Talk:What I've Done

Single length 4:04

Removing, no proof, WID has never been any other length of time aside from 3:28~29.

Guitar Hero World Tour

I just noticed that the song What I've Done has been announced as a playable song in the upcoming video game Guitar Hero World Tour so I added the "Video Games" section to the article, which tells that the song has been announced for Guitar Hero World Tour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomdudeof2010 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Command & Conquer (video game)

My brother and I were looking at this video and it occurred to us that the scorpion, bald eagle, and the clip with the man firing a flame thrower towards the camera all suggested the game Command & Conquer (video game). 74.215.250.64 (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Transformers

I added a little bit of embellishment to the tid-bit about the songs feature in Transformers. Originally it only mentioned that the song is played during the end credits, i just wanted to show that it was also featured during the film as well; personally I think that adds much more credibility to a song when it's actually used in the film itself and not just the credits.
When Sam drops Mikaela off in the '76 Camaro, you can hear What I've Done playing in the background.
Watemon 12:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember hearing the song (or at least pieces of it) at least three times during the movie. 71.90.109.157 (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

iTunes US po.5?

No, Last time I saw it was at the second place. Marhadiasa 16:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Leak

Do not post the link here. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a port for free songs. Hello2112 18:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Most of the leaks online and on P2Ps are not the real What I've Done but some other song by some other band (including all of the files on 96% of the files on Limewire) Burnedthru 23:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Usually leaks occur ten to 12 days before the albums worldwide release. Looking at the dates on your comments, if you talk about a leak being real More than likely it's not real. The only real track is "What I've Done" and my main statement is on Talk:Minutes to Midnight (album) Look under Leak information.-Weatherman289 11:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Song Vocals

why does it say, that no vocals from Mike Shinoda are on this song? towards the end of the song he's the one in the background, going "no, no, no no, no", not Chester

so I am taking it off PlayingTheAngel 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Technically, either one can be true, the song could have been layered, but seeing as LP's changed, it could very well be Mike instead of Chester in the background in the outro. Hello2112 21:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that the video is out too, the mystery is revealed. It is indeed Mike at the end of the song going 'no no no...'. So both of them appear on this song | RafaelDK 21:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, in Crawling (song), Chester sings at the end "There's something inside me that pulls beneath the surface." but you see Mike saying that in the videoclip.RichV 19:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It is true, Mr Shinoda move his mouth but no sound exit from him, it is an alternate volume source emitting the wavesAleksi Peltola 20:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A tag of current single should be put along with this article. I also feel this article suffers Recentism.

kalhans 4th April 8:00 UTC

It isn't (No no no...) it's (Na Na Na...)

I'm wondering if the trivia section relating to this issue shouldn't be shortened. It was expanded on recently, but I think it's bordering on re-stating itself. Should it be reverted or re-worded? Paulbkirk 15:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Reword it. Actually, I think we should remove the Chester rapping thing, as it does not pertain to the song at all. Hello2112 17:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. That work for everyone? Paulbkirk 19:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks much better now. Thanks much. Hello2112 19:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

misc

i didn't know where else to put this. i removed the "tracklistings" off of that box, because it just isn't necessary. Musicslave 04:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is. I put it there because it's a useful piece of information as to which track the song is on its album. If I simply had created it off my own bat, it'd be a lot more complicated, but it's a pre-created template designed for that very use.

--linca^linca 05:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This song is not the first to feature singing vocals by Mike Shinoda. "Numb" features obvious backing vocals by Shinoda, and he sang backing vocals for in the choruses of numerous other Linkin' Park songs. The tidbit about this being the first that listeners have heard of Shinoda singing should be removed. 64.230.127.116 01:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

8/8 garbage

It's not 8/8, it's 4/4 and that description isn't the way you write it... plus it's not the feel he plays... and it's not uncommon in rock, which the song is. I removed the bit that said it was 8/8 because it was cruft (an 8/8 feel sounds disjointed, since it's 2 triplets and two parts of a triplet). Whoever added that section, read time signatures and consider re-placing that info correctly, but even then, the feel isn't an uncommon one, and certainly not for glam-metal (which this is). linca^linca 07:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed what you removed from the section regarding 8/8, and reviewed the track, and I'm sorry to say but the passage you removed is correct. If you listen to the drum pattern, it does play at a 2+3+3.
"Throughout the song a drum pattern in 8/8 with a 2+3+3 grouping is played, which is somewhat rare for mainstream acts to use."
I don't know for sure the validity of this drum pattern's "rarity" in rock (though that sounds more like speculation and original research), but as a musician studying composition, I can at least attest to this fact that the 2+3+3 grouping is indeed more commonly referred to as 8/8 rather than 4/4 because of the eighth notes' prominence and the somewhat displaced emphasis of the down beat, 2 beat, and up-beat of 3 coupled with the somewhat larger pause from the last emphasis to the next downbeat instead of a constant emphasis on every downbeat (1,2,3,4).
Watemon 12:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As a drummer, I can say that the beat played is a bossa nova beat on 4:4. Just because the emphasis may be on the . Nothing out of the ordinary. Not exactly what you usually hear on a metal album, but certainly not groundbreaking. Maybe it'd be of note to say that it's the first time this kind of a beat has been used by the band, but that'd be it. If you want to refer to "groundbreaking drumming" listed to some of Terry Bozzio's drumming on the new Korn album. Don't get me wrong here, he's a good drummer with LP, tight and solid, but it's nothing revolutionary. As the band themselves have said, their album is only revolutionary to them and hopefully enjoyable or thought provoking for others. --linca^linca 12:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not arguing whether or not the beat's revolutionary, personally that's irrelevant to me to be honest, I'm just saying the meter might be in 8/8. (I posted this above and am reposting it below)
In fact, more proof to the 8/8, at exactly 2:07 during that awesome guitar riff, the song takes a completely different feel, yet maintains the same amount of quarter notes (or eighth notes). The difference is the emphasis the percussion places on the beats. It changes, in the following example, every ti is a down beat, and every ta is an up beat, whatever's bold places emphasis.
HERE IS THE ORIGINAL PERCUSSION EMPHASIS OF 2+3+3: ti ta, ti ta, ti ta, ti ta
HERE IS WHAT IT CHANGES TO AT 2:07: ti ta, ti ta, ti ta, ti ta.
The emphasis is on every down beat except three, which heavily emphasizes a straight 1,2,3,4 beat. The pacing sort of slows in comparison to the rest of the song even though the tempo doesn't change, it's because of the pacing. I think 8/8 implies this pacing (somewhat faster, emphasizing eighth notes), while 4/4 implies a slower even pace, emphasizing quarter notes and the down beats.
Now seeing as the song is not a Bossa Nova style or remotely close, would that change the way the song is written in comparison to the regular 2/2 meter Bossa Nova is written in?
To my knowledge, Bossa Nova tunes are generally a great deal faster than the tempo for What I've Done, hence the Bossa Nova's 2:2 tempo; in this case I think it would be more accurate to say the tempo is 8:8, or even 2:2, I just feel that 4:4 is wrong. Different implications and different emphases.
Watemon 13:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, even if it is 8:8 (which it isn't, though I understand you may be studying musical composition, I have also and have been a performing musician for over 15 years), the inclusion of the fact in the article is trivial as there are several songs that use a very similar feel and therefore, it's nothing special. It's OR and it's incorrect. I'm sorry and I don't mean to be harsh about this, but it is a 4:4 feel. The only difference is that he's hitting the snare at different times within that time signature than usual, though not revolutionarily. --linca^linca 02:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, i'm not debating how revolutionary it is, in fact I don't think it's even relatively revolutionary. I agree that the whole revolution thing could do with being removed because it's stupid, I'm just referring to the time signature. Now, moving on
The song is not a 4/4 feel because the notes being stressed or not indeed "common" time or on every consecutive down beat, which is implied in 4/4 time signature. The mix of the percussion's stress pattern, melodic eighth note pattern, and lyrical quarter note and half note pattern, heavily emphasizes a compound structure. For example, the shift of the pacing at mark 2:07 on the track. The meter switches to a simple time, greatly shifting the pace, then shifts back to the compound time. There is an obvious shift in the pace, from the Westernly-uncommon 4/4 symmetrical time signature to the 8/8 uneven time signature. Though this effect can be easily accomplished by "hitting the snare at different times", the simplicity of the technique does not justify it as 4/4. I don't propose to include this information because of it's "revolutionary" I propose to include it because it's interesting info in regards to Linkin Park's typical compositional style.
If you don't believe it's 8/8, you have to provide actual evidence to argue why it is better to say the song is 4/4 feel than 8/8. Just saying "it isn't" is not viable enough to exclude it from the article. You can disagree with it, fine, another detail that's irrelevant, but if you wish for it to be removed, you have to either provide a source from Linkin Park, directly, that says they wrote the song with a 4/4 feel, or provide evidence such as rhythmical analysis or an analysis of songs with similar rhythms and feels that prove What I've Done is actually 4/4 as opposed to 8/8. For example, Coldplay's Clocks has a very similar pacing to What I've Done, the difference is the duple eighths precede the two sets of triplet eighths.
I mean no offense, but it's hard to argue an opinion if you don't defend it outside of how simple the drum technique is.
Watemon 05:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

"When the song was first released, many fans mistook the song to be part of the soundtrack for the upcoming film, Rob Zombie's Halloween. This was due to the intro of the song being similiar to the original Halloween theme."

since there's no sources, links, or anything to reference to, i removed it. personally, i didn't make the connection to either the song nor the movie. unless there's proof, this section should stay off the article. FyreNWater 07:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Weird sentence

"It features the band performing in the desert, while reflecting on a variety of social issues including stem cell research, pollution, global warming, racism, Nazism, famine, wars, deforestation, drug addiction, obesity, destruction, and other crimes committed by humanity"

• That makes it sound like the "social issues" mentioned before the list is all "crimes commited by humanity". 83.233.182.19 20:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality does not appear to appear in the video. The main article had been edited to attempt to indicate this. I have removed the references since they do not appear in the video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.235.195 (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Component Charts

The Pop 100, Modern Rock Tracks, and Mainstream Rock Tracks are not to be confused as a Component chart, and should NOT be deleted from chart tables. A component chart is a variant of the main chart, for example the Pop 100 Airplay is a component chart of the main Pop 100 chart. According to WP:CHARTS the Pop 100 is always an acceptable chart to display in chart tables, and so are Modern and Mainstream rock charts if the song is a rock song, which this song is. Not to mention if you check you will see that the Pop 100 and Rock charts are included in the tables of dozens of singles here on wikipedia, so again please stop deleting these. WIKI-GUY-16 03:40 , 1 May 2007 (UTC) When did stem cell research become a crime commited by humanity?

bots

"Evanescence's "Sweet Sacrifice" video was winning by a wide margin until Linkin Park fans employed bots to submit hundreds of votes in the final days of the competition". I checked the link provided, and it does not indicate in any way shape or form the bot statement. As such, I have marked it with the Citation needed template. Falcon37 00:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

An alternate video?

I don't know whether it is an official video or not, but I just saw an alternate video showing a woman entering a lab and handing a suitcase to men with LP jackets and stuff. Anyone know info about this? 128.205.124.37 19:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've seen the video you're talking about, but so far, I dunno anything about it, except that it's apparenty the Australian version of the music video, changed for whatever reason.
• Many bands do make a special video for the Australians, it is something sinister surely, perhaps plot to mind control the rest of the world, through the musical video? Aleksi Peltola 20:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0iIKjpv_4w&mode=related&search=

Here's the video. (sucks balls, btw) --James599 17:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What'cha talking about? I like the Australian video, much better than the official vid. Of course, I've always been a stickler for music videos that tell a story, instead of just random crap flashing across the screen that may or may not have anything to do with the song or its message. 66.233.183.59 05:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Notable clips from the video

There's a structure which appears ~1:30 minutes into the clip. Is that the Parthenon? If so, please add it.

Song length

The length of the song on the album is the same as the length of the song on the single. There shouldn't be two different track times listed. 70.48.70.140 16:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Halo 2 refernce

"The words Regret, Truth and Mercy are used in the song and is a reference to the Prophets of the Covenant in the Halo Series"

There is no source given, and seeing as the song is reflecting on the sins of an individual/humanity as a whole it may just be a coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.94.92 (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Noticeable clips- Cloning or genetic engineering?

With one of the clips of this track with human science, it looks more like genetic engineering than cloning, so I'm going to change cloning to genetic engineering.

Fair use rationale for Image:WhatI'veDoneCover.jpg

Image:WhatI'veDoneCover.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Under Attack

I keep seeing theese images on the internet about and EP for Linkin Park in which the cover is a picture of the WTC in a taget sight. Is there EP like this cuz it sure dont say anything about it on Wikipedia. Or isit just an edited image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Laser (talk • contribs) 23:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oh man sorry wrong page

Blue Laser (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Similarity to MakeDamnSure

The video is similar to Taking Back Sunday's MakeDamnSure and even uses the same clips. I feel this needs to be mentioned, but what should I include as a source? Titan50 (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Metal

Would anybody say that this song is the Fourth heaviest track on the album. At heart this track has to be Alternative Metal. The track is basically a Somewhere I Belong track without the rap. The track is a build up track like somewhere i belong and is closer too Meteora than it is to Minutes to Midnight also because somewhere i belong is called Alternative Metal and that track isn't that heavy this track belongs under the same genre as Somewhere I Belong which is Alternative Metal meaning this track is Alternative Metal.

P.S. This track is also hard rock actually It is closer to Hard Rock than it is to Alternative Metal or Alternative Rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.88.114 (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I see where your coming from, it does have some heavy feel to it and compared with shadow of the day, leave out all the rest its heavy as hell but in comparison to other ALT Metal it really isn't heavy enough. Hard Rock isn't as far as some might think but Alt Rock is probably the best description.

ps. this isn't really relevent but I'd say In Pieces is heavier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.13.54 (talk) 08:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's heavier than some Alternative Metal songs, I think Alternative Metal fits fine, though it has more of a Hard Rock sound than an Alternative Metal sound. 139.228.111.117 (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

alternative chart performance

i deleted the part on the alternative chart performance were it said that the song at the time of its release was tied for the longest number one single one the Modern Rock Charts because that statement is fake for example Scar Tissue" — Red Hot Chili Peppers (1999) It's Been Awhile" — Staind (2001) Boulevard of Broken Dreams" — Green Day (2004-05) all charted for SIXTEEN weeks well before What I've Done peaked at FIFTEEN weeks Feedmyeyes (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on What I've Done. 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/20070406174359/http://lptimes.com/news2007/april/news04042007.html to http://lptimes.com/news2007/april/news04042007.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5vBJaFOw4?url=http://www.linkinpark.com/page/lp-underground-x-demos-1 to http://www.linkinpark.com/page/lp-underground-x-demos-1

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) 14:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)