film (as far as I know).) Does anyone know the deal behind this? Was it a promo or something? Might be worth adding to the article.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I mean, if a Steamed Hams parody of the song got 1.4 million views is mentioned, then there's no reason not to put the "Mine Diamonds" parody somewhere. Pain is fantastic (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Is the song in 4/4, 2/2, 3/4 or what? Why is this basic information almost always missing in Wikipedia articles about pop songs?2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:BDD2:364F:15DA:6749 (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

What does "take on me" mean? I am a native speaker of English and do not know what it means. Is it actually a translation of a Norwegian sentence? The only uses of "take on" that comes to mind are to take on an opponent (i.e., to fight) and to assume, as in to assume responsibility. niether seems to fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdammers (talk • contribs)

@Kdammers: It's technically incorrect English, and the chorus basically already explains it, as following the phrase "take on me" is "take me on", which is what it means. It's akin to saying "take a chance on me". Ss112 16:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)