# Talk:Hey Ya!

See also the discussion at Talk:List_of_works_in_irregular_time_signatures#Hey_Ya. Hyacinth 10:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Is this song really in 11/4? To my mind it's 3 bars of 4/4, one bar of 2/4 followed by two measures of 4/4 - which does add up to 22 crotchets, though to my mind that doesn't make it 11/4. This message has also been posted to the Common Time article. --HighHopes 19:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Wondered on this myself, so I played it for a friend who's better at figuring out this stuff than I am. I think he came to a similar conclusion that you did. In any case it is a different and recognizable beat. I've snapped it on my fingers and people have known exactly what song it was quite quickly. I don't think you can say that about too many songs. -R. fiend 04:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're right; if anything it should be expressed as 22/4. I'm changing the article. Korny O'Near 04:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be 11/4, it could be 11/2. Anonymous 04 April 2006
From time signature: "There is a sense in which all simple triple time signatures, be they 3/8, 3/4, 3/2 or anything else, and all compound duple times, such as 6/8, 6/16 and so on, are equivalent – a piece in 3/4 can be easily rewritten in 3/8 simply by halving the length of the notes....At other times, the choice of beat unit (the bottom number of a time signature)  note can give subtle hints as to the character of the music....Similarly, a piece in 2/4 can often sound like it is in 4/4 (or vice versa) and a piece in 3/4 can sound like it is in 6/8 or 12/8 time, particularly if the former is played quickly or the latter slowly. The distinction may be a matter of notation." Hyacinth 10:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
And I thought that only classical music, progressive rock and Dave Brubeck used weird time signatures. :-) 193.122.47.162 19:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course it is POSSIBLE to write this in 11/2 (while 11/4 would not make any sense), but that would be incredibly annoying to read. Anyone who regularly writes sheet music would subdivide this into 4/4, 4/4, 4/4, 2/4, 4/4, 4/4 (or, at best, 4/4, 4/4, 3/2, 4/4, 4/4). Gershake (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't the history of this song include the "Hey Ya, Charlie Brown" viral video that was developed by Ryan King and Dan Hess? The sheer popularity of this video across the Internet and the well-done interspersion of "A Charlie Brown Christmas" with the lyrics of the song (as well as United Features Syndicate's reaction to the video) is just as important, IMHO, to the history of this song as the video proper.

Excellent work. Alientraveller 18:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like this article is on its way to FA status, and it seems that I just missed the peer review, so allow me to give you some suggestions. Well, one in particular. I'd recommend expanding the section on the musical elements of the song. In particular, information on instrumentation, structure, harmony and melody would be appreciated. It seems like there is a lot to say about it in comparison to other hip hop songs, so there should be more than a short paragraph about the music. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 10:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That last chord sure sounds like E minor to me. I've changed the article appropriately. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The sheet music states it's E major.  Please cite a reliable source if you change it to E minor again.  17Drew 17:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Google's pretty much split on it (some say E, some say Em). The closest thing to official sheet music said E, so you may be right. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 08:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm going with an E Power chord.  No third, so it's neither major nor minor.  And if you're singing along, you can make it either.  So everyone's right, depending on what they're singing at the time. 59.167.40.235 09:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Dave
notb665 Notb665 18:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm a music teacher, and it's definitely E major!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notb665 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC) 
I'm a musician who plays this song more than anyone should ever have to, and it's definitely E minor!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.79.113 (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC) 
Unforunately, "official" sheet music transcriptions are often incorrect. The chord is E minor. The statement that there is no third is incorrect, as both the bass and the square synth play a G natural (in addition, the synth part plays a complete broken E minor chord). If the chord were an E major, the notes would be G sharps, not G naturals (in order to not sound very dissonant). Borromean-ring 19:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That's lovely, but unsourced.  There's a published source stating that it's in E major; if you disagree, you need to provide a reliable source stating that it's in E minor.  17Drew 20:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The only reason why people think it is is Em is because Em chord is in G major key, the key the song is in, so they convince themselves it is Em; but you can have out-of-key chords and E major is just that! Yes, "official" sheet music is sometimes incorrect, but this time it isn't. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvIw5ZqC1ms&mode=related&search= At approx 3.26 he is playing E major. Notb665 04:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
There are both E major and Em chords in the song: clearly E major in the verses and less-obviously Em in the "hey ya" choruses. And I don't think that because of the key signature; I think that because of what I hear on the recording. The "official" sheet music is self-contradicting: it has a G natural in the "vocal" line and G# in the accompaniment on the particular chord in question (3rd page, 2nd stanza, first chord, measure 29 for those counting). To me the final arbiter is the "square synth" which clearly plays the full Em triad. The guitar is indistinct and the vocal has a very heavy vibrato at that point so they are not useful in making a determination.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broderij (talk • contribs) 23:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 
I know I'm late to the party, but whatever the chord is, there is a contradiction. Every musical instinct in me says it's minor, but either way the article says it is a I-IV-V-vi progression, indicating that the chord is indeed minor. One of them needs to be changed. RichardGHP (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Late to the party as well, but a discerning ear will be able to tell what's going on (as some posters above have): The melody (including the "square synth") feature a G note over an E major guitar chord. I edited the article accordingly (although I realize that this is "unsourced"). As a personal note, this is why I can't stand covers of Hey Ya! — most cover artists don't get this and just play E minor. The dissonance between the melody and the guitar chord, to me, is one of the most interesting and defining characteristics of the song (as can be glimpsed from the heated preceding discussion). I also agree with RichardGHP above — I'm changing the chord progression to I-IV-V-VI (even though I personally hear it as bIII-bVI-bVII-I ;)). Gershake (talk) 06:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
There's no doubt it's major. Red Slash 19:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
As a musician here's what I say: 
1 The chord progression is: G |C |  |D|E |  |
2 The song is not in Gmajor, it's in Eminor (at least I hear it resting in the E chord). 
3 It resolves to the i (Em) chord with a picardy third, turning it into the I (E) chord. That is common practice, but changing the 6th chord is something I didn't really heard before, unless you modulated to the key of the 6th chord. Of course we never hear a D# note or a B7 chord through the song to really be sure we're in the minor scale, but as the chord progression loops, E never stops feeling like home.
Facebook: Iggy Ville

Show support for September 10, the day after the single's original release, here (9 is currently occupied).  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 23:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Raul made a last minute change and the article is on the front page today (9).  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 16:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"The song popularized the phrase "shake it like a Polaroid picture" in popular culture, and the Polaroid Corporation used the song to revitalize the public's perception of its products."
I'd dispute that "shake it like a polaroid picture" is a popular phrase in common usage, or any usage! this is some sort of imagined point of view with no basis in reality! 81.131.9.94 00:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same question. Popular in which English speaking culture? I'm reasonably confident to say that, outside of the song, the phrase is unknown. Ozdaren 01:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Look it up and see.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]  I see the phrase in print all of the time, and find it rather irritating, because I can't imagine anyone using it has ever shaken a polaroid picture.  KP Botany 03:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I stand by my claim. A few drops of rain don't make a storm. Any how, now I understand where it may be popular, the home of all things 'interesting' the US (possibily only online?). Ozdaren 06:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
That's right, if it's US-based it *must* be worthless.  Just because you don't think it's popular does not make it so.  I'd say that the chain of links given is more than enough evidence. DestradoZero 14:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hold onto your horses friend, there is no need to get personal about this. This expression is relatively unknown in many other parts of the English speaking world. You seem a passionate fan of this group. I'm not trying to show disrespect to your interests. Ozdaren 09:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Good job, it's about the song, and doesn't go all over the place, it's well written and researched extensively and your references appear to say what you say they say. Nicely done.  KP Botany 03:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, lately there has been some vandalism on this page with frequent use of the "n-word" and I think we really think we need to stop this Wikiracism fast.  I am black and many of my black friends view rap music related pages on wikipedia...it's just very offensive and hurtful to the black community.-Signalfire0093 19:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of vandalism is more along the lines of disruption than it is sensitivity.  So far as I can tell, all of the vandalism has been promptly reverted, and politely asking vandals to stop on the talk page isn't going to prove effective.  17Drew 19:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
If there's any significant and blatant vandalism to today's featured article, just make a report to administrator intervention against vandalism. Often we block quite quickly in that instance (despite what the page says).--Chaser - T 19:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The seven-year-olds will be back in school on Monday. The only way to stop this is to take it off the front page, and everyone would object to that.  I like to see popular culture articles on the main page.  They're hard to research and write well for Wikipedia, and the editors did a great job on this one.  Let's focus on that, and not on the unattended children.  Every main page article suffers the same fate, ridiculous amounts of vandalism. It's never new or original, but the article is.  KP Botany 23:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some mention of the video clip for Phil Collins' Two Hearts. I may be wrong, but it seems to me like OutKast just ripped off that one. But then, I don't know whether anyone has documented the similarities. .... 22:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they are both based off the well known Beatles appearance on the Ed Sullivan show. 128.227.104.191 23:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
But...were all the Beatles played by the same person? Methinks not. But I could be wrong. 58.161.122.82 13:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
See this reference, used for much of the Music video section.  Barber came up with the idea for basing it off of The Ed Sullivan Show, and they had André 3000 play the different members because of the different "levels and characters" in the song; it doesn't mention "Two Hearts" at all.  17Drew 00:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I added twice a live cover version by M. Pokora and restored a cover by a band previously added by an anonymous user. WesleyDodds reverted twice my changes, saying : 1/ "Live covers aren't worth including" ; 2/ "Artists often cover songs live; we can't list them all. That covers album is not notable."
I disagree. If these additions were disruptive edits or false informations, I would understand that WesleyDodds revert them, of course. But the live cover was sourced and performed by a notable artist. Btw, this information is summarized in less than a single line (19 words) in this 30,170-byte article, and I think it's reasonable (of course, I would agree if this info were the subject of a entire paragraph). Please, can you cite the exact sentence from WP:GUIDELINE proving that live cover versions shouldn't be included in the article about a song ? In addition, the fact that "artists often cover songs live; we can't list them all" is not a good reason per WP:NOTPAPER.
About the cover version on the album Punk Goes Crunk, although I know nothing about this band and this album, it gets its own article on WP and has a review from Allmusic. Therefore, this album is notable, and the cover version can be added in the article.
More important, I think these reverts by WesleyDodds looks like WP:OWN. This behaviour seems to be an illustration of this sentence : "Unless it is wrong or has errors, please do not make such changes or comments without my/his approval" (WP:OWN#Comments). I assume good faith and I really think WesleyDodds wants to help, but I think this behaviour could block other Wikipedians (including myself) to participate in this article because their editions, although they are sourced, are likely to be removed (moreover, I also added chart positions in this article a few months ago, and my changes were also removed by WesleyDodds).
PS: Sorry for my English! Europe22 (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
It should probably be mentioned that is was covered in the scrubs episode 'my soul on fire' by Sam Lloyd, but i can't find a reference other than having watched the episode  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.141.24 (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC) 

I'm pretty sure the cover (which has a 15-second preview in the article) purportedly by Matt Weddle is actually by Obadiah Parker.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.93.244 (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC) 

These two are one and the same. Matt is the guy's name and Obadiah Parker is his bands name. Zhebius (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Check it out HERE. Zhebius (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to continually remove the succession boxes from this article. While nothing says they have to be there, there is no policy against them. It's entirely POV not to include them without consensus being reached first.

As a Billboard Hot 100 number-one song, this would be the only one out of over 970 not to have one.
Per WP:SONGS, it says "If a song is a number-one single, a succession box can also be included in this section".
Per WP:SBS, succession boxes may "be used for anything that can be arranged in some order generally chronological".
They provide a reader a navigational tool to follow the procession of number-one songs on a particular chart. --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
It's undue weight an POV. There's no reason why there should be succession boxes for being number one on a chart. It's not a post, honor, or title. The main problem is you're singling out records that reach number one; why not records that reach number two, or three, or sixty-five? It's also a big clutter. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Guidelines and consensus permit it. The boxes are at the bottom of the page and barely present a clutter. Why are you singling this article out over all others? --Wolfer68 (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not singling out this article; many articles don't use the succession boxes. The chief problem is that it's a subjective categorization; it's the same reason why discography articles stopped putting the number one ranking in bold text. Regardless of the guidelines, I have to invoke WP:IGNORE, because the WikiProject Song guideline doesn't adhere to the overarching neutral point of view guidelines. Also, there is no overall consensus about these boxes; they're here because people like putting them in, without realizing it's based on a pretty subjective numerical ranking (like I said, you might as well make these boxes for number two on the charts or number 67). Note that the according to the succession box guidelines the boxes are primarily meant for titles for people, and in secondary importance navigating by items in a series. The second purpose has long been supplanted by infoboxes, and even then it's meant for closely related items, like "first album followed by the second", not "album by one guy followed by album by another guy with no direct connection".WesleyDodds (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite understand. If it's subjective, that would make any song or album that charts a subjective measurement over any song/album that doesn't chart, making the charts themselves biased towards those that sell better or get played more on the radio. So I assume you wouldn't mind not seeing chart sections in articles altogether. --Wolfer68 (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not subjective to say a certain song reached a certain number on an album chart. However, it is subjective to only link together songs that reached a certain number.
By the way, those date ranges in the succession boxes saren't referenced. That's another thing that bugs me. The succession boxes always include date ranges, but we have no clue how they are verified. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Third opinion: The use of the succession box is, in my opinion, a sort of "see also" that links to songs that hit number one on the charts right before or right after a given song (there's your connection). If the succession box is used for titles people hold, why not for titles songs hold as well. The succession box is not a violation of NPOV (I really don't see how someone could "push a point of view" by including a succession box in a song article), and they are not included for songs that reach anything lower because achieving number one on the charts is an achievement that is notable in itself, whereas other, lower chartings might not be. It would be like including a succession box in an article about Conrad C. Lautenbacher. He didn't reach number one on the "commerce charts" so to speak, and as such does not get a succession box like Carlos Gutierrez does. Hope this helps. I will watch this page in case you have any questions. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 22:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Update Everyone may be interested to know there is currently concentrated discussion about removing chart succession boxes. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

When I saw this video years ago there was a different guy presenting the video at the beginning. Now on Youtube I can only find the video with another guy wearing a hat. Any idea why they changed it? --Liquidmetalrob (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The article contains 2 dead links which weren't able to be retreived by the WayBack Machine. The first paragraph of the "Cover versions" section is completely unsourced. Some of the writing is also a bit off, so the article might need a copyedit. The state of the references is also concerning. Till 07:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone forgot to add there was a parody of the song by Orlando Jones on MadTV titled "Hey Mad". I had never even heard of "Hey Ya" until it was parodied that night on MadTV, which means there were millions of other people exposed to the song for the first time through MadTV. For the editors, that have not seen the parody, Orlando uploaded it himself on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUrXt_1_R90 Stopde (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Since the image File:Heyya.jpg has been removed by one editor citing WP:NFC, I am starting a discussion here so that the images are not deleted simply for being orphaned.
The screenshot is from an award-winning video that is covered with paragraphs of critical commentary and has ten reliable sources.  The screenshot shows both how the video was inspired by The Beatles' performance on the Ed Sullivan Show and how Andre 3000 plays all of the characters in the band, which is how it won the MTV Video Music Award for Best Special Effects.  With it winning that award plus the overall Video of the Year plus its nomination for the Grammy Award for Best Short Form Music Video shows that the video is notable and the screenshot helps increase the readers understanding of the song and its elimination would be detrimental to their reading of the article. With all of these factors, the image passes the points of WP:NFCC. Aspects (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no critical commentary about the contents of the image in the article. Aspects you have been told to stop these disruptive discussions. Werieth (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
There is significant commentary on the video, and given the awards, it would be notable in its own right.  The image depicts what is described in the first two paragraphs and significantly adds to the reader's understanding of the video. That the music-sample was also removed and subsequently deleted by default suggests Werieth's application of WP:NFC is misguided. - hahnchen 20:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I suggest taking a look at Category:FA-Class song articles and Category:GA-Class song articles, and their accompanying image reviews. - hahnchen 20:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hey Ya!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/confidential/tommy-mattola-thalia-celebrating-15th-anniversary-article-1.2434551
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007111358/http://www.austriancharts.at/2004_single.asp to http://www.austriancharts.at/2004_single.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050207072353/http://swisscharts.com/year.asp?key=2004 to http://swisscharts.com/year.asp?key=2004
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hey Ya!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141017163629/http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=43&dfom=20030001 to http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=43&dfom=20030001
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160207162537/http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=43&dfom=20040001 to http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=43&dfom=20040001
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hey Ya!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040220141343/http://www.mtv.com/news/topics/g/grammy/2004/nominees/ to http://www.mtv.com/news/topics/g/grammy/2004/nominees/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hey Ya!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005044236/http://www.snepmusique.com/fr/page-259376.xml?year=2004 to http://www.snepmusique.com/fr/page-259376.xml?year=2004
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

In the "composition" section I just read this: "Having already been handed the song by his creator" he continued to... Is this a joke about how this song is obviously so good it's a gift from God, or just a confusing way of saying he already composed most of it by that point?
2001:569:7BA2:1D00:A9BF:19ED:DE47:5ACE (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)