Talk:List of songwriter collaborations

Hoppus-Delonge

Mark Hoppus and Tom Delonge should be considered. (unsigned)

No, they shouldn't. Again, Lennon and McCartney are a notable writing team, as are Rodgers and Hammerstein or Elton John and Bernie Taupin. For instance, Mark Hoppus and Tom Delonge are not a notable songwriting team for the same reasons that Ian Dury and Chaz Jankel or Klaus Meine and Rudolph Schenker are not notable songwriting teams, as they are not constantly having their songs covered, or having their musicals revived, or having their work referenced internationally on a regular basis. Yes, these pairs wrote songs together, as have thousands of other individuals, but they are not responsible for a body of work that has stood some test of time in terms of influence and durability. Again, I have edited out those individuals that don't really belong here.PJtP (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And who are you, good sir, to decide who are notable songwriting teams and who aren't? For your information Mark Hoppus and Tom DeLonge have their songs covered on a regular basis. Their songs also have revived a music genre, as they were for a big part responsible for the punk revival in the late 90's. Finally many of today's bands (pop punk and otherwise) all over the world refer to Blink-182 (and their songs) as a reason for them to start a band. So by the criteria you state above Mark Hoppus and Tom DeLonge should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.121.16 (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Blink-182 is, at best, a B-list band. I believe they've never had a single #1 hit on the main Billboard chart, for starters. There are thousands and thousands of bands who are followed by assorted young headbangers, punks, slackers, stoners, sceners, and other denizens manque of the demimonde. Many of them have songwriting tandems, I suppose. What has any of this to do with the price of eggs? Herostratus (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability

I think a number of the recent additions do not meet the criteria of "This is a list of famous songwriter tandems of popular music and pop standard". In particular, I don't see how many the persons listed are considered famous. In most cases they just wrote music for their own band or duo and their songs were not significantly otherwise recorded, or they had few or no sigificiant hits, or their WP articles don't even refer to them as songwriters. In many cases their music would not be considered "popular music" or "pop standards".

A few examples (sure to offend fans of the corresponding bands): Steven Ansell & Laura-Mary Carter (of Blood Red Shoes) Dan Auerbach & Patrick Carney (of The Black Keys) Jim Marr & Wendy Page

Despite the title, I don't think the intent of the article was to include ALL songwriter tandems people can come up with. Just because a person who happens to have written songs is notable enough for a WP article doesn't mean they are a famous songwriter. I suggest someone with knowledge of famous popular music songwriters weed out the non-famous ones. - hulmem (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Done.PJtP (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Lee, Lifeson, and Peart

I have to make a case for Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson, and Neil Peart as a songwriting team meeting all of the criteria of this article. If we're including Lennon/McCartney, Henley/Frey. Fagen/Becker, Page/Plant, and Andersson/Ulvaeus, then Lee/Lifeson/Peart belong here. Not speaking as a Rush fan, specifically (although I am! :) but more from the standpoint of body of work, general reputation, and overall collective musical talent and teamwork. Strictly considering the quality of their work, they're easily peers of Lennon/McCartney if not the Gershwins or Rodgers/Hart/Hammerstein and deserving of recognition. Lihan161051 (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It's "tandems". Lee/Lifeson/Pert would be a "trio". "Songwriting trios" would be a valid article, though, if you want to start it. "Holland-Dozier-Holland" would be another entry. Herostratus (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Now that the article has been expanded to include trios and up, we can revisit Lee/Lifeson/Pert. My personal opinion is that I don't see them as qualifying, though. It's close and really on the bubble, so maybe they do. Let's look at them. For the purposes of the following analysis, I'll assume that Lee/Lifeson/Pert wrote all the singles and most of the album tracks in question; if that's not true that weakens their case that much more.

On the plus side, we have: 1) longevity, 2) artistically fairly well-regarded, 3) popular in Canada, 4) good album sales.

But. No #1 singles in the US or UK, and not even one top ten single in the US or UK (highest was #13 in the UK, #21 in the US). (They did have four #1's and some other high rankings in the US Mainstream Rock chart, which is one subchart of many.) And no #1 albums in the US or UK. They came close: in the US with albums ranking #2, #3, #3, #3, #4, and #6, and in the UK with #3, #3, #3, and #5. So they are very high-selling artists in album terms, long term.

And they're huge in Canada: seven #1 albums (and two #2 and three #3). I don't have their Canadian singles performance but I bet they had some #1 singles in Canada. On the other hand, they have had little traction in Europe, at least regarding singles.

I dunno. They're big, but for me, the lack of a single song even breaking the top ten is a deal-killer. I could be wrong about this and its debatable. Herostratus (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I realise this comment is quite ancient and that probably no one will read my response, but I'm working on criteria which will determine whether songwriting teams end up in the article or not. I think the problem with only allowing teams which have had high charting singles is that there are some very notable teams who never had much success with singles. One very obvious example is Jimmy Page and Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin; who have sold hundreds of millions of albums, but never had significant success with singles. You wouldn't suggest that Page and Plant should not be on this page though surely? My point being that I think the criteria should be record sales, but that it should be singles AND/OR albums combined. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FillsHerTease (talk • contribs) 06:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Why "tandem"?

Wouldn't "partnership" be a more common term? Or even "duo"? Stevage 06:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"Partnership" certainly is more common, but it can refer to more than two people, so no dice. "Duo" would work fine, and it is also more common, so a move seems indicated. And yet . . . some of the appeal (to me) of "tandem" lies in its uncommonness, I have to admit. It falls into the category of "quirky, unexpected things that make Wikipedia fresh and colorful and unpredictable"—a category I fear continues to shrink. If "tandem" were terribly obscure, then we absolutely shouldn't use it, but it's only slightly obscure and it does mean exactly what we intend: "a group of two . . . people working together" (Oxford American Dict.) Rivertorch (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly - and most importantly - 'tandem' does not mean 'two', though it is clearly being used to mean that in this article. The person above has erroneously stated that it means exactly what is intended but it doesn't (see Tandem). You can have five (or more!) horses pulling a carriage in tandem - each horse being behind the one in front of it - and a tandem bicycle can have five seats on it etc. Which brings up the second point; namely that 'tandem' implies one behind the other, something which might be mistakenly interpreted as McCartney being behind Lennon, or Richards being behind Jagger, etc., in the various songwriting partnerships in the list, something which clearly isn't correct in the majority of cases. Thirdly, the word 'tandem' being uncommon is not a good thing - as stated above - and the goal of Wikipedia is certainly not to be quirky or unpredictable; it is to be clear and concise. As such, the argument above is an argument against the use of the word 'tandem', not an argument in favour of it. The word 'Duos' should be used, particularly in light of the fact that the next section is labelled 'Trios', so I am going to update the article accordingly... FillsHerTease (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

re Richard Carpenter & John Bettis

An editor added Richard Carpenter & John Bettis (who wrote songs for The Carpenters), and I am reverting this, and here's why.

First of all, of course any work the two did outside of their partnership is out of bounds and not to be considered. Bettis wrote "Slow Hand" and many other hits and fine songs, but not with Carpenters. So what did the two write as a team?

Not most of the Carpenter's big hits. "Close to You" was Bachrach and David. "Only Just Begun" and "Rainy Days and Mondays" and "I Won't Last a Day Without You" were Nichols and Williams. "For All We Know", "Superstar", "Hurting Each Other", "It's Going to Take Some Time", "Please Mister Postman", "Sing", "Solitaire", "There's a Kind of Hush", "Goofus", "All You Get from Love Is a Love Song", "Sweet, Sweet Smile", "I Believe You", "Touch Me When We're Dancing", and "Make Believe It's Your First Time" were also written by others. These are all songs that reached the top ten on the adult contemporary charts.

Five Carpenter/Bettis compositions did reach the top ten on the adult contemporary charts: "Goodbye to Love", "Yesterday Once More", "Top of the World", "Only Yesterday" and "I Need to Be in Love". One of these was a main-chart #1 hit and one was a #2 (the other three reached #4, #7, and #25). Of seven Carpenters songs that reached #1 or #2 on the main chart, two were Carpenter/Bettis songs.

(And speaking subjectively, I think the songs that really launched the Carpenters into stardom and defined them for all time in the public imagination are their first few #1 and #2 hits -- "Close to You", "Only Just Begun", "Rainy Days and Mondays", and so forth -- and none of these are Carpenter/Bettis songs.)

Carpenter/Bettis were at best the second-most important songwriting duo for the Carpenters (the most important was Nichols and Williams). The Carpenters were very popular, but not quite in the very top tier (Beatles/ABBA/Elvis/Elton John/etc. territory), and they certainly had no artistic claims to being more important than their sales would show (quite the opposite actually). Their B-team songwriting duo is not notable enough to make the list, I'm afraid, in my opinion. Herostratus (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Rename!!!!

OK an editor pointed out that the word "tandem" describes entities positioned one behind the other. I'm sure that in some cases the songwriters positioned themselves in this way, but side-by-side or some other arrangement was probably more common, not even considering those cases where the writers weren't physically in the same room. So "tandem" is not accurate and we have to change it, I would say.

The question is, to what? Duo, or pair? Or (courtesy of thesaurus.com) brace, couple, twosome, dyad, doublet, yoke, or combo, although these are rather less common (I do like "brace" though).

But wait. Since we have to change the name, why not expand the article to include teams of three or more? There aren't that many -- two that come to mind are Holland-Dozier-Holland and the Bee Gees brothers. I had to recently remove these because they don't fit the article definition, but I don't see any reason why they're so very different from songwriting pairs. And there can't be that many, so I don't see the article becoming too large or anything.

(A further question to be resolved down the road would be whether to group everyone together or have separate sections "duos" (or "pairs") and "teams of three or more" or something. No hurry to decide this.)

So what should it be?

1. Question 1 -- Yes, add groups of three or more? or No, stick with pairs only?
2. Question 2 -- if it's to remain pairs what name -- "pairs" or "duos" or stick with "tandems" or what -- and if its to include larger groups, "teams" or "partnerships" or what? Herostratus (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree it should be groups of three or more. I definately agree with you on this. Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Responses

• Yes include groups of three or more, under the term teams (and if the decision is made to stick with only groups of two, use the term duos). Herostratus (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, good! So, how about renaming this from List of songwriter tandems to List of songwriter collaborations? Any thoughts are welcome, please. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep status quo. "Tandem" does not necessarily mean one behind the other; one of its standard definitions is "two people working together". (I admit to also just liking the word; see previous thread.) Disagree entirely with opening it up to larger collaborations; tandem songwriting pairs have an important place in music, both historically and today. If consensus is to open it up to more than two (and I strongly suggest not judging consensus hastily), I'd think it would be appropriate to maintain separate sections for groups of two, three, etc. Rivertorch (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. - GTBacchus^(talk) 15:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

---

List of songwriter tandems → List of songwriter collaborations — To expand the list to include groups of three or more. Informal discussion in section above has three commentors so far, running 2-1 in favor. Let's get this done (or not done). Herostratus (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support as proposer. There are only a few long-term notable songwriting teams of three or more, so it wouldn't swamp the list. Why not add them too? Herostratus (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Agree with Herostratus above, and with my own comments in the above section. Best, --Discographer (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

re Difford & Tilbrook

I'm not seeing these two as fitting in:

• The wrote for Squeeze. As such, the had a #2, another #2, and a #4 in the UK. Nothing else in the top ten, but 3 in the top twenty and a couple or so a bit below that. That's all in the UK, with basically nothing in the US (or Canada or Australia). The UK is a very large market but smaller than the US so I would discount that a little compared to similar standings in the US.
• They wrote the theme song for Girls On Top, a British TV sitcom that lasted one year.
• They also have some individual writing credits, but of course that doesn't count for our purposes. If they have other credits as a duo it's not apparent from their article.

I don't see this as being enough. I'd like to see at least one #1 hit, combined with other markers of notability. Other markers of notability would include various combinations of: a lot of other performers covering their songs (besides Squeeze), awards, long-term residence in the upper reaches of the charts, successful musicals or rock operas, just generally being particularly famous, stuff like that. Or absent any of that, at least a few #1 hits. They have longetivity, but nothing else. One theme song for a short-lived theme show adds something but not much. Absent some counter-argument I propose to remove them. Herostratus (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Phish

No, I don't see Phish fitting in here, at all. What we're looking for, just to get your foot in the door, is a couple of #1 hits or hit Broadway shows or hit musical movies for starters, or equivalents. No #1 hits might be OK if they have large number of top ten hits. Songs for big movies, theme songs for hit TV shows, these might help some too, along with other markers of notability such as songs that are heavily covered by many artists. None of this applies to Phish and Phish is not in this league or even close. They don't have any top ten hits at all. And their albums don't sell that well. They have longevity and a dedicated following, but small in the scheme of things.

I'm not too keen on Metallica either, which another editor recently added. But at least Metallica has a bunch of #1 albums, one top ten single, and several singles that were #1 in some smaller countries, as well as longevity. They are miles above Phish. (I'm assuming that all or most of Metallica's songs are by Hetfield and Ulrich; if not, that might change things.) So I guess they're maybe possibly in, if you want to be generous. But Phish? No way. Herostratus (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for notability

I suggest the following as criteria for notability in this field:

Longevity — Noted songwriting teams must have been around for a while. For lack of any other yardstick, I will use the Rock Hall of Fame's criterion of 25 years activity for any team (or trio) in releasing public material. So, as of the writing of this in 2012, teams (or trios) must have been issuing public work from 1987 or earlier to qualify for the list. A different time measure could be used, obviously, but I believe some substantial amount of time needs to have passed for notability.

Fame — Songs by these songwriters are recognizable to a sizable population in the English-speaking world. Numerous Lennon and McCartney songs are known the world over, and many people would recognize the tune to "My Funny Valentine" even if they do not know its authors Richard Rodgers and Larry Hart.

Cultural Impact — The team in question has had some level of influence on popular music as a whole. This will be more difficult to specifically define, but it includes having major effect on the establishment of a specific style (punk, hip-hop, blues, torch songs, disco, etc.), or having affected a sizable number of other artists who followed.

I have weeded out from the current list all those who do not possess longevity and at least one of the other criteria.PJtP (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Eminently reasonable as a general yardstick, perhaps a bit strict if we try to follow it to the letter. I like the longevity criterion but can well imagine a good case being made for an exception here and there. The second one—yeah, that probably would work. I think the third could be hell to verify, but I support it in theory. The main thing, as far as I'm concerned, is that anyone adding a new entry be willing to discuss it. Rivertorch (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. As per the conversation in the 'List inconsistencies' section below, I think we need to hash out the "Criteria For Notability" and include it in the article so that we can work towards consistency and people can understand why some teams appear and some don't. That being the case I have some questions regarding the suggestions by PJtP above:

1. Why is longevity a requirement? Let's imagine a hypothetical songwriting duo known as Ex/Why, who started writing songs for a group called Bandname in the early 2000's. So far they have had seven Number 1 singles, four Top 10 singles, and their four albums have sold 30 million copies worldwide. Everyone knows who they are and can sing along to several of their songs. Why would this duo be excluded from the page? Surely people who came here would wonder why such a successful and well known pair are not included?

2. Why do they have to be famous in the English speaking world alone? If it is only collaborations in the English speaking world then shouldn't the list name reflect that? I presume this must be some sort of Wikipedia standard for English language pages?

3. I think Cultural Impact is too subjective to be a criteria. I think what we need are clear and concise criteria so that it is easy to determine whether or not a collaboration is listed. That will help to prevent arguments as to whether a specific collaboration belongs?

Please don't take this the wrong way. I'm sure you have excellent reasons for your criteria and I simply want to understand them so that we can build a consensus. This is me, a novice, trying to understand the page before trying to make it consistent; this is not me having a go at you or criticising your ideas... FillsHerTease (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't take it the wrong way. Thanks for asking rather than being a gatekeeper. I'll answer your queries one at a time.

1. Fame and relevance in popular music is fleeting. For instance, had Wikipedia existed in 1937, editors of the time would be writing about Annette Hanshaw, Ruth Etting, and Ethel Waters as the great female jazz singers - no one would be mentioning Billie Holiday much. Yet Holiday has withstood the test of time, and the others have been mostly forgotten. Longevity as a criterion is there to keep out fanboys who want their favorite band to be represented and know little about the rest of music, and to keep the list from emphasizing too many writers of the present, who in 20 years time may be completely forgotten and irrelevant. Again, all of this is qualitative, so a songwriting duo that started in the early 2000s and has seven #1 singles and 30 million in album sales with lots of catchy tunes may indeed qualify - 10-15 years of success could easily be enough.

2. This is the English language Wikipedia. That doesn't mean songwriting teams in other languages cannot be included, but perhaps the emphasis should be on English.

3. Cultural impact is subjective, but it's kind of like a bell curve. At one end, no one would argue the impact of Rodgers and Hammerstein or Lennon and McCartney, but at the other end of the curve others may have objection to Neil Tennant and Chris Lowe, or James Hetfield and Lars Ulrich. It probably would be good to keep in mind some level of cultural impact - Lennon and McCartney's went beyond music into Western (and to an extent global) culture at large, Rodgers and Hammerstein were a culmination of the tradition of the American musical from the previous four decades, and Hetfield and Ulrich can be argued to have great impact on a specific genre, heavy metal. Scott Stapp and Mark Tremonti wrote all the songs for Creed; they were really popular from 1997-2002, and would qualify for your hypothetical duo of question 1 above. Does anyone namecheck them as an influence? Should they really be included? Wikipedia has notability criteria, and cultural impact has this in mind. PJtP (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD link

This article has been nominated for deletion. The link to the AfD discussion is displaying as a red link in the template, and I cannot seem to fix it. For the record, the discussion is proceeding here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songwriter collaborations. Rivertorch (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

re January 2013 conversion to tables

This is fine work. I don't have a problem with any of this. I had added an "Associated with..." column here but then I walked it back when I saw better what you were up to.

However, I'm not sure that a better way wouldn't be to go back to one large table, sorted alphabetically, with an addition column -- "Genre and associated artists" maybe, or just "Notes", or something else -- where you could put in the info about their genre (jazz, rock, broadway, Brill Building, etc). For the band-member sets I think the associated band -- Rolling Stones, The Smiths, etc. -- is useful info. I'm not sure that that's a better way to organize it, but I'm throwing it out as an idea. Herostratus (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit leery of putting in too many columns. I supposed you could shoehorn the associated bands into the first column, seeing as there's room there. As for merging it all into one table, that would entail switching from musicals/operas to individual songs/arias. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm having second thoughts about the period column. Maybe "Notes" is a better choice. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. Either way; it's all good. You're the one doing the work so it's your call. Nice work. Herostratus (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Restructuring

A couple questions. Did we want to remove the criteria? One of the claims in the AfD was "no clear criteria", so having no criteria at all doesn't seem like the best idea. Maybe we should formulate some new ones. Also, I'm curious what benchmark we're using for inclusion of the song examples. For instance, the Taupin-John songs listed are all from a period of several years and aren't very representative of a cross-section of their catalog. Rivertorch (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

My contention is that getting rid of the arbitrary criteria is the way to to get around the objections. It's not our job to set the standard; that's for reliable sources to sort out. As for which songs got listed, I just picked the hits I recognized. In particular, I'm not a big Elton John/Taupin fan, so I'm not very knowledgeable about their body of work. I haven't the slightest objection to changes there. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Missing Cook / Greenaway in this list!

Cook/Greenaway, the multitalented duo of singers / songwriters / arrangers and producers should for sure deserve a place in your listing. For a reminder of their impressive list of works, have a peek here. TorSch (talk) 10:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe... it depends how long you want this list to be. According to this site, their biggest hits as writers were "You've Got Your Troubles", "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing (In Perfect Harmony)", "Long Cool Woman in a Black Dress"... and "I Was Kaiser Bill's Batman". Which is pretty impressive, but not that impressive. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

List inconsistencies

The list is very inconsistent. Consider three of the biggest songwriting partnerships in Rock (or music in general even!), 'Mick Jagger/Keith Richards', 'Elton John/Bernie Taupin', and 'John Lennon/Paul McCartney'. All three partnerships have had numerous hits and, beyond their hits, have a multitude of well known songs. However in the case of Jagger/Richards the Songs column lists only three songs and has no link to a list of all the songs they co-wrote. These are the guys who wrote pretty much the entire Rolling Stones catalogue after Brian Jones left! Then we have John/Taupin, another pair who have written numerous hits and a multitude of other well known songs. Once again there is a list of only six songs no link to a list of all the songs they co-wrote. In fact, for some bizarre reason there doesn't even seem to be a list of all their songs on Wikipedia, even though their co-written albums are in the very top echelon of the List of best-selling music artists, having sold more than 300 million! Then we have Lennon/McCartney, for whom there are no songs listed and only a link to a list of their co-written songs. How does all of this work? 'Benny Andersson and Bjorn Ulvaeus' of ABBA fame get five songs listed AND a link to all of their co-written songs. What are the classification methods in use? Roger Waters and David Gilmour of Pink Floyd are mentioned, even though they only wrote very few songs together, while Jimmy Page and Robert Plant - who wrote (and/or 'borrowed'!) pretty much the entire Led Zeppelin catalogue - aren't even worthy of their own specific mention in the main list for some bizarre reason. These guys wrote Stairway To Heaven for goodness sake! So ... can we come up with some agreement as to how the list is categorised so that we can set about making it consistent please? Or, if there already is some method in place, perhaps it would be useful to include it in the article? FillsHerTease (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

As for Lennon and McCartney, a list of all their really famous songs would be pretty long (and so uber well-known), so I didn't bother. But the main point is, this is by no means a complete list. You're welcome to add to it. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand. What I'm saying is that there should be consistency. If there is a link to all of the Lennon/McCartney songs then Jagger/Richards and John/Taupin etc. should have one too; i.e. they should be the same as 'Benny Andersson and Bjorn Ulvaeus', with a list of songs AND a link. If you see what I mean? Furthermore there should be a reason why the songs in the Songs column are picked; such as being Number 1 hits on the Billboard Chart, or whatever. Lastly, there should be a reason why a team appears in the primary list; why are Waters/Gilmour there and not Page/Plant? I can't think of any reason why the former are there and not the latter (which is not to say that there isn't one, but if there is then it isn't clear...). I'm simply saying that there should be agreement as to what the columns in the list comprise - one which is stated in the article - after which we can then go through them all and make the list consistent. Does that make sense? FillsHerTease (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

As Clarityfiend says, there is no reason why you should not either propose a consistent approach here yourself, or make those edits yourself. If anyone dislikes your edits, we can discuss them and change them. Unlike other encyclopedias, Wikipedia is not a huge professional institution with paid staff. It's just a bunch of people like yourself, helping out on a voluntary basis and changing things around. If you don't like something, change it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm bit of a novice when it comes to updating articles; I usually only make changes when I'm pretty certain there's no real argument against what I'm doing. I'm happy to do the work here - in fact I was thinking that would be a nice 'project' for me - but I obviously don't want to do a heap of work, only to have it removed. That being the case I'll have a bit of a think about how the list columns should be determined, come back and discuss it with you guys to get consensus, then update the list accordingly. In other words, I will take you up on the challenge, but I'll get the consensus before I change the list so as not to waste my time (or yours!). Fair enough? FillsHerTease (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks! :-) FillsHerTease (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Bear in mind that any changes made can be changed back to the previous version by simply one click of a button - so, it's not as though any reverted changes will be lost for ever, they'll all be archived in the memory and can be recovered easily. Good luck! Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of songwriter collaborations. 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/20150215082611/http://www.staxmuseum.com/about/artists/view/david-porter to http://www.staxmuseum.com/about/artists/view/david-porter

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of songwriter collaborations. 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/20130329223740/http://countrymusichalloffame.org/full-list-of-inductees/view/boudleaux-and-felice-bryant to http://countrymusichalloffame.org/full-list-of-inductees/view/boudleaux-and-felice-bryant

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of songwriter collaborations. 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/20120627123459/http://www.prx.org/pieces/79074-jazz-s-great-songwriting-teams to http://www.prx.org/pieces/79074-jazz-s-great-songwriting-teams

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hall & Oates deserve a place on this list (imo)

Hi all,

In my opinion, Hall & Oates should be added to this list. On their wiki-page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_%26_Oates) it's stated that they are the best selling duo ever. That alone should be an argument to add them. On top of that, there's the great song catalogue, the many n° 1 hits and then some...