Talk:List of songwriter collaborations

418:). 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 Knowledge 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... 1336:, 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? 1371:

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?

1332:

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 Knowledge, even though their co-written albums are in the very top echelon of the

390:"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 Knowledge 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" 887:— 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. 125:

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.

343:

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?

74: 49: 857:

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.

1405:

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?

1054:. 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, 21: 820:. 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. 626:.) 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. 899:— 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. 837:

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.

460:"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. 471:(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.) 1024:

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.

1331:

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

918:

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,

509:

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

467:

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

293:

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

184:

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

1389:

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, Knowledge is not a huge professional institution with paid staff. It's just

981:

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

270:

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

240:

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

192:

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

1404:

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

937:

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

860:

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

474:

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

163:

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

1370:

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

951:

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.

836:

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

459:

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",

140:

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

1240:

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

1224:

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

342:

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

1023:

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

856:

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

893:— 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. 124:

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

502:

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.

1155:

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.

971:

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

1433:

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!

1131:

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,

1070:; 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? Knowledge has notability criteria, and cultural impact has this in mind. 241:

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.

961:

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 Knowledge standard for English language

455:

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?

141:

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.

185:

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".

1351:

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.

413:

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

952:

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?

311:#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. 513:(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.) 1098: 31: 188:

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

1096:

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:

506:

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).

1801:) 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... 1296: 1268:, 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 686:— 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). 256:

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.

726: 523:

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?

475:

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.

832:

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.

1594: 1027:

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

1736: 1732: 1718: 1626: 1622: 1608: 1516: 1512: 1498: 861:

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.

510:

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.

320:

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.

622:

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

1225:

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.

742:

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?

1704: 1007:

1. Fame and relevance in popular music is fleeting. For instance, had Knowledge existed in 1937, editors of the time would be writing about

271:

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.

1390:

a bunch of people like yourself, helping out on a voluntary basis and changing things around. If you don't like something, change it.

1288: 359: 148: 1484: 1333: 1714:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

1688: 1604:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

1595:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130329223740/http://countrymusichalloffame.org/full-list-of-inductees/view/boudleaux-and-felice-bryant

1578: 1494:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

1468: 683: 1300: 919:

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.

623: 80: 54: 1004:

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.

1598: 1136:, etc). For the band-member sets I think the associated band -- Rolling Stones, The Smiths, etc. -- is useful info. I'm not 280:

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

1779: 1669: 1559: 798:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

659:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1304: 903:

I have weeded out from the current list all those who do not possess longevity and at least one of the other criteria.

1030:

3. Cultural impact is subjective, but it's kind of like a bell curve. At one end, no one would argue the impact of

679: 1292: 1241:

fan, so I'm not very knowledgeable about their body of work. I haven't the slightest objection to changes there.

27: 1735:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1625:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1515:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

730: 152: 1770: 1696: 1660: 1586: 1550: 1476: 1424: 1410: 1376: 1341: 1261: 1031: 987: 423: 355: 246: 1692: 1582: 1357: 1246: 1205: 1177: 1161: 766: 604: 548: 1705:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120627123459/http://www.prx.org/pieces/79074-jazz-s-great-songwriting-teams

1754:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1742: 1644:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1632: 1534:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1522: 1420: 1406: 1372: 1337: 1191: 1145: 983: 866: 842: 747: 691: 580: 528: 480: 419: 351: 325: 261: 169: 1695:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1585:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1475:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1120:

This is fine work. I don't have a problem with any of this. I had added an "Associated with..." column

806: 707:

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with

1230: 1106: 924: 631: 400: 347: 144: 85: 59: 1485:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150215082611/http://www.staxmuseum.com/about/artists/view/david-porter

20: 1708: 1439: 1395: 1316: 1784: 1739:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1674: 1629:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1564: 1519:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1443: 1428: 1414: 1399: 1380: 1361: 1345: 1320: 1281: 1250: 1234: 1209: 1195: 1181: 1165: 1149: 1110: 1079: 991: 928: 912: 870: 846: 770: 751: 695: 672: 635: 608: 584: 552: 532: 484: 427: 404: 384: 363: 329: 265: 250: 217: 202: 173: 164:

of them have songwriting tandems, I suppose. What has any of this to do with the price of eggs?

156: 134: 1755: 1645: 1535: 1386: 1353: 1269: 1242: 1201: 1186:

Maybe. Either way; it's all good. You're the one doing the work so it's your call. Nice work.

1173: 1157: 762: 600: 544: 441: 381: 1488: 1277: 1187: 1141: 1035: 862: 838: 743: 687: 576: 524: 476: 321: 257: 242: 198: 165: 1762: 1652: 1542: 1265: 1226: 1102: 1008: 920: 627: 396: 1599:

http://countrymusichalloffame.org/full-list-of-inductees/view/boudleaux-and-felice-bryant

1721:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1611:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1501:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1133: 1075: 1047: 1020: 908: 761:. Agree with Herostratus above, and with my own comments in the above section. Best, -- 669: 449: 213: 130: 1761:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

1651:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

1541:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

1172:

I'm having second thoughts about the period column. Maybe "Notes" is a better choice.

1435: 1391: 1312: 1063: 1067: 1039: 1016: 825: 789: 650: 233: 1797:

In my opinion, Hall & Oates should be added to this list. On their wiki-page (

1728: 1618: 1508: 1273: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1012: 445: 194: 73: 48: 1727:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 1617:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 1507:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 1043: 237: 1140:

that that's a better way to organize it, but I'm throwing it out as an idea.

520:

Question 1 -- Yes, add groups of three or more? or No, stick with pairs only?

1071: 939: 904: 571:(and if the decision is made to stick with only groups of two, use the term 229: 209: 126: 817: 1287:

Maybe... it depends how long you want this list to be. According to

415: 880:

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

1124:

but then I walked it back when I saw better what you were up to.

1099:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of songwriter collaborations

1038:, but at the other end of the curve others may have objection to 1798: 1709:

http://www.prx.org/pieces/79074-jazz-s-great-songwriting-teams

1019:

as the great female jazz singers - no one would be mentioning

120:

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

15: 380:

Wouldn't "partnership" be a more common term? Or even "duo"?

193:

popular music songwriters weed out the non-famous ones. -

1699:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1589:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1479:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

494:

OK an editor pointed out that the word "tandem" describes

1489:

http://www.staxmuseum.com/about/artists/view/david-porter

1297:

I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing (In Perfect Harmony)

649:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

468:#2 on the main chart, two were Carpenter/Bettis songs. 1472: 1121: 788:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

289:

But. No #1 singles in the US or UK, and not even one

599:? Any thoughts are welcome, please. Thanks! Best, -- 495: 298:

very high-selling artists in album terms, long term.

1790:

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

1731:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1621:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1511:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 729:, please explain your reasons, taking into account 567:include groups of three or more, under the term 83:, a project which is currently considered to be 543:. I definately agree with you on this. Best, -- 1717:This message was posted before February 2018. 1607:This message was posted before February 2018. 1497:This message was posted before February 2018. 591:Okay, good! So, how about renaming this from 8: 452:), and I am reverting this, and here's why. 828:, a British TV sitcom that lasted one year. 1687:I have just modified one external link on 1577:I have just modified one external link on 1467:I have just modified one external link on 727:polling is not a substitute for discussion 43: 1307:". Which is pretty impressive, but not 812:I'm not seeing these two as fitting in: 496:entities positioned one behind the other 294:the UK with #3, #3, #3, and #5. So they 30:on 29 January 2013 (UTC). The result of 1799:https://en.wikipedia.org/Hall_%26_Oates 938:questions regarding the suggestions by 45: 1291:, their biggest hits as writers were " 1257:Missing Cook / Greenaway in this list! 436:re Richard Carpenter & John Bettis 7: 1116:re January 2013 conversion to tables 731:Knowledge's policy on article titles 664:The result of the move request was: 79:This article is within the scope of 463:Five Carpenter/Bettis compositions 1334:List of best-selling music artists 14: 1691:. Please take a moment to review 1689:List of songwriter collaborations 1581:. Please take a moment to review 1579:List of songwriter collaborations 1471:. Please take a moment to review 1469:List of songwriter collaborations 684:List of songwriter collaborations 597:List of songwriter collaborations 1301:Long Cool Woman in a Black Dress 72: 47: 19: 95:Knowledge:WikiProject The Clash 26:This article was nominated for 823:They wrote the theme song for 673:15:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC) 98:Template:WikiProject The Clash 1: 1675:11:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC) 871:04:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC) 847:17:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC) 771:06:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC) 752:03:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC) 719:, then sign your comment with 696:03:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC) 405:07:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC) 385:06:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC) 1251:07:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC) 1235:10:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC) 1210:01:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC) 1196:07:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC) 1182:05:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC) 1166:05:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC) 1150:05:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC) 1111:20:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC) 929:04:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 913:02:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 307:And they're huge in Canada: 251:14:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC) 218:02:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 135:22:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC) 1785:15:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC) 1444:07:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC) 1429:10:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC) 1415:10:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC) 1400:09:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC) 1381:08:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC) 1362:06:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC) 1346:05:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC) 1321:09:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC) 1080:03:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC) 992:06:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC) 428:06:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC) 364:06:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC) 1815: 1748:(last update: 5 June 2024) 1684:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1638:(last update: 5 June 2024) 1574:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1528:(last update: 5 June 2024) 1464:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1305:I Was Kaiser Bill's Batman 680:List of songwriter tandems 593:List of songwriter tandems 228:I have to make a case for 157:14:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC) 1282:10:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC) 636:03:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC) 609:22:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC) 585:22:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC) 553:22:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC) 533:22:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC) 330:13:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC) 203:20:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC) 67: 1565:12:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC) 1293:You've Got Your Troubles 1066:wrote all the songs for 795:Please do not modify it. 783:Any additional comments: 656:Please do not modify it. 485:14:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC) 266:15:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC) 174:15:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC) 1680:External links modified 1570:External links modified 1460:External links modified 1032:Rodgers and Hammerstein 876:Criteria for notability 541:groups of three or more 393:(Oxford American Dict.) 224:Lee, Lifeson, and Peart 807:Difford & Tilbrook 516:So what should it be? 539:I agree it should be 448:(who wrote songs for 81:WikiProject The Clash 1729:regular verification 1619:regular verification 1509:regular verification 1327:List inconsistencies 1036:Lennon and McCartney 1719:After February 2018 1609:After February 2018 1499:After February 2018 498:. I'm sure that in 1773:InternetArchiveBot 1724:InternetArchiveBot 1663:InternetArchiveBot 1614:InternetArchiveBot 1553:InternetArchiveBot 1504:InternetArchiveBot 101:The Clash articles 1749: 1639: 1529: 1419:P.S. Thanks! :-) 1127:However, I'm not 442:Richard Carpenter 395: 367: 350:comment added by 147:comment added by 113: 112: 109: 108: 42: 41: 1806: 1783: 1774: 1747: 1746: 1725: 1673: 1664: 1637: 1636: 1615: 1563: 1554: 1527: 1526: 1505: 797: 723: 717: 711: 658: 618:. "Tandem" does 440:An editor added 391: 366: 344: 159: 103: 102: 99: 96: 93: 76: 69: 68: 63: 51: 44: 23: 16: 1814: 1813: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1792: 1777: 1772: 1740: 1733:have permission 1723: 1697:this simple FaQ 1682: 1667: 1662: 1630: 1623:have permission 1613: 1587:this simple FaQ 1572: 1557: 1552: 1520: 1513:have permission 1503: 1477:this simple FaQ 1462: 1329: 1259: 1222: 1118: 1094: 1009:Annette Hanshaw 897:Cultural Impact 878: 854: 810: 802: 793: 779: 721: 715: 709: 703: 668:per request. - 654: 644: 624:previous thread 616:Keep status quo 561: 492: 438: 378: 345: 226: 182: 142: 118: 100: 97: 94: 91: 90: 57: 12: 11: 5: 1812: 1810: 1791: 1788: 1767: 1766: 1759: 1712: 1711: 1703:Added archive 1681: 1678: 1657: 1656: 1649: 1602: 1601: 1593:Added archive 1571: 1568: 1547: 1546: 1539: 1492: 1491: 1483:Added archive 1461: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1365: 1364: 1328: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1258: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1221: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1169: 1168: 1134:Brill Building 1117: 1114: 1093: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1048:James Hetfield 1028: 1025: 1021:Billie Holiday 997: 996: 995: 994: 982:your ideas... 976: 975: 974: 973: 966: 965: 964: 963: 956: 955: 954: 953: 946: 945: 944: 943: 932: 931: 901: 900: 894: 888: 877: 874: 853: 850: 834: 833: 830: 821: 816:The wrote for 809: 803: 801: 800: 790:requested move 785: 778: 775: 774: 773: 755: 754: 736: 735: 710:*'''Support''' 702: 699: 678: 676: 662: 661: 651:requested move 645: 643: 642:Requested move 640: 639: 638: 612: 611: 588: 587: 560: 557: 556: 555: 536: 535: 521: 491: 488: 450:The Carpenters 437: 434: 433: 432: 431: 430: 408: 407: 377: 374: 373: 372: 371: 370: 369: 368: 335: 334: 333: 332: 315: 314: 313: 312: 302: 301: 300: 299: 284: 283: 282: 281: 275: 274: 273: 272: 225: 222: 221: 220: 181: 178: 177: 176: 138: 137: 117: 116:Hoppus-Delonge 114: 111: 110: 107: 106: 104: 77: 65: 64: 52: 40: 39: 32:the discussion 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1811: 1802: 1800: 1795: 1789: 1787: 1786: 1781: 1776: 1775: 1764: 1760: 1757: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1744: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1720: 1715: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1685: 1679: 1677: 1676: 1671: 1666: 1665: 1654: 1650: 1647: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1634: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1610: 1605: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1575: 1569: 1567: 1566: 1561: 1556: 1555: 1544: 1540: 1537: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1524: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1506: 1500: 1495: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1465: 1459: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1421:FillsHerTease 1418: 1417: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1407:FillsHerTease 1403: 1402: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1388: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1373:FillsHerTease 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1338:FillsHerTease 1335: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1311:impressive. 1310: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1220:Restructuring 1219: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1170: 1167: 1163: 1159: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1130: 1125: 1123: 1115: 1113: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1091: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1064:Mark Tremonti 1061: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1005: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 993: 989: 985: 984:FillsHerTease 980: 979: 978: 977: 970: 969: 968: 967: 960: 959: 958: 957: 950: 949: 948: 947: 941: 936: 935: 934: 933: 930: 926: 922: 917: 916: 915: 914: 910: 906: 898: 895: 892: 889: 886: 883: 882: 881: 875: 873: 872: 868: 864: 858: 851: 849: 848: 844: 840: 831: 829: 827: 822: 819: 815: 814: 813: 808: 804: 799: 796: 791: 786: 784: 781: 780: 776: 772: 768: 764: 760: 757: 756: 753: 749: 745: 741: 738: 737: 734: 732: 728: 720: 716:*'''Oppose''' 714: 708: 705: 704: 700: 698: 697: 693: 689: 685: 681: 675: 674: 671: 667: 660: 657: 652: 647: 646: 641: 637: 633: 629: 625: 621: 617: 614: 613: 610: 606: 602: 598: 594: 590: 589: 586: 582: 578: 574: 570: 566: 563: 562: 558: 554: 550: 546: 542: 538: 537: 534: 530: 526: 522: 519: 518: 517: 514: 511: 507: 504: 501: 497: 489: 487: 486: 482: 478: 472: 469: 466: 461: 457: 453: 451: 447: 443: 435: 429: 425: 421: 420:FillsHerTease 417: 412: 411: 410: 409: 406: 402: 398: 394: 389: 388: 387: 386: 383: 376:Why "tandem"? 375: 365: 361: 357: 353: 352:FillsHerTease 349: 341: 340: 339: 338: 337: 336: 331: 327: 323: 319: 318: 317: 316: 310: 306: 305: 304: 303: 297: 292: 288: 287: 286: 285: 279: 278: 277: 276: 269: 268: 267: 263: 259: 255: 254: 253: 252: 248: 244: 239: 235: 231: 223: 219: 215: 211: 207: 206: 205: 204: 200: 196: 190: 186: 179: 175: 171: 167: 162: 161: 160: 158: 154: 150: 149:83.160.121.16 146: 136: 132: 128: 123: 122: 121: 115: 105: 88: 87: 82: 78: 75: 71: 70: 66: 61: 56: 53: 50: 46: 37: 33: 29: 25: 22: 18: 17: 1796: 1793: 1771: 1768: 1743:source check 1722: 1716: 1713: 1686: 1683: 1661: 1658: 1633:source check 1612: 1606: 1603: 1576: 1573: 1551: 1548: 1523:source check 1502: 1496: 1493: 1466: 1463: 1387:Clarityfiend 1354:Clarityfiend 1330: 1308: 1260: 1243:Clarityfiend 1223: 1202:Clarityfiend 1174:Clarityfiend 1158:Clarityfiend 1137: 1128: 1126: 1119: 1095: 1040:Neil Tennant 1017:Ethel Waters 902: 896: 890: 884: 879: 859: 855: 835: 826:Girls On Top 824: 811: 794: 787: 782: 763:Discographer 758: 739: 724: 718: 712: 706: 677: 665: 663: 655: 648: 619: 615: 601:Discographer 596: 592: 572: 568: 564: 545:Discographer 540: 515: 512: 508: 505: 499: 493: 473: 470: 464: 462: 458: 454: 439: 392: 379: 346:— Preceding 308: 295: 290: 234:Alex Lifeson 227: 191: 187: 183: 139: 119: 84: 35: 1188:Herostratus 1142:Herostratus 1060:Scott Stapp 1056:heavy metal 1052:Lars Ulrich 1013:Ruth Etting 863:Herostratus 839:Herostratus 744:Herostratus 688:Herostratus 577:Herostratus 525:Herostratus 477:Herostratus 446:John Bettis 322:Herostratus 258:Herostratus 243:Lihan161051 166:Herostratus 143:—Preceding 1780:Report bug 1670:Report bug 1560:Report bug 1303:"... and " 1227:Rivertorch 1103:Rivertorch 1044:Chris Lowe 921:Rivertorch 777:Discussion 666:page moved 628:Rivertorch 490:Rename!!!! 397:Rivertorch 238:Neil Peart 180:Notability 1763:this tool 1756:this tool 1653:this tool 1646:this tool 1543:this tool 1536:this tool 1289:this site 1266:Greenaway 885:Longevity 670:GTBacchus 559:Responses 230:Geddy Lee 92:The Clash 55:The Clash 1794:Hi all, 1769:Cheers.— 1659:Cheers.— 1549:Cheers.— 1436:Ghmyrtle 1392:Ghmyrtle 1313:Ghmyrtle 1200:Thanks. 1092:AfD link 972:belongs? 725:. Since 360:contribs 348:unsigned 145:unsigned 86:inactive 60:inactive 28:deletion 1693:my edit 1583:my edit 1473:my edit 818:Squeeze 759:Support 740:Support 382:Stevage 291:top ten 1274:TorSch 1015:, and 962:pages? 942:above: 701:Survey 444:& 416:Tandem 236:, and 195:hulmem 1068:Creed 1046:, or 852:Phish 569:teams 309:seven 208:Done. 1440:talk 1425:talk 1411:talk 1396:talk 1377:talk 1358:talk 1342:talk 1317:talk 1309:that 1299:", " 1295:", " 1278:talk 1270:here 1262:Cook 1247:talk 1231:talk 1206:talk 1192:talk 1178:talk 1162:talk 1146:talk 1138:sure 1129:sure 1122:here 1107:talk 1076:talk 1072:PJtP 1062:and 1050:and 1042:and 988:talk 940:PJtP 925:talk 909:talk 905:PJtP 891:Fame 867:talk 843:talk 767:talk 748:talk 722:~~~~ 692:talk 632:talk 605:talk 581:talk 573:duos 549:talk 529:talk 500:some 481:talk 424:talk 401:talk 356:talk 326:talk 262:talk 247:talk 214:talk 210:PJtP 199:talk 170:talk 153:talk 131:talk 127:PJtP 36:keep 34:was 1737:RfC 1707:to 1627:RfC 1597:to 1517:RfC 1487:to 1385:As 1034:or 805:re 792:. 620:not 595:to 575:). 565:Yes 465:did 296:are 1750:. 1745:}} 1741:{{ 1640:. 1635:}} 1631:{{ 1530:. 1525:}} 1521:{{ 1442:) 1427:) 1413:) 1398:) 1379:) 1360:) 1344:) 1319:) 1280:) 1272:. 1249:) 1233:) 1208:) 1194:) 1180:) 1164:) 1148:) 1109:) 1101:. 1078:) 1058:. 1011:, 990:) 927:) 911:) 869:) 845:) 769:) 750:) 713:or 694:) 682:→ 653:. 634:) 607:) 583:) 551:) 531:) 483:) 426:) 403:) 362:) 358:• 328:) 264:) 249:) 232:, 216:) 201:) 172:) 155:) 133:) 1782:) 1778:( 1765:. 1758:. 1672:) 1668:( 1655:. 1648:. 1562:) 1558:( 1545:. 1538:. 1438:( 1423:( 1409:( 1394:( 1375:( 1356:( 1340:( 1315:( 1276:( 1264:/ 1245:( 1229:( 1204:( 1190:( 1176:( 1160:( 1144:( 1105:( 1074:( 986:( 923:( 907:( 865:( 841:( 765:( 746:( 733:. 690:( 630:( 603:( 579:( 547:( 527:( 479:( 422:( 399:( 354:( 324:( 260:( 245:( 212:( 197:( 168:( 151:( 129:( 89:. 62:) 58:( 38:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index