Talk:Tequila (The Champs song)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Songs This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles R&B and Soul Music This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

We can't show sheet music. This has got to be false. Searching on itunes, you find several versions of the song done by mariachi bands. I think this song comes from historic Mexico, but I'm not sure of its origin. Let's just say I highly doubt that the Champs did something as original as the song Wipeout.

-- Whoistheroach 2 Jun 06 2:05 PM Chicago time.

Charles D Steele was the guitarist that performed on the original recording of Tequila. In Huelyn Duvall's account of the recording session, Huelyn admits that he does not know the name of the guitarist. I have tried to find an online reference to this, but all I found was Mr Steele's obit that mentioned his connecion to the song. That obit has since been removed from the internet. Charles D Steele later toured as Miles Sherman (not the R&B singer) of a bar/casino act called "Sherman and Leigh." Maybe somebody can confirm this and add it to the main article.

Is it worth adding the version done by A.L.T. & The Lost Civilization? It uses the same tune but actually has quite a few lyrics, mostly word plays on the names of cocktails. Amazon shows it as a 1992 release. ~ Brother William (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Huelyn Duvall still claims he was the one yelling "Tequila" at the end of the recording, read http://www.huelynduvall.com/history.html.
• Calling The Champs a One Hit Wonder as their chart performance show SIX hits is obviously wrong, so I'll delete that. 83.83.119.239 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 April 2011 on CNBC-TV during the program Squawk Box the "AFLAC Question of the Day" was posed which could actually make the song "Tequila" more important that one might think. The Question asked Which Totally Spanish lyric Song was the first in the USA to hit the Bill Board 100 charts? The Answer they were looking for was the Los Lobos 1987 "cover" of Richie Valens' famous "LA BAMBA."

but if the Wiki info is correct, TEQUILA IN 1958 which uses the Spanish word "Tequila" three times would still be 100 per cent Spanish lyrics, and likely the first fully "Spanish langauge" lyric song to not only hit the charts but top not one but two of the charts.

MARK SCHEINBAUM, MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHEARSON LLC12.175.230.54 (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I realize that there is some question on what the "correct" title for this article should be ... but someone jumped the gun, and manually moved this talk page to the desired title (

I have returned this talk page to "Talk:Tequila (song)" so that it matches the title of the article. Please see

Here we come to definitional problems. A "song" is "sung", that is, with words that are vocalized. Okay. But then colloquially, a "song" is any reasonably short piece of popular music, with or without vocalized words. I submit that if you ask 100 people at random whether "Tequila" is a song, probably 99 of them would say yes. And if that is the case, then disambiguating "Tequila" as an "instrumental" implies that it is a different version that omits the vocals. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if 99 out of 100 people are wrong, it doesn't make them right. This is an encyclopedia, it has an educational purpose, mainly because 99 out of 100 people don't know something. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree more, precisely the way you have phrased the issue. See my post at the parallel discussion (Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)#Songs and Instrumentals). Milkunderwood (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So... is that a hint of your support for the move? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, if you would read my post on that other page. In the meantime, you might want to also take a look at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Poll to plan for future discussion on Recognizability - I think we do agree on this issue. In other words, I completely agree with your base position on the naming of articles, but I do disagree with the specifics in this instance. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, the definition of 'song' includes no minimum quantity of words in order for a musical piece to qualify as such. If sources can be provided that define the threshold below which music with vocal accompaniment can not be defined as a song, it should be brought forward. In the absence of such a source, the presence of vocals (no matter how few) satisfies the definition of 'song' and the article should remain where it is.
  talk) 03:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment: I've already cited the definition of an instrumental, and a part of it is: "it might include some non-articulate vocal input; the music is primarily or exclusively produced by musical instruments". A song has its melody sung, or in case of hip hop/rap, certain text (not just one word!!!) spoken in the same rhythmic pattern. Now that is pedantic: saying that any presence of vocals makes that a song. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources you requested: [1] [2] [3]. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I asked for was sources showing the minimum threshold of vocal content needed to qualify a piece of music as a 'song', as opposed to something else. What you provided is A) a link to our
      talk) 05:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • And where is your source for that specific definition? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here's a few:

• Google [4]: "A short poem or other set of words set to music or meant to be sung"
• Oxford English Dictionary: "a poem or other set of words set to music"
• Merriam-Webster [5]: "a short musical composition of words and music"
• Webster [6]: "a usually short piece of music with words which are sung"

Our own article on

talk) 23:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Here's a source, and the appropriate quote: "Moreover, there are instrumental singles and records that have been classified as so which included vocals, coming in the form of whistling, vocal percussion, verbal interjections, and yodeling."
2. One word is not a set of words, and it's not sung. How, again, does this meet the definition? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proving that Tequila fits some definitions for an instrumental does nothing to prove that Tequila is not a song. If you wanted to move 'Apple (fruit)' to 'Apple (plant)', you'd need to prove that 'fruit' isn't appropriate, not that apples do indeed meet the definition of 'plant'. On your second point, it's not 'one word', it's 'one word repeated multiple times' which qualifies it as a set. Your definition would exclude songs such as Closer by Lemon Jelly, Metropolis by Kraftwerk, etc. There's also modulation in the intonation of the word "tequila" when used in the track that is enough for it to meet the definition of "sung". This is very much grasping at straws, Hear.

talk) 00:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment What is an "instrumental"? I was under the impression that "instrumental" was an adjective, not a noun. Never heard of something being referred to as "an instrumental", only as "instrumental something", like, say, an "instrumental piece" or .... "instrumental song". Walrasiad (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hearfourmewesique, this preceding post from Walrasiad illustrates the problem pretty well. Language changes, and maybe the thought that "Wikipedia is not iTunes" is becoming passé. It seems that even if musicians have traditionally distinguished between a sung "song" and an "instrumental" without vocals, your general readership may not be able to follow that categorization. But setting that problem aside, while I absolutely do agree with you that Wikipedia has an educational function and should properly use formal rather than vernacular or colloquial titles for articles - which itself is a huge ongoing dispute throughout Wikipedia - I also have to repeat that my own concept of the term "instrumental" refers to a version of a "song" that omits the vocals (not specifically "lyrics") as in my example of Nina Simone's "Summertime". And I'm also in full agreement with TechnoSymbiosis's argument specifically with Tequila that these three "shouts" are musical in nature, and make it a "song" even under your own definition. And, my own point, above, that the song's title, "Tequila", comes from that vocal rather than the other way around. I would go even further, and offer the opinion that even if the definition of Instrumental is historically correct, it is obsolescent, and that "instrumental" is subsumed by "song", as in both TS's example of "fruit" and "plant", or Walrasiad's understanding of an "instrumental song". Milkunderwood (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree, I've heard the term "instrumental" used MANY times to refer to a short, usually pop-like, piece of music that was written as such. I think, though, usually it's in context with artists and genres where normally there'd be vocals. Take Apache (instrumental) as a good example. In fact, there's a |whole list. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melodia, is it only my suggestion of obsolescence that you disagree with, or also each of the separate points I mentioned, including those specifically pertaining to Tequila? Milkunderwood (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I'll say that I think the term 'instrumental' is still an appropriate term that has a place in music terminology (and thus in music articles here), I just disagree that Tequila specifically is an instrumental.

talk) 00:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Absolutely, the term has a place; articles like Instrumental are important and serve a useful purpose. But in disambiguators? There's no need to specify that Tequila (or any other piece) is an instrumental in the disambiguator when "song" gets the job done equally well. And does so without the need for trying to decide what qualifies as an instrumental! Powers ^T 01:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and there is also no need to distinguish between sheep and goats. That, if we apply the same logic. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that no one calls goats "sheep", and there are widely agreed-upon strict delineations between the two, and the distinction is materially important in discussing either one. But sure, other than that, the "same logic". Powers ^T 15:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated earlier in this discussion (as well as a couple of others), a common misconception is still a misconception. The fact that some people call them "instrumental songs" does not contradict the fallacy in that expression (my earlier comparison was to a "feline dog"), and the distinction is materially important here as well. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you could get the proper indentation levels. Anyway, I don't see how the distinction between instrumental and song is important as far as disambiguators go. Is anyone going to be confused and think they're at the wrong article just because we have an article titled

Telstar (song) instead of Telstar (instrumental)? Powers ^T 19:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, it means that we've got the definition wrong. Would you accept Austin Powers (TV series) as an article name because the Austin Powers films are also televised? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not even remotely comparable. Powers ^T 03:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How's that not comparable? Tequila is not a song, in spite of partially fitting the description, and Austin Powers is not a TV series, although it is a series of films that also appeared on TV. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because in addition to meaning "a musical piece that is sung", "song" also means "an instance of popular music". No one refers to films aired on TV as TV series, or any of the other made-up analogies you've devised. Is "In the Mood" a song? Was it a song before it had lyrics? If not, then why is it in Category:Benny Goodman songs? Is "Classical Gas" a song? If not, why is it in Category:1968 songs? (Answer: because it's silly to separate 1968 instrumentals from 1968 pieces that have words.) Powers ^T 14:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except "song" DOESN'T mean that. I've seen it used for classical music ALL the time. Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies? That's a song. Eine Kleine Nachtmusik? Song. Clair de Lune? Yup, a song. For most people, "piece of music = song". Classical Gas and In the Mood are no more songs than, oh, Pachelbel's Canon or Minuet in G (take your pick). And where do we draw the line? Is Joplin's The Entertainer a 'song'? How about the Star Wars theme? Aerith's Theme from Final Fatasy VII? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if "song" is a useful disambiguator for those titles, I don't see why it can't be used. Powers ^T 00:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about Clair de Lune or Pachelbel's Canon? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Powers, in case you haven't noticed – it's not a useful disambiguator, Melodia is pointing out that it's a misconception. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it's useful. We already use it for "Telstar" and "Tequila" (and probably a bunch of others), and no one is really confused, are they? No one sees those titles and says "Oh, I'm on the wrong article," do they? No, because they're "songs" by every definition of the word except the most technical. Powers ^T 15:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not songs by every definition, they're songs by common misconception. As Melodia pointed out, Telstar or Tequila is no more of a song than Beethoven's 5th. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A "misconception" as widespread as this one is no longer a misconception but a new definition. Sorry you don't like it, but that's the way the English language works. Telstar and Tequila and other popular instrumentals appeared on record charts with other songs, are compared to other songs in popularity (sales, radio airplay, awards), are treated the same as songs with words by scholars writing about their era of music. Is there a single book on the history of rock that treats instrumentals any differently from other songs of the period? Does Billboard have a separate "Hot 100 Instrumentals" chart? If you approach a bandleader and ask, "Can you play a song called 'In the Mood'?" will they say "sorry, we don't have a vocalist today"? Powers ^T 18:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The debate over the misconception of 'song' here is largely academic at this point. If Tequila failed the definition of 'song' but was still widely referred to as one then there might be an argument about accuracy vs recognisability, but given it meets the definition of 'song' based on every dictionary I consulted, the only real objection from Hear on that front is that there's not enough words in it for his personal liking. The rule for disambiguation is to disambiguate only as much as is necessary to differentiate topics and not further. Tequila meets the definitions of both song and instrumental, but one is simpler and more recognisable and the other is more technical. Both are confirmed by sources. We don't use technical disambiguators if we can help it, it's as simple as that. It seems to me that Hear is set in his view here so it doesn't seem like the usual back-and-forth of discussion is likely to change his mind on this. In the end, the outcome of the request will come down to the strength of the arguments as determined by an uninvolved admin.

talk) 21:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

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.