Talk:List of music considered the worst

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 23:22, 18 May 2008 (Signing comment by 82.41.11.134 - "Ice Ice Baby? no evidence"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is a stupid page. It has absolutely no merit and should be deleted. - Somebody with a brain

I should note, before we get into the inevitable VfD debates, that I specifically researched and prepared this list. Just saying, "Gee, this is a bad song," was not enough to get listed. It had to be cited in a particular fashion by some music critic, DJ, media company, or some other authority. I would hope that would remain the criteria for inclusion in the future. - Scooter 09:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Beatles

Can I please have a source saying that the Beatles were trying to play reggae in Ob-la-di, Ob-la-da? I've never heard that anywhere and it certainly isn't apparent in the song.--Theloniouszen 06:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Beatlesongs [ISBN 0-671-68229-6] quotes the title as being taken from the name of a reggae group - Jimmy Scott and His Obla Di Obla Da Band - and also quotes Stewart Copeland as saying, "...that's one of the first examples of white reggae." - Scooter 18:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not that anyone asked for my opinion, but I have to agree that Ob-la-di is a truly terrible song. I probably first heard it when I was about 7 years old, and even at that age, it grated on me. Later I found out it was by The Beatles and just who The Beatles were, and it seemed to me as if any criticism as a result wasn't allowed. Thank goodness someone had the balls to point out that this song sucks! The Beatles made some great records, and I'm as big a fan as anyone, but let's face it, a turkey is a turkey whoever performed it. Coincidentally I also feel the same about SOME of Paul McCartney's efforts with Wings. The Beatles were definitely greater than the sum of their parts.Graham 06:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As an example of how subjective a list like this can be (without citing sources etc), I've always found this song a fun and enjoyable throwaway, especially compared to some of the other self-centred indulgences on the 'White Album', like 'I'm So Tired' or 'Rebvolution #9'. How come this always comes in for criticism and not 'Rocky Racoon' or '...Bungalo Bill'?. 'Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da' is a good enough song that The Offspring ripped it off wholescale and scored a hit with 'Why Don't You get A Job?'. As for it being 'white reggae', that would mean The Beatles were ahead of their time yet again. It seems to me that this song has become a kind of focal point for people to deride Paul McCartney's music in general (perhaps they still blame him for breaking up the band?), whilst not criticising anything of John Lennon's. Ubik 13 Dec 2005

My Ding-a-Ling

This song by Chuck Berry is among the very worst ever released by an established artist, and I am not the only one to think so. How about scratching reviews and some other pop literature in order to support a mention on this list? Caesarion 11:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but it's a rip-off of the Bees' "Toy Bell."--Susan Nunes

I thought it was funny. Ding-a-Ling --Happylobster 17:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

This article is horribly biased ("this travesty", "His eccentric insistence on warbling it", "simply annoying", "sugary tear-jerker") - and none of the quotes I've mentioned are attributed to experts- this is original research/horrific prose. Ral315 (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another Travesty

I'm surprised that Britney Spears cover of Bobby Brown's My Perogative isnt on this list... there are several other cover songs that were in the top 40 worst covers of all time by VH1.  ALKIVAR™ 14:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering because I personally don't have any objections to this list, why don't you add a song thet you've thought of as this is meant to be a 'wiki' site. The articles can be edited by anyone not just their original writer. If you are not sure about your addition then write something after it such as (not sure about this one, do discuss) etc. (04cah 18:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Never ever add "something you've thought of", Wikipedia is not for opinions (see Wikipedia:No original research). Everything on this list should be from some poll or notable work, with citation. And only the #1 from each list merits mention. -- Skierpage (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Goldsboro

Surely the entire opus of Bobby Goldsboro belongs on this list? Adam 08:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The Straight Life" isn't bad in certain contexts. It's got sort of a Jimmy Buffet feel to it.

Cranston Lamont 18:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

all these #1 songs on the list were very popular in their time - they weren't made for a different culture and critics 20+ years later - ditto Shirley Temple movies etc which were also popular in their time. PMA 08:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV again

The very fact that so many people have suggestions for this list show he subjective the article is. How has this survived for eight months? If you'd like to reproduce a list that's been published somewhere then do that, but this is ridiculous. It's original research, and it's in no way neutral. Also, I have no idea whether or not research has been done, since none of it's cited. In any case, I'm nominating it for deletion, so fair warning. --djrobgordon 01:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. ANY list of the "best" or "worst" of anything is going to be subjective and have a POV.--Susan Nunes

I agree there are significant NPOV issues here, but I don't agree that deletion is the right answer. If a source can be cited for the nomination (which most have now), and if the descriptions can be toned down a bit, then I think the article has value. Graham 03:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't it much more fun to repeatedly nominate articles for deletion and waste weeks wading through bureaucracy than to actually take a few minutes to try to improve the articles? Come on, be reasonable, Graham. -Silence 03:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. I agree that this talk page is way off-topic and contains speculation we can't put in the article. But it looks to me that everything in the article is currently backed up by other sources. Jacqui ★ 03:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that I can't see any way this page could be made to live up to Wikipedia standards. The closest thing would be if someone started a new page containing each list mentioned, in its entirety. The Blender List, for instance, already has a page. All this page does is take some, but not all, of those songs, add some other songs from other lists, and throw them together. The very title of this page suggests that there's no limit to the songs that could be listed here. "Considered among the worst ever" by who? It's the difference between listing AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies and having a page called "List of films that are considered classics." --djrobgordon 04:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently people missed the initial criteria I listed at the top of the talk page. This was intended as the counterpart to List of films that have been considered among the worst ever, and even though that list hasn't been deleted, I knew that the deletionists would hop up and down and spit nickels when they saw this. That's why I started the article by listing songs which had been claimed by an outside source to be "among the worst ever". Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped folks from first claiming it to be "original research", then later claiming "All this page does is take some (songs)...and throw them together." Okay, which is it?
As far as NPOV is concerned, far be it from me to add adjectives suggesting that items which have made a list of those "...considered among the worst ever" might not be of high quality. Might make for interesting reading, after all, and we wouldn't want that. But if that's what people need to get rid of, I suppose I'll just let it go. - Scooter 05:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How can a list of worst anything be neutral...and what does any of this have to do with an encyclopedia? Idiots

POV Purge

Once this article exits VfD in the next day or two, I intend to carry out a complete POV purge, eliminating all adjectives and qualifiers that are not directly sourced (i.e. simply annoying, repetitive, weird, dated, plodding, excessively sappy, etc.). The style will reflect that used for List of films that have been considered the worst ever. I will also remove the John Ashcroft song, since it fails the stated inclusion criteria (world of recorded music). Entries for Barney & Friends, Paul Anka, Cliff Richard, and William Hung will be cut unless citations are provided for the inclusion of these works on a specific " worst of " list. I would be most grateful if someone could provide the sourcing. As it stands now, without sources or citations, many of the entries qualify as POV attacks and thus have to be edited or removed. --JJay 00:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per message above, have purged POV qualifiers and removed Ashcroft song to talk page as it fails requirement for recorded music. Should remain here unless we change inclusion criteria. Other entries need to be removed without specific sourcing to a worst of source.
"Let the Mighty Eagle Soar", John Ashcroft (2002)
This patriotic song, rife with elements of fundamentalist Christianity, was actually written and performed by Ashcroft while in office as Attorney General of the United States. His eccentric insistence on warbling it during meetings at the Justice Department and before CNN cameras earned it second place on the bestandworst.com poll, despite having no major label release.

--JJay 01:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

British bias

I am personally much less concerned about the POV problem than I am with the quite obvious bias toward the British and British culture that's present in the article. Many of the entries' references in the list as it currently stands are to the BBC or other British press. Anyone else notice this? Telestylo 09:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NVOV is a requirement at Wikipedia as per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. We can not call Barbie Girl's Aqua simply annoying without attributing the quote, since the people who pushed the song to #1 in the UK and #7 in the US probably did not do so because they found it simply annoying. I could just as well call the song simply great or simply enticing. If someone can attribute quotes like these, as in it "ended up as simply annoying, according to a panel of Rolling Stone rock critics", then it could stay. See List of films that have been considered the worst ever, for how this is properly handled.
Regarding British/American bias, I brought this point up in the VfD discussion. I think it will be very difficult to overcome the problem because: (a) British/American rock/pop tends to be the only music with worldwide distribution; (b) valid sources for worst of song lists are few and far between and seem to be a British/American cultural phenomenon. I have looked hard for a source for worst ever French songs and come up empty.
As for the sources used for this article, I think they need to be clearly explained (i.e. methodology and sampling rates in the case of polls, critical qualifications in the case of opinions from Author/critics). For example, is Dave Barry and Mad Magazine a valid source for this article, given their lack of expertise or focus on music? The "BBC polls" need to be discussed as well, since they do not seem to have been carried out either by or for the BBC. --JJay 16:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JJay. I'm quite well aware of what POV is, thank you--I just feel that in an article this frivolous, it doesn't matter as much as what I perceive as an Anglophilic thrust throughout the article's prvious incarnation. I don't expect the article to include world songs, only English ones--this is, after all, the en.wikipedia . I do feel, though, that there are enough American and Commonwealth sources that can be used rather than just the BBC--timeo hominem unius libri. Take it easy, and spread the wikilove-- Telestylo 07:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Telestylo. Thanks for the wikilove, I feel all warm and fuzzy now, kind of like Mr. Blobby. Regarding sources, I think they are few and far between, which is one of the reasons I voted delete on AfD. Now that the article is here to stay, why not draw on the Blender list? At least its a reputable magazine and non-British source. If you can find other good non-British sources, just post them here. As you know, I fully agree the article is frivolous, but I still expect it to sound encyclopedic and avoid unsourced POV quotes. Also why should non-English songs be excluded? I'm sure other cultures have created songs equally as bad as our select group (which are really, for the most part, great songs). Stay groovy--JJay 09:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello hello,
I agree that as the title of the article is "list of songs...", it should include other languages' songs. Hmm. This list should perhaps be renamed "List...ever in the English language", a horrible elongation that will only serve to highlight the "playfulness," let's call it, of the spirit of the article. And yep, this way of presenting such songs in some way canonizes them, n'est-ce pas? Quite the deconstructive turn, I'd say. Blender is a good source--perhaps I'll get around to adding it; but, if any bold editors beat me to it, I won't complain ;) Telestylo 07:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Allo Allo,
I like your idea of the name change, but we need to add the recorded bit i.e. List of recorded songs that have been considered among the worst ever in the English language, that's even longer and more playful. Sans doute (frequent use of French, like at the UN, offsetting the unfair exclusion of non-English candidates) it canonizes the songs as Mauvaises, all the more reason our scholarly sources need to be unimpeachable, particularly if the article comes up for peer review or wherever worst ever lists are judged. Certainly if Derrida or other deconstructionists have already commented on one of our songs that would be a plus, as in "M. Blobby, to pretend, actually does the thing: he has therefore only pretended to pretend to sing. All attempts to have it out with the formidable question of his musical pretense, are reflected in my essays." For the Blender list, see Blender Magazine's 50 Worst Songs Ever!. Pick and choose at random. Ta Ta. --JJay 07:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these songs are really not "bad."

I could see this entry being viable if all these songs showed degree of technical incompetence, hubris, or appallingly poor judgement (and even that is pretty danged qualified), but some of these songs don't qualify by any particular ranking or standard other than the author's POV.

As much as I HATE "Achy Breaky Heart," there's nothing WRONG with the song. If it hadn't gotten overplayed all to hell, it would slide in the middle of any set of country tunes totally unremarked as an adequately recorded piece of pop country with mediocre lyrics and moderate musicianship. But it's far from the "worst ever" song, or even close to it.

"We Built This City on Rock and Roll" is another glaring example -- I don't like it, but it's far from "worst ever" territory.

How about "List of most overhyped songs"?

Much of this reads like something from the back half of a lacklustre issue of Maxim. Just being mediocre and overplayed doesn't necessarily make a song "worst" anything, just... mediocre and overplayed. MattShepherd 18:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this entirely. Admittedly, this would be a hard article to make truly NPOV, but nearly all of this is just opinion. FWIW, I would argue that "MacArthur Park" doesn't belong on this list at all. Jon Rob 13:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MacArthur Park IS one of the all-time stinkers. Why do you think it became such a hit in 1968?--Susan Nunes

Wow, now that's a scientific argument.
Dave Barry, among others, would disagree. I say keep it. Mike H. That's hot 22:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Songs that were unfairly removed.

No One's Iller Than Me


Most of these sources shouldn't count

I think Maxim and Blender shouldn't be taken seriously for their lists. Gwen Stefani's "Hollaback Girl" has been out for a year and there is no reason at all to believe that people will loathe it 20 years down the line. The same applies to Aqua's "Barbie Girl" ; people will forget about it in less than a decade.

I don't think this article is as much of a NPOV violation as it's made out to be. However it could do with a rewrite, perhaps citing more sources, more credible sources, initial record sales (some of these were quite successful when first released), that sort of thing. Dessydes 12:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost a bounty for cited trouncings of Charlene and/or Minnie Rippington!

I will write a haiku in honor of anyone who can locate citations of either "I've_Never_Been_to_Me" or "Loving You" as the worst song(s) ever created. --Happylobster 17:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like some of these songs

I like Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da. If it was so bad, how'd it make it to the Beatles Blue Album? Because it's good.

Achy Breaky Heart is OK, though I'm not much for country.

Ice Ice Baby is one of the big hits of the Old Skool era, much better IMO than today's (C)rap.

Baby One More Time I like somewhat, though I wouldn't like to hear it endlessly.

We Built This City is excellent. It showed that they could succeed even in the New Wave generation.

The only thing I can agree on is I Love You. Excessivly mushy and Hippie.

MacAurthur Park is a good song

How can anybody consider this to one of the worste songs ever? I can understand it if you don't like the song, but pne of the worste songs ever? Something has spun seriously out of controll here. Besides, this is an old song, and shouldn't be judged now. Same goes with a ton of these other songs. Why are't they bombing on all old songs then? You don't see "The Erie Canal" on this paticular list. This list should be of recent songs, or there should be separate lists for different generations of music.- drworm818

One thing I've seen "worst of" lists concede is that they are mostly dealing with songs that became known in the first place. The truly "worst ever" songs were likely never successful in the first place. They were like B-list songs by one-hit wonders or horrific efforts by people who were lucky to get signed on to a major label in the first place.--T. Anthony 04:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"How can anybody consider this to one of the worste songs ever?" - It's a very "unusual" song, and unusual songs often inspire either strong distaste or strong affection. I can see reasons to hate this song, and reasons to love it; there is no objective scale on which to say that one side or the other is wrong, and the issue is so trivial that I see no reason to waste time trying.
"I can understand it if you don't like the song, but pne of the worste songs ever?" - Another aspect of unusual things is that they tend to be more memorable, and thus they are more likely to appear on lists than songs that are extremely dull and unaffecting. That is why lists like these are always biased against songs that achieve a measure of popularity, notoriety, etc., rather than songs that are simply and clearly "bad". If we are to avoid violating Wikipedia's policies regarding original research, that is an unfortunate necessity.
"Something has spun seriously out of controll here." - I fail to see how. As long as everything in the article is well-referenced, the results are irrelevant. The opinions of Wikipedia's editors are of no consequence to Wikipedia's articles; all that matters are the opinions of noteworthy sources, no matter how right or wrong they may be.
"Besides, this is an old song, and shouldn't be judged now." - This is easily the most absurd thing I've heard all week. There is nothing about old things that indicates that they shouldn't be judged now; just the opposite is the case, in fact, and it is often necessary to gain a historical perspective on things in order to properly understand them, on an encyclopedia like Wikipedia especially.
"This list should be of recent songs, or there should be separate lists for different generations of music." - I see absolutely no reason why. We should certainly add more reviews from older analyses of the "worst songs ever", but to ask for a page-by-page subdivision seems horrendously arbitrary and inconvenient. It would serve absolutely no practical value and would simply lead to a large number of stubs. You should rethink your recommendation, and also review Wikipedia's core policy pages, WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV, which make it clear that Wikipedia articles should not be abused as a sounding-board for the personal opinions of its editors. If you can find a noteworthy and relevant citation stating that "The Erie Canal" is the worst song ever, then feel free to add it; otherwise, just make your own website and put your list of "worst songs" there, rather than expecting Wikipedia to correspond exactly to your personal tastes. -Silence 07:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a good song, but the whole worst song ever thing was a joke. It was Dave Barry, what would you expect. Just read the column he wrote. MalwareSmarts 23:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion

I really don't think that this list should stay on Wikipedia. It's not just the POV issue; if it was, I'd be harping on the worst films article. This article is very poorly written and doesn't seem to have potential for improvement. I could easily say that the theme to Yoshi's Story is one of the worst songs ever by citing the IGN review considering the way songs are put on the list (just one reference automatically smacks the song onto the list, and the article explicitly states some of the songs aren't actually considered bad). This is just a junky, immature list that needs to be taken off this encyclopedia right now, and I believe I actually have a good reason for this! The Legend of Miyamoto 00:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the event this article is kept, this information will be pertinent to continued editing. There are currently six websites cited; two of them are only lyrics pages, four have to do with songs listed on the page. I'll copy over part of a comment I made on the AfD... There are four pages cited, Channel4 News (notability?), Maxim, Freerepublic.com (blog/forum, fails WP:V?), and popculturemadness.com (notability?). I'll go through and list the rankings in that order (C4, Maxim, FR,PCM). A number is the song's placement on a list; an x means the song does not appear on the list; a yes/no applies to FR, which did not order their list.
  1. Achy Breaky Heart, by Billy Ray Cyrus (9, x, yes, 17)
  2. Atlantis, by Donovan (x,x,x,x) (strikes out)
  3. ...Baby One More Time, by Britney Spears (x,x,x,x) (strikes out)
  4. Barbie Girl, by Aqua (8,x,yes,x)
  5. The Cheeky Song, by the Cheeky Girls (1,x,x,x) (only one mention)
  6. Disco Duck, by Rick Dees (x,x,yes,15)
  7. Having My Baby, by Paul Anika (x,x,yes,11)
  8. Hollaback Girl, by Gwen Stefani (x,x,x,x) (strikes out)
  9. Honey, by Bobby Goldsboro (x,x,yes,13)
  10. I Love You, by Barney & Friends (x,x,x,x) (strikes out)
  11. Ice Ice Baby, by Vanilla Ice (46,x,x,x) (only one mention)
  12. Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds, by William Shatner (x,x,yes,x)
  13. MacArthur Park, by Richard Harris (90,x,yes,1)
  14. Millenium Prayer, by Cliff Richard (2,x,yes,x)
  15. Mr Blobby, by Mr Blobby (6,x,x,x) (only one mention)
  16. Muskrat Love, by Captain & T. (x,x,yes,6)
  17. Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da, by The Beatles (x,x,x,x) (strikes out)
  18. Seasons in the Sun, Tery Jacks (x,x,yes,4)
  19. Shaddap You Face (46,x,x,x) (only one mention)
  20. Tutti Frutti, by Pat Boone (x,x,x,x) (strikes out)
  21. We Built This City, by Starship (83,x,x,x) (only one mention)
As we can see, six of the songs mentioned appear nowhere on the cited pages, and five of the songs only appear in one of the cited pages; that's half the page that's barely or never mentioned in the references. I'm curious how we listed #1, #2... then #6... and suddenly jump from #9 to #43, with regards to one page -- subjective cherrypicking, anyone? Maxim, probably the most notable source, is only used once. One source is a blog or forum, and isn't really admissable as a source... but that's one of the most-used sources in this article (removing it as a source puts seven more songs into the only-one-mention group, upping the ante to at least 18 of 21 songs we might call inadequately sourced). There doesn't appear to be any strong consensus between the cited pages, and I seriously question the argument that the pages cited represent any serious majority opinion among notable critics and organizations.
...so. Back to this talk page, I think I'll make a few heavyhanded proposals, if we do end up keeping the article. First, I think we need direct attribution with each song. At the least, that could mean the use of inline citations and the ref tag (as seen at Wikipedia:Footnotes); it could even mean that we include in the article lines such as "Gwen Stefani's Hollaback Girl was listed as the worst song ever in a Maxim article." Beyond that, my main objective would be to stop both unsourced insertions and cherrypicking from sourced lists (which both violate WP:NOR), and the use of unreliable sources (which violates WP:V). Any comments/questions/hatemail? Luna Santin 07:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My comment on the AfD page:
The simple solution is to establish criteria and apply them, e.g. the song must have been called the worst ever by an individual of note, or it must have been called the worst ever on a notable medium such as TV, radio, press etc., or it must have topped a worst ever poll. The top three or five songs of such a poll could be a cut-off point. Anything else should be deleted from the article.
Tyrenius 08:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like those guidelines. They won't quite end the debating, but I bet they'd at least cut down on it quite a bit, and give it a focus. At that point, it's no longer "is this sourced?" but "is this source good?" Not that you needed my approval, just saying. Luna Santin 11:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Record of AfDs

Please note the information on 3 past AfDs at the top of this page is muddled, giving wrong dates linking to wrong AfDs, and needs to be fixed. Tyrenius 04:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done Lurker 10:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blender = VH1 Crib?

OK guys, I removed the Blender magazine references and added VH1's "50 Most Awesomely Bad Songs Ever" top five.

Why? Well, because the VH1 list is now cited. And because the Blender choices (only three out of their top five were in the article) (a) weren't cited and (b) were identical to the VH1 placings, right down the line.

I have seen Blender's list in full, and their complete top five is exactly the same as VH1's.

So, I dunno what the value is of having a bunch of uncited Blender references when some reliable-looking cited ones reproduce the same results. If anyone thinks they should be back in there, please talk here. I also replaced Blender with VH1 in the article criteria, for just the same reasons as above. Citable, equally reliable and identical.

Trust this is all OK. FWIW, I also agree with the stipulations above that entries derived from published lists be restricted to the top five of this or that pundit's choices. To maintain some kind of strictness regarding "worst". --DaveG12345 00:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you have a a link to the blender list? I thought that there was one here previously. Otherwise, I think the top five is too restrictive. --JJay 00:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. It's just that I seem to recall that Blender was the source for the VH1 show. In that sense, it might be the more authoritative source. On the other hand, if we don't have a good link, and no one can provide a bibliographic citation, then your approach is better for the time being. --JJay 00:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was just pragmatic really - when filling in the VH1 stuff, it was "hey, every one of these matches Blender!". Having two identical poll results per song, one uncited, just seemed to make the list a lot less credible somehow. --DaveG12345 00:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted naming

I just moved this back from the title "Unpopular pop songs" for the following two reasons:

  1. It is a list and should be titled as such
  2. Many of these songs cannot be labelled as "unpopular" because they sold well, with some staying at the top spot for quite a while

violet/riga (t) 20:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV/Worldwide view

I removed these tags because, after reading all the entries, it doesn't seem like either applies any longer... these are English songs, and they've been labeled among the worst ever; as such, the "worldwide view" issue sort of takes care of itself. I don't think failure to include certain songs or including songs that are arguable (so long as they are referenced) counts as POV. While I won't speak to whether or not the article itself is really worthwhile, I don't think these tags apply to the page as it is currently written. Lemonsawdust 08:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Worst Ever Songs in English

I want to move this page to List of Worst Ever Songs or List of Worst Ever Songs in English so that it fits wikipedias "list of" convention. I want to start a "List Best Ever..." and "List of Worst Ever..." convention so pages can be alphabetized correctly (ignoring "List of " of course). I am working on List of Best Ever Anime and Films that have been considered the greatest ever right now. - Peregrinefisher 09:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible change in list format

I actually enjoyed the page, but even bad songs have their fans. With this said I am unsure as to how the '7' songs were rated, but perhaps rather than creating an amalgamation from multiple lists (VH1, etc), the original lists themselves should be posted in their entirity. This should keep the 'requests for deletion' at bay.--RedKnight 18:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grillz

Grillz by Nelly and Paul Wall can probably go here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.134.102 (talk • contribs)

Why?--Shantavira 11:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More worst songs

Wikipedia labels several other songs as the worst ever, including Kokomo (song), Rudebox, The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins, Knee Deep in the Hoopla, Party Pooper Pants, In the Year 2525, Hooty Sapperticker, American Life (song), and Seasons in the Sun. If they're flagged as such in the articles, then logically they should be listed here too. Just an idea.--Shantavira 11:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Doppelganger E 23:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
What about "They're Coming To Take Me Away (Haa Haa)? Hate88

HUGE flaw in the page

If we are going to keep this page (though I can't see why we should), the songs on the list should be representative of all time, not just recent songs. Unlike movies and video games, songs have existed since humans have walked the face of the Earth. Thus, this list should include English songs from the 1600's and 1700's, for example. Unfortunately, I doubt anyone will be able to find references for that, so we have two options: Change the title to "List of modern songs in English labeled the worst ever" or delete the article. Personally, I don't see why songs should be labeled best or worst, since I doubt music was judged that way in older eras. The Legend of Miyamoto 19:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the third option is to decide that your idea is a bad one. And to understand that the list refers to recorded music, not old folk songs and such. Vidor 20:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Rename

I am proposing move to List of recorded songs in English labeled worst ever.Random89 (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd propose this for the final deletion it's been deserving for years now... Sorry - but it is pretty obvious - it includes 16 songs only now, several of which only appear here because they were on some dumbass arbitrary useless poll held somewhere or other. Waste of space IMHO. :-( --DaveG12345 (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually reading the article through again, you may be right. The proposal I made was based on fixing a common criticism, but now I'm feeling I was missing the forest for the trees. Will bring to AfD soon, unless something changes.Random89 (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Christmas Shoes: Bad?

I mean yeah, it's really depressing, but it's a very good song otherwise. Why is it here? --ToyoWolf (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Ice Baby

Vanilla Ice's most famous hit, Ice Ice Baby, is listed, though the only citation gives it as #5 in a list. Unless there's evidence that some public poll or august board of notables has labelled it the worst ever, it should be moved to List of songs in English labeled the fifth-worst ever. Or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.11.134 (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_music_considered_the_worst&oldid=213352751"