Talk:Song 2

Songs Start‑class

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Rock music Unassessed

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music 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.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Post Grunge?

Post Grunge?? doesnt sound anything like Post Grunge, and Post Grunge isnt about the date its more a Poppier sound of Grunge e.g. Nickleback. But this is pure Grunge, i will change this to Grunge and if you wish to say why i am wrong reply or i will keep adding! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.254.143 (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't usually allow this kind of WP:POV from editors, present a source to back-up your statement.--猛禽22 ^•• 18:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now look lets get to the point ok, this song is Grunge. Post Grunge is Nickleback, Foo Fighters ect.. this is more Grunge and now im getting sombody saying we dont usally allow this what its a opinion! Freedom Of Speech! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.254.143 (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And somebody, such as me, can disagree, which is why we use sources to settle things. Non-backed up opinions is something Wikipedia doesn't take too kindly on.--猛禽22 ^•• 01:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.mojo4music.com/blog/2009/11/blur_1.html right there!!! and dont say Mojo isnt a reliable sorce! and also, i would like to see a sorce saying that it is Post Grunge!

You're treating me like I'm some sort of villain. My job is to improve articles, not destroy them. Yes, the source is reliable. You can add the genre along with the source for now.--猛禽22 ^•• 01:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources, such as Allmusic[1] and Songfacts[2] state that this song was meant to make a mockery out of the already declined grunge scene. I don't know if post-grunge would be the best way to describe the song, but Grunge clearly fallen in status around 1997. Update: Further looking into this, I think Britpop describes this song better. (Harris, John. "A shite sports car and a punk reincarnation." NME. April 10, 1993) stating how Blur was an anti-grunge band. Britpop seemed to be in response of the American Grunge movement. I won't change information present, but I would like to bring this up.--猛禽22 ^•• 02:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further into your source, the source you claim seems to lean more to Britpop than Grunge. Note how the source says "Damon Albarn believed Britpop was his to destroy". I might resolve this with a third-opinion.--猛禽22 ^•• 02:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors etc.

Blur fans sometimes report that Song 2 is a satire on American pop rock music, a deliberate construction based on successful rock songs. The success of the song would testify to their triumph, as the song is not understood to be a satire of the majority of listeners. Some ironic critics suggest that this was a rumor started as a satire of "indie kids" who are too eager to criticize pop music and read too much into other music. Neither of these rumors can been confirmed.

No rumour. I can't get a source, but I watched a TV interview with Damon Alburn here, in England, and he said it was in vein of a American rock band, and therefore, was likely to get a high chart position. The irony is Yanks obviously loved it, and it reached number 2, in the chart. Point proved there, Mr. Alburn.

I read that some consider it to be a Grunge parody...i suppose i see it. Soft verse, heavy chorus. I just never really saw it before, and still dont really see it...but i understand the American parody thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.57.162 (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It actually hit #6 on the Modern Rock Tracks chart. It never hit the Billboard Hot 100 (did hit #55 on the airplay chart). "Girls & Boys" actually did better than "Song 2" in the US, with a chart position on the Hot 100 and #5 on the Modern Rock Tracks charts. Doc Strange (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK Trailers only?

I seem to remember the song being used in trailers for Starship Troopers here in the United States. If someone has information to the contrary, feel free to change it back and leave a comment here. NoIdeaNick 05:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for Name

I have read before that the song is called "Song 2" not because of it being the second track on the album, but rather because it was the second song that Damon could not come up with a name for. There is supposed to be a song out there called "Song," or "Song 1." I suppose that if anyone could find this song, it would lend more credibility to this idea.

Another reason I have heard was because it is 2 minutes and 2 seconds long?

Its actually two minutes long exactly and thats the reason for the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qrimmer (talk • contribs) 14:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the song length has anything to do with the title.

My understanding is that it was a "generic" grungy American song with vague, nonsensical ("generic" grunge) lyrics, so why not give it a generic title?

If it was track 3 it would be Song 3, etc... Ahubling (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange section

I removed this section from the article

During the recording of the Blur album, Damon Albarn is said to have been friends with Rolling Stones frontman Mick Jagger. Song 2 has been rumoured to be the most obscure cover of the Rolling Stones track 'Out of Time' because it features heavily altered lyrics and music. the title 'Song 2' just refers to it as the second song/version of Out of Time.

It seems like a wild rumour. Does anyone have a source to backup this claim? File:Huskyeye.jpg Husky ^{(talk page)} 15:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More rumours

Graham Coxon has said that he is a fan of Swedish Band [Bob hund]. There is a persistant rumour in Sweden that Song 2 was written after the band had seen Bob Hund live, but I can't neither find anything to confirm or deny this. My personal guess is that the rimour is based solely on the similarities between the energetic style of bob hund and "Song 2", but if somebody has more info to dispell (or confirm) this it would be great. --81.57.180.153 14:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a striking resemblance between the song and the intro for a 1979 Swedish children's programme called Fairy Tale Moment. Here is the YouTube for FTM: [3], and here's a mix between FTM and Song 2: [4]. The fit is remarkable. /--Dunord (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stealth bomber controversy

From the link (#3) in the article:

BLUR SNUB NATO STEALTH BOMBER LAUNCH

      Blur singer Damon Albarn refused permission for the US military
      to unveil their latest stealth bomber to the strains of the
      band's brilliant Song 2. The track, featured on their Blur album
      gave the band their biggest US hit and was even used in an
      episode of the Simpsons.

      But when the Pentagon asked to use the track and its famous
      "Wah-hoo" chorus at the launch of a new stealth bomber, the
      band refused.

      "It was for the official unveiling of the Stealth bomber that
      just got shot down in Serbia," says Albarn. "I like the idea of
      some Serb going 'wah-hoo' after that!"

The aircraft lost in Serbia was a Lockheed F-117A, shot down on March 27, 1999. The F-117A was first delivered in 1982, and production was completed in 1990. The USAF first admitted the existence of the aircraft in November 1988, and the first examples were seen publicly in 1990. Clearly, Albarn is not familiar with the history of the F-117A. The only other Stealth aircraft flown by the USAF are the B-2 bomber, which first appeared in public in November 1988, and the F-22, which first flew (as the YF-22) in 1990. None of the dates match up to an "official unveiling" of any new stealth aircraft operated by the USAF in the time frame Albarn is discussing. So Albarn is clearly mistaken. Baclightning (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a message board Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, the Wiki article contains the line, "Famously, the American military requested to use the track at the launch of a new stealth bomber [3], but the band refused to allow this, as Albarn is an anti-war campaigner." Wouldn't the fact that this is extremely unlikely to have happened as described be relevant to having an accurate article? Baclightning (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]