Talk:Lola (song)

Early 2006 comments

This article is currently crap. It misses all the interesting stuff about this song (such as for example, that it refers to or was inspired by Ray Davies's dating of Candy Darling, a well-known transvestite, also the subject of Walk On The Wild Side), and spends a lot of time stating the bloody obvious, like the ambiguities in the lyrics, which anyone who has heard the song will be more than well-aware of (assuming they're older than about 10). This needs a total overhaul. This is exactly the sort of article that Wikipedia is being mocked for - totally missing the wood for the trees. Has anyone here ever read an encyclopedia. other than this one? Graham 13:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

153.2.246.31 09:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC) I'm new to Wikipedia, but my understanding is that anyone can edit (or completely re-write) any article on the site. This means that if you feel the article is "currently crap," then you should take the effort to FIX it, instead of just complaining about it. Nothing will improve if people expend all their energy pointing out flaws without offering any constructive criticism. Why don't you add to the article the things you feel are missing? However, be sure to actually proof-read your article for correct grammar before saving it; I wouldn't consider it an improvement to the article if it's written as poorly as your above opinion.

And by the way, the current article answered the questions that I had about the song, so it's not completely worthless after all.

Adam, USA 153.2.246.31 09:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Make yourself a user name so that you can enter into a discussion properly. At present your IP address is listed as a known vandal. Once you've decided to become part of the WP community, you may find your criticisms of others are taken more seriously. On the other hand you may find that this sort of carping about orher users isn't terribly constructive. Graham 21:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this anon IP, and I'm far from a vandal (two years here, over 22,000 edits from this name and the previous name). I'd fix the article but I don't know enough about the inner workings of what went on with the "real Lola." By all means, fix the article; you're obviously watching it if you responded that quickly. Mike H. That's hot 22:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying he is a vandal, just the IP address has been used for vandalism in the past, so there isn't much point leaving messages on the talk page there. I'm loathe to enter into a wholesale edit of this article because obviously someone has put in a lot of work (just misdirected, IMO). If someone wants to take on board my comments, fair enough, but if not, no big deal to me. Far too many WP articles need similar work, and band/song articles are some of the worst, being often written by fans, who are rarely objective. Defending major edits against such people is far too stressful to be worthwhile in my experience. Also, whinging about another user's grammar, on a talk page where it really doesn't matter, is unlikely to win friends. I have autowatching on so (sometimes unfortunately) my watchlist throws up everything I've ever touched. Graham 02:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Added much stuff today

The original stuff about the ambiguity in this article was written by a student of mine that I haven't seen in quite a while. We had been discussing deconstruction and I suggested to him that this song was a good place to start because, based on the lyrics of the song, there is no way to determine whether or not Lola is a man or a woman. I also pointed him to an article by Derrida and he had, in the very earliest version with the references to the ambiguity, mentioned Derrida.

In any event, most of that stuff has been removed. I pointed to "Lola" because I'm a Kinks fan and after he had listened to it and gotten a grasp of Derrida, he send me a link to the article. Part of the first argument going on here that the article needs to be rewritten is that "spends a lot of time stating the bloody obvious, like the ambiguities in the lyrics, which anyone who has heard the song will be more than well-aware of (assuming they're older than about 10)" which is, in my experience, untrue. I've used this song several times in classes and hardly anybody gets the ambiguity until it's pointed out to them even if they've heard the song dozens of times before I ask them to look closeley at the lyrics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Will1410 (talk • contribs) .

Well, I must admit I'm surprised, but I'll defer to your experience. I can't remember exactly when I first heard the song, but it must have been in the 1970s. I'm pretty sure I "got" the ambiguity straight away even though I was probably only in my very early teens at the time. It might be because I'm British and the language used in the song was familiar - that said, I have no idea what nationality, etc you or your students have. However, it was the same for "Walk on the Wild Side", which isn't a British song. I dunno, maybe it's just me, though I find that hard to believe! Anyway, my comment is based on the sense I've long had that the song itself "feels like" it's a real experience for its writer. Later I discovered that Ray Davies had briefly dated Candy Darling, so it sort of fell into place. It may not be the most interesting thing about the song, but I would have thought that it being written from personal experience is worth a mention. More so (to my mind) than a rather earnest deconstruction of the lyrics, which do seem obvious to me - and which, for someone new to the song, would be something of a spoiler; it's fun to discover that sort of thing for yourself. Graham 12:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm from Idaho in the U.S. and most of the students I've had are also from Idaho, so that could have a lot to do with it. If I remember my geography correctly, this state is about the same size as the island of Great Britian but we have less than 2 million people living here while you have around 5 or 6 million living in London alone. Most of my students think moving to Moscow, Idaho, where I live (population 21,000), is a move to the big city. As far as what you say about Candy Darling, I think that would be an important thing to add, but I've never seen that written in any verifiable source. I only have a couple of books that have any biographical detail about The Kinks and the only one that really talks about this song is the one I cited that says Davies was inspired by the incident that happened to Robert Wace. If you find a good source for the information, you should definitely add it. As far as spoiling the song, I guess maybe a spoiler warning could be added. I don't think that would hurt the article at all.Will

More detail could always help, but it's not really necessary. There are plenty of complex/interesting songs that demand analyzion but that are only briefly mentioned in a band's page, having no article of their own. This article gives far more detail than is standard (from what I've seen). It does state the obvious, but that's often what people look for. I'd heard the song a few times, and noticed the "Why she walked like a woman and talked like a man" line in particlur, but I wasn't entirely sure that the song raised questions about Lola's gender. This article confirmed my suspicions. Tyharvey313

I just listened to the version on AOL's internet music broadcasting and it had a different version of the final line in which there was no ambiguity. He said "I know what I am. I'ma man and so is Lola." I listened to the line over and over to make sure I was hearing it right. Does anyone know who sings this version? Apofisu 09:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I remember the song coming out, have played the record loads of times and have performed it with a band on a couple of occasions, but I never noticed any ambiguity. I thought it was clear from the start that Lola was a transvestite. Have I missed something all these years? Clearly there is some ambiguity in the mind of the man in the song (though this seems to be cleared up at the end). However, for a listener, doesn't this constitute irony rather than ambiguity? Bluewave 12:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, personally I've always thought this song was a wonderful example of the single entendre - the meaning is so clear and upfront that, although it initially sounds like it might be a double entendre or euphemistic, in fact the intended meaning is blatantly obvious. :) DWaterson 22:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a wonderful example of several things! I have thought about editing the article but am deterred by the fact that I would like to throw most of it away and start again - which is not really in the spirit of Wikipedia. My summary is that this is a song about a rather diffident and naive young man who encounters a transvestite in a Soho club. After spending the evening drinking with "her", they go to her apartment where the song reaches a climax and some sort of physical confrontation takes place. This may be full sex or something else (this is one place where there is some ambiguity). The song's hero emerges from this experience more at ease with himself and his own sexual identity. There is also some very good characterisation of the naive young man and the sophisticated Lola. Plus the whole thing is a textbook example of ironic writing (we know Lola is a man but the song's hero doesn't). It is witty and humourous....And the whole thing is written with such economy that it is all accomplished in a 3 minute song. Plenty of writers would take 100 pages to cover this material. I would rate this amongst the top few songs that are based on stories, situations and characterisation, in the same class as Eleanor Rigby, for example. Just my POV! Bluewave 21:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Lola" Inspired by Mick Avory?

I once read an interview with Pete Quaife, the Kinks' original bass player, where he thought that maybe Lola was inspired by an inccident in the late 1960's involving drummer Mick Avory. I can't remember where I read it, but it might be worth noting as another possible influence for the song's subject matter. Also, Lola was note the first song of such subject matter to hit the charts, just listen to the Who's 1966 #2 hit "I'm A Boy", they're both about the same thing (sort of).

Yes, Avory claims to have inspired the single. Added section about his story. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Futurama

Why on earth are there three references to Futurama? It is listed as a reference, listed under trivia and someone has stuck in a large box linked to the particular episode. Furthermore, the song itself is not even parodied in the said episode, the object of that joke being William Shatner's musical efforts e.g. his version of Lucy in the Sky, as Zapp is a parody of Kirk from Star Trek. I shall remove both the reference and the box and add a link to the related episode under trivia, after re-wording it. --JamesTheNumberless 09:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There are three references to Futurama because the demographics of the typical Wikipedia editor and those of the typical Futurama-watching twentysomething middle class white North American ex-college student coincide. There are scads of references to Family Guy and South Park all over Wikipedia for exactly the same reason, often in ridiculously inappropriate contexts, almost never with any indication of why the references are notable. I am genuinely surprised that the article for Benito Mussolini does not end with "He was mentioned in an episode of season two of The Family Guy. He was mentioned in Battlestar: Galactica. One of the cylons in Battlestar: Galactica looks like Benito Mussolini. In episode two of season three of Futurama, Bender mentions him", etc. I suspect that Mussolini's article was like that a few years ago, but it seems that the tide is turning in my direction, at least in the case of major historical figures. Time will prove me right. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ashley Pomeroy I love you and wish to have your child. I plan to issue Wikipedia the dental bills I have incurred due to grinding my teeth after reading articles flawed in the frightful manner you describe. There are many other Wiki outrages against good sense, taste, and balance, just to name a few blemishes. This will do for now. I pinch your claws. 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:5DA8:522D:7EB9:503C (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Ambiguity

I have removed the section about the "ambiguitiy" of the lyrics; Davies himself has said that the song is based on Candy Darling, and in a discussion above the author actually states that the section was original research. Wikipedia guidelines specifically disallow any original interpretations of songs or literature. No matter how evident someone thinks the implications are, unless there are reliable sources for these claims, the section shouldn't be here. Kafziel ^Talk 21:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No he hasn't. See article quote. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

mcfly

mcfly did a cover of the song feturing busted on their first single, five colours in her hair- coiuld someone add that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veggieburgerfish (talk • contribs) 20:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kinkslolasong.jpg

Image:Kinkslolasong.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

External links needed

Many, many Wikipedia pages including those about specific songs have a list of external links at or near the end. The same should be true about this page. At the very least there should be external links to the song's lyrics and guitar tablature.

74.223.82.114 (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Addition to Cover Versions Section

"Lola" was covered by Widespread Panic on October 31, 2010, at their concert at the UNO Lakefront Arena in New Orleans, LA. That can be verified on their setlist, found here:

http://www.everydaycompanion.com/setlists/20101031a.asp

I was at the show, and the lead singer John Bell was dressed as a transvestite, a relevant factoid I would like to use in the post.

floresen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floresen (talk • contribs) 02:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added the reference (now that I can see it here) to the article, but deleted all of your material regarding costuming and what set it was. That's all original research, and doesn't help us here. I'm not sure the live performances even count, though, not just of Widespread Panic but of the other bands similarly shown. I think the covers are really only notable (if at all) if they're recorded. Any band might throw in a performance of "Johnny B. Goode" or "Shout" during a show, so a band doing "Lola" (ahem) once isn't too noteworthy. I suspect these ought to be removed, along with the other mentions in that section that have no references. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Playful ambiguity

I read the now-ancient discussions above about the song's ambiguity (most of which are under the unhelpfully titled section "Added much stuff today"), but the last post was so long ago that I am opening the topic anew.

I think previous discussions got caught too deeply in technicalities related to the song's composition (i.e., was the song inspired by an experience Davies or someone close to him had with a transvestite, etc) and lost sight of the song itself, which is the actual subject of this article. A huge part of this song's nearly irresistible charm is the teasingly playful way it dances around the possibility that Lola is actually a man without ever declaring unequivocally whether she is or not.

How much less delightful and how very much more mundane this song would be if it tied up the loose ends it has tantalizingly dangled before the audience from almost the very beginning! Whatever second thoughts Davies may have had later, there can be no doubt that in the original recordings of the song the playful, teasing ambiguity is deliberate and left tantalizingly unresolved at the end by the brilliantly ambiguous "... I'm glad I'm a man, and so is Lola." Even in Davies's quoted account of the song's origin, he opens the possibility gently and ambiguously with, "Have you seen the stubble?" instead of something heavyhanded like, "Hey, that chick's a dude!"

I am not a renowned music critic whose opinion means anything to anybody but me, but I think we do this marvelous song a grave disservice by saying so flatly "... which details a romantic encounter between a young man and a transvestite ...", when the song itself is anything but flat and ploddingly straightforward.

I will not get involved in even the slightest disagreement over this issue, so if any editor is determined to restore the description to its former state I will not revert it. But I hope anyone who feels compelled to remove the "possible" I am adding before "transvestite" will first take time to set aside the details of its composition for a few minutes and listen to the song itself in its original recordings; listen to the wonderfully playful spirit of this fantastic song and see how expansive, how gently open to all sorts of possibilities it actually is.

Within the song, whether Lola is a woman or a man is not anywhere near as important as the possibility that she may be either, and either possibility is just fine with the singer. Unlike most stories like this, which end in violence, the singer here thinks Lola is just great whichever he/she turns out to be.

Although the song almost surely would never have been written if Lola had been a woman, and therefore she almost surely is a man, the fact that the song doesn't ever hit us over the head with that fact – even at the end, when it almost seems to but really doesn't – is an important part of its gentle, playful, joyful charm.--Jim10701 (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:LGBT-related songs

The Category:LGBT-related songs has been added and deleted from this article by various editors, so I thought I'd bring it here for discussion. I don't see why this would be an appropriate category. No reliable source has indicated it is LGBT-related. Although the song was inspired after a person's night out with a transvestite, IMO that does not make this song LGBT-related. I'm interested in other views so the use of this category can be settled. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Professor Keith Gildart of Wolverhampton writes that "in 'Lola', Davies explored the theme of sexual ambiguity and transgression." (See Images of England Through Popular Music, page 144, ISBN 1137384255.) Professor Roy Shuker of Wellington writes that, while many mainstream pop songs are about heterosexual love, "others deal with other sexual orientations and sexual practices, for example the Kinks, 'Lola', 1970..." (See Understanding Popular Music, pp. 234–235, ISBN 041523509X.) These two books are by highly regarded publishers: Macmillan and Psychology Press. I would go with their assessment. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Those references would make a good addition to the article and looks like they would support the inclusion of that category. Bahooka (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

B-side - Berkeley Something

The album covers show "Berkeley Man" and "Berkeley News". The text states "Berkeley Mews".

Playful ambiguity? Maybe not... probably just a mistake.

It would be great if someone could clear this up. I can't because the only research channel I'm familiar with is inconclusive (hint you're reading it now). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.38.6.130 (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

"Berkeley Mews", as bizarre a title as it is, is actually correct. It was an unused track recorded during the sessions of The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society, and was featured in a few compilation albums. It is not uncommon for some foreign countries to change the title of songs (ex. on a few European covers of the "Wonderboy" single, the b-side, "Polly", is occasionally mislabeled as "Pretty Polly"). Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6596267/lola
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160602084720/http://australian-charts.com/forum.asp?todo=viewthread&id=35092 to http://australian-charts.com/forum.asp?todo=viewthread&id=35092

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) 09:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lola (song). 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://www.webcitation.org/6XfDYXak2?url=http://www.davedavies.com/articles/gm_0290.htm to http://www.davedavies.com/articles/gm_0290.htm

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) 09:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Another Song

I remember reading here that there was a remix of this song told from Lola's perspective and I assume it was removed from the article.

Does anyone remember this and if so, can I still have the name of the song? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.155.105 (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Possibly "Destroyer"? The song, though not from Lola's perspective, does feature a continuation of the Lola story. There's also the Weird Al parody but otherwise I don't know many other stories that feature Lola. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)