Talk:We Built This City

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

Rock music Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Untitled

Would it be appropriate to mention the Starbucks version of this song in the trivia section? Info about it here http://stayfree.typepad.com/stayfree/2005/03/jefferson_starb.html

References Needed!! NO SLANDER ALLOWED IF IT IS UNSUPPORTED OPINIONS INSTEAD OF FACTS!!!!!

Please Provide References, NOT PERSONAL OPINIONS!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.20.179.169 (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This good enough for you, crazyman? [1] Doc Strange 11:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose removing the "In Popular Culture" line about Comedian Sean Choolburra in the name of poor notability and possible offensiveness/hackiness ("humans of poor complexion dance differently to those of Africa.") --J.Rai (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won a bet on this once. This song is not by Jefferson Starship, it's by Starship. Paul Kantner left the band and sued them over use of the name so they dropped Jefferson from it. I've never edited a wiki before so someone else do it. :) http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jefferson_Starship --JHinAZ (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

u must have rly dumb friends -- everyone on the PLANET knows this was during their "starship" phase. 209.172.25.31 (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the Reception

Obviously from a hindsight perspective, the song is loathed and criticized, but what was the critical reception to the song back in 1985? It would be interesting to post any positive reviews to highlight the irony of musical taste and perception throughout time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.253.202 (talk) 08:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree some contemporary critical reception should be included. Here's the result of a quick Google search: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-11-15/entertainment/8503190224_1_miami-vice-soundtrack-high-flying-week-singles-charts - "This week there`s a major upset on the singles charts, because the Starship`s big comeback hit, ``We Built This City,`` has moved all the way from its No. 5 position to unseat Jan Hammer`s ``Miami Vice Theme`` as the most popular song in America.

That kind of chart leap is unusual, because most singles must rise to the No. 2 or No. 3 position before they have the kind of peak popularity needed to make a serious challenge for the top spot. In fact, the best showing by a chart ``dark horse`` this year had been by Wham!`s ``Everything She Wants,``"

I'd say a little more searching could find more, we should put these on the main page. AmbidexterNH (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)AmbidexterNH[reply]

Lyrics?

"...The song references radio pioneer Guglielmo Marconi playing the "mamba". While "mamba" has no musical connotations, there is a dance known as the mambo..."

What?!

That's because the correct lyrics are:

"...Marconi plays La Bamba..."

Watch the video. You can even see them singing the syllables.

Are you really this stupid? Seriously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.68 (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually true, it IS indeed "La Bamba", therefore the whole thing with the Blender quote referencing some miss-heard lyrics is pretty ridiculous, like including a quote based on miss-heard lyrics of Manfred Mann's "blinded by the light", it should probably be removed.OzoneO (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read "The Saucy Vixen of Life". In this post (http://saucyvixen.blogspot.com/2007/04/marconi-plays-mamba.html) she says "But what about this mamba thing? Most people think it's a dance. But it's not. The mamba is the most deadly type of snake. Ever. Seriously. I'm not making this up. The mamba is a snake. So perhaps Starship f'd up and meant to say "mambo." But come now... a band so brilliant as to use the phrase "ship of fools"? (Note that the band didn't write this song. Elton John's longtime collaborator Bernie Taupin wrote the lyrics.) No way. "Mamba" could not have been a mistake.

So what does Marconi playing the mamba mean? Clearly, "Marconi" is referring to the radio itself. The marconi. The device. The radio plays a deadly snake. Listen to it. We built this city. The snake -- the mamba -- is slithering from the speakers. Ready to kill greedy corporations. Ready to squeeze the life out of the police. Ready to free the world of all that is evil, and to leave behind only the youthful idealism that is encompassed by the tenets of rock and roll."

Her analysis makes more sense than any I've heard, so that's what I'm going with. I'd like to see some excerpt of her post on the main page.AmbidexterNH (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)AmbidexterNH[reply]

i'm not so sure it's "intended" as purely mambo either -- why not a PORTMANTEAU of mambo and SAMBA? if this snake didn't just HAPPEN to exist, there'd be a zillion sites positing they coined it with this in mind. 209.172.25.31 (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd always heard the lyric as "Marconi plays the number", and I believe "Marconi" refers to a popular KFRC (610 KHz AM) DJ stage-named Chuck Marconi, who was a friend of the band, and did the spoken interludes. 208.79.244.67 (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The spoken interludes were by Les Garland.[2][3] - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for the mysterious lyrics, while the theories are fun and all:

Mickey Thomas (Starship vocalist): "When the song went to No. 1, I said to Bernie, 'More than ever, people are gonna ask what "Marconi plays the mamba" means.' He said, 'I have no fucking idea, mate.'"

Martin Page (co-writer): "Hmm. Marconi was the first one to send music across the ocean. I saw 'We Built This City' as saying stop the corporations, we need to play music."

Thomas: "Bernie didn't say 'mambo,' he said 'mamba,' which is a snake. Marconi created the radio. Maybe Bernie meant to say 'mambo.' Maybe it means: If you don't like this music, some really angry snakes are gonna come out of the speakers.1"

Craig Chaquico (Starship guitarist): "Marconi's the guy who invented the radio, and his style of music was the mamba. But listen to the radio now. Do you hear any mamba? That's how I look at the lyric: Things change. I could be totally wrong."

Thomas: "At one point I did start to sing 'mambo,' to try and be more grammatically correct, and after a while I thought, 'Fuck it,' and went back to 'mamba.'"[4]

So there you have it: It's Marconi and mamba. Taupin, who wrote the damned thing, has no idea what it means. It's nonsense. That the band and lots of listeners have tried to come up with meaning for the nonsense is immaterial. It's word salad. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The isolated vocals are here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXhulAG-iyM. Certainly sounds like "Ma Coley plays the mamba" to me MarkRae (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have the lyricist and the vocalist agreeing it's "Marconi" and "mamba" (and that the lyrics are nonsense). That it sounds like some other nonsense to you is irrelevant. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic

It's not nonsense. The words "Marconi" and "momba" are alliterative and form a surprising combination. The same is true for the near-rhyme of "momba" and "remember." This double silliness is supposed to make you smile at the ridiculousness of the imagery and rhyme. The historical fact that it's based on is Marconi playing a momba recording as part of the first international radio broadcast -- music, instead of corporate garbage. Fun not profit. Of course Taupin doesn't know what it means -- artists are rarely fully conscious of what they're making. The unconscious connotations of most rock lyrics are what matters anyway. In this case, Marconi combined with momba is meant to be a bit whacky, remind everyone that radio was a means of fun and excitement not merely focus-tested B.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.75.63.180 (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the articles topic. Your personal interpretations of the lyrics cannot be used to improve the article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Video

Should mention the video (the Lincoln Memorial statue standing up and Abe lip-synching, people running away from the giant dice rolling down the street, etc.). Also, the genre might be Arena rock... AnonMoos (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Article to 'Blender's Opinion of this Starship Song'

A full third of this article is devoted to Blender's proclamation of this being the worst song ever. Regardless of how we feel about the song, are we really going to devote 1/3 of the content to a single publication? --Jazzcat23 (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to be bold and remove it. --CutOffTies (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it...but if Santa Claus leaves me coal this year, I'm blaming you!--Jazzcat23 (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Blender Section

I removed the 'Blender' section of this article as the magazine's opinion of the song nearly 20 years after its release isn't really a valid 'reception' gauge. This is my first article edit...hopefully I didn't create an unbalance in the Force.--Jazzcat23 (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear - I don't think the whole section should be removed, but rather trimmed.. see the guideline on undue weight. Anyway, I restored a paragraph. I believe this addresses your initial concern, which I agree with. Thank you. --CutOffTies (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just a FYI going forward.. you should be including an edit summary for your edits, particularly ones like this where you're changing around content significantly. Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not married to the article either way. It just caught my eye that an 'encyclopedia' would present a retrospective article from 2004 as 'reception' for a song released 20 years earlier (which simply isn't scholarly or accurate). It's par for the course as far as Wikipedia goes. This time I figured I'd do something instead of complain. Ha...bad move!

I already had my hand slapped for the edit by the Wikipedia Ruling Council. Apparently removing nonconstructive material is considered a nonconstructive change. I wonder if Britannica was like this...--Jazzcat23 (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was changed from three paragraphs to one. See the difference. Blender seems to be a reliable source, so I don't agree with removing it completely. If you would like to add more critical analysis from other reliable sources, feel free. --CutOffTies (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're referring to by "Wikipedia Ruling Council", but your deletion did not include an edit summary; to anyone who wasn't also looking at the Talk page it appeared you were deleting material without providing an explanation. As noted above, when removing material please make a point of including an edit summary. Really, edit summaries are good practice in general. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether this is a temporary failure or a permanent one, but the link to the article on the blender.com is currently broken; it returns an error messages. I tried searching that site for it to no avail. This reference should either be updated (if possible) or deleted. Viajero | Talk 21:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citation needed

When the article says this song topped the Rolling Stone's list of the worst songs of the 1980s by a wide margin, an inline citation is needed. Vorbee (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, we omit citations in the lead section as the section is meant to be a summary of the rest of the article and everything in it should be both discussed elsewhere in the article and cited there (as is the case with that sentence). - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add a "Chart Performace" section, and age milestone?

Wasn't Grace Slick the oldest female (at the time) to have hit a No. 1 song on the Billboard Hot 100? If that's true, this should be included. 2600:8804:1080:1700:5056:9E86:69C7:6A6C (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]