Talk:Auld Lang Syne/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those "extra" words in the last line

Burns wrote the last lines of verse and chorus as "And auld lang syne" and "For auld lang syne" - but as we all know the extra words "the sake of" and "the days of" are typically added when a group of inebriates (even Scots ones) are singing it. They are of course "incorrect", in so far as we "should" be singing Burns' original words - although as it is after all a folk song (albeit one with a literary background and known "authorship") then the "correct" way is neither more nor less that the way it is actually being sung by a particular singer at a particular moment, surely?

ANYWAY - the idea that the extra words are tautology, or based on an incorrect idea of what the words actually mean is definitely not correct. "Syne" means "since", not "sake" - and "For the sake of auld lang syne" makes perfectly good sense, and incidentally is good Scots. The only reason for not singing it that way is that it's not what Burns wrote (sufficient reason perhaps, but getting the typical New Year's crowd to agree might be hard).

But if the extra words were NOT added by some dopey Sassenach who had no idea what "auld lang syne" meant anyway, where do they come from? In setting words to a tune we in fact quite often slur some of the words over several notes - but in folk song this is relatively rare, and mostly we expect each word (or each syllable - in folk song usually the same thing) to have its own note. It is a discernible part of the "folk process" that melodies sometime lose notes and lyrics gain words, in an unconscious effort to get a song to comply with the "one word one note" pattern. In this sense any group of singers (even Scots) especially "merry" ones, are liable to trip a little over the need to sing "for", "auld" and "lang" over two notes - and add the extra words their unsophisticated ears tell them really should be there.

I honestly don't thing we need look further than this for the source of those "extra words"!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not Pentatonic????

I think the edit to this effect might be just a "tease" to prove how unmusical most Wiki editors are? Just for the record, it IS pentatonic, of course. At least the melody itself is. Set to conventional four-part harmony some of the other parts may well use "extra-pentatonic" notes (IVs and VIIs). This happens if you use diatonic harmony on a pentatonic melody - but it doesn't alter the nature of the melody itself. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Uses

We seem to be getting an escalation of "uses" of very minor notability or interest. Why not replace all but a small core of these with a general summary (something like - "the song is nowadays used in many and varied "farewell" settings - ranging from funerals and graduations to retail stores' announcement of their closing times - in both English speaking and non-English speaking countries). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it really? Before I came to Japan I only heard it at new years, or as a drinking song. --122.251.230.180 (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

DONE!! A good deal of redundant, non-notable, and repeated matter had crept into the article through multiple edits - I have tried to tidy it up a bit. The article still needs a lot more references! I have not attempted to tag the places where these should go. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have never commented on an article before and this is rather minor but it seems wrong to say that Auld Lang Syne" and "America The Beautiful", chosen to be performed together at the Drum Corps International Competition have "coincidentally" got the same meter. I am sure there are several songs with the same meter, but to say that it is coincidence that songs of the same meter were picked by a group of drummers - who I suspect are fairly aware of meter - is just silly. It was probably picked because it had the same meter, not "coincidentally". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.25.41 (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Based on folk song

Burns didn't write it, he wrote it down, according to the latest QI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.156.213 (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The article addresses this in the first paragraph of the History section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.49.67 (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Burns always claimed the words to be those of a folk song - and at least for the first verse and chorus this is generally accepted and has always been clearly pointed out in this article. The current "new discovery" of the fact does not need covering by changes in the article (please). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The origins of the poem are unclear, but it is not disputed that Burns 'borrowed' words and phrases from older sources, as was common practice throughout most of history. What is clear, however, is that what we now call "Auld Lang Syne" was written by Burns. There is no need to confuse its origins by changing the lead when this is all discussed in the article, particularly without any new solid cite. QI, and the great Stephen Fry, doesn't count as one. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 01:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes Syne does so mean "Sake" ?????

Here's the deal: The other day someone asked me what the words to that song meant, because the song didn't make any sense. I looked up the wikipedia article and it still didn't make any sense. Then I remembered how people used to translate it, "For old times' sake". At that point, it made sense. No, it's not a "literal" translation, but it's how it's used in the song, and makes the most sense - a poetic translation, and if you read the reference you'll see the same argument being made. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense, I would advise both sides to discuss it here on the talk page, rather than edit warring. Both sides are at 3RR right now, so let's continue it here. Dayewalker (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
You are only right in that the 'sake' is taken as read when the 'for' is added. But not only does 'sake' not appear in the lyric or the title, the meaning of the poem's title only becomes apparent with the addition of 'for' in the lyric. While the lyric says "for old times", (meaning the same as "for old times' sake", i.e. in memory of old times) the title itself merely translates as "old times"; no "for", no "sake".
I can see that adding "sake" to the translation may make the overall meaning of the poem clearer. But particular care needs to be taken that the reader doesn't think 'syne' means 'sake', which is a common mistake. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 01:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
That (avoiding the "syne = sake" trap) is basically what I was upset by too. I can't see why "sake" has to come into it all - "for old times" (what the lyrics say) is not notably unclear - with or without "sake". More to the point - what the text of the article at the point where Baseball Bugs originally chimed in is talking about is NOT the "overall meaning of the poem", but the meaning of the actual Scots phrase "Auld lang syne". Translating it (poetically or otherwise) as "old time's sake" makes no sense at all in the verse (if it did, we would need a "sake" after "auld acquaintance", too!), and in the chorus the meaning (because of the "for") is plain enough anyway. Exactly what "doesn't make any sense"? Given that we sing the bloody thing every year without thinking much about the meaning - and perhaps the morning after some of us might be in a state where nothing makes much sense... :) Sorry if I was getting grumpy - I'm allowed to at my age. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed a cite to this page here; http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2008/12/30143236, for the simple reason that what it said makes no sense. It states;

the song's title literally means 'old long since', but is the equivalent of such sayings as 'for old time's sake'

In which case, what it is suggesting is that Burns wrote in the chorus; "For for old time's sake". (Two "for"s). Similarly, James Watson's version says "On Old long syne my Jo", which according to this translation would mean "On for old time's sake", which is equally meaningless.

The simple fact is that The poem's title is "Auld Lang Syne", and the first line of the chorus is "For auld lang syne". So any translation of the title cannot include "for", unless we think that Burns and Watson meant to say it twice. I can't image why they would. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Syne does not mean 'sake', and neither does it mean 'since' really (although undoubtably of the same root). In speech it means 'then'. E.G "I hae thocht o that foolish licht/ Ever sin' syne." (I have thought of that foolish light/ ever since then) to quote Hugh MacDiarmid. The "literal" translation then would be "old long then" which obviously doesn't really make sense in English, but since it is idiomatic and not even in English, this shouldn't cause any problems. AGW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.71.141 (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

QI

QI 7x05 Groovy says this was not written by burns... 86.68.122.40 (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please - QI is not a reference. Read the article - where the degree and nature of Burns' authorship is fully discussed. For that matter, look at the history. This kind of rubbish comes up every year.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
QI is certainly not a source - but they do use Burns' own words as a source, and I am surprised that the fact that he himself denied writing it, and identified it as an old folk song he took down from an old man singing, is no where in this article. That seems an odd thing to leave out of an article that's primarily about the history of the song. http://www.themorgan.org/exhibitions/online/AuldLangSyne/default.asp?id=9 173.23.238.78 (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
NO it doesn't "leave it out" at all - please at least read the text before you comment on it - don't comment on text you either can't or won't read. The degree to which Burns' poem is based on the words of a folk song is in fact discussed, under "history", quite close to the top of the article. Or ae you stuck in the introduction? QI is great fun, but should definitely NOT be taken as the last word on this or any other subject - it is often (in fact nearly always) simplistically contrarian. (Quite deliberately so, of course, that's the point of the joke!) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting...

... the reference to Friedrich Silcher, a German songwriter of those times, and his translation of this wonderful song. Thanks for removing the whole 'Trivia' chapter, thanks probably sometimes for removing the whole article about this wonderful song Auld Lang Syne - thanks to Deletionmaster General, the most unwanted person in universe. And don't ask me to support your Deletioncypedia with money, or with articles (which obviously might be removed!)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.106.95.168 (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

More Deletings

Thanks as well, Deletion Master of Deletioncyclopedia, for removing the lyrics of Hotaru no hikari (fortunately it was reposted here in the discussions), the notable transforming of this song into the Japanese world. Thanks for all of these deletings, and thanks in advance for probably having to await the deletion of this article as well...

And we'll have to do some more weeding too, soon!

Regardless of our disgruntled friend above - some more lines will have to go soon - having said (as we do) that it has been translated into many other languages, for example, we don't really need to list every version in every other language. Having mentioned (as we have) that it has become a common custom all over the world to sing it at graduation, passing out and "end of function" ceremonies, as well as at the new year - there seems to be little value in mentioning this over and over for every country concerned.

This is an article about Auld Lang Syne - not a "we sing(ed) it too" competition. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sheet music

This is great - and in theory there should be no copyright problems? I mean whether we count it as written by Burns or as a folk song it's still in the common domain, isn't it?

Alas, I fear that a page of sheet music pulled straight from a book like this is almost certainly a great big copyright NO NO. The harmonisation, transcription, text (erroneous anyway) apart from the (wrong) lyrics, are all someone's "intellectual property".

Copyright is something that NEEDS to be addressed every time we upload any kind of graphic file.

Having said all this - any musically literate person with a steady hand or suitable computer software want to do something similar and make a present of it to Wikipedia? Probably best to keep to a single melody line in case someone has the rights to a particular harmonisation though. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That would probably be best stored at the Commons but it is a good idea. This song has been in print for nearly two hundred years. Surely we can find at least one public domain copy of the sheet music for it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Alte lange Zeit

Denning97 (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)the phrase Auld Lang Syne - could that not simply be an influence from the German (Anglo-Saxon) "alte lange Zeit" = a long time ago? The meaning would be the same as everything I have read, but the derivation would be more logical.

It's not likely but it's not impossible either. Word for word the equivalent would be "Auld Lang Tide" rather than "Auld Lang Syne". But we already have the phrase "long since" in standard English and the Scots equivalent "lang syne", both meaning "since long ago". So there's no need to look to German for another logical derivation. Do you have a source that agrees with you ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Friedrich Silchers translation of 'Auld Lang Syne' into German language, which appeared around the year of 1830, might give an answer to this question - unfortunately, Wikipedia's Deletionmaster General removed the reference and the text which I had listed in the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.115.215.250 (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"Other Britons"

Someone seriously suggesting that the Welsh and English (and for that matter the Irish) haven't spread the use of Auld Lang Syne as much (or nearly as much) as the Scots? It's a British (and for that matter, nowadays a world wide) custom, and has been for many years. One would have thought Scots nationalists would be proud of that! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that all Scots are proud that "Auld Lang Syne" is a now worldwide custom whether they are separatists or unionists. I am surprised that you would think otherwise. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course I don't think anything of the kind. It was just that someone had cut out the "other Britons" bit - I was as lost as you as to what might be a rational motive for this. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Song? Poem? (comment on recent good faith edit)

The two are not mutually exclusive. It certainly isn't "innacurate" to call song lyrics "poems" - especially when they are written by recognised poets, and (even more especially) when only a stanza or two of the poem concerned is ever actually sung!!

When you read it it's a poem - if you sing it it's a song - in various contexts it's called one or the other throughout the article - no need to fiddle with this, I feel - far from being innacurate or inappropriate it's natural, and useful. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

About that tune ...

The tune commonly used for Auld Lang Syne today is a traditional hymn called Plenary. As a hymn it has more often been used with these heartening words:

Hark! from the tomb, a doleful sound,
Mine ears attend the cry,
Ye living men, come view the ground
Where you must shortly lie.

(chorus) Where you must shortly lie,
Where you must shortly lie,
Ye living men, come view the ground
Where you must shortly lie.

Princes, this clay must be your bed,
In spite of all your tow'rs;
The tall, the wise, the rev'rend head,
Must lie as low as ours.

(chorus) Must lie as low as ours, etc.

Great God! Is this our certain doom?
And are we still secure?
Still walking downward to the tomb,
And yet prepared no more.

(chorus) And yet prepared no more, etc.

I just wanted to brighten your day! 75.63.4.101 (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

And this one, likewise, works with "America the Beautiful", except for both tunes you have to drag out the "shortly lie" line. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup, good call. It works indeed. The old songs were sort of "interchangeable" with lyrics based on meter. Both of these tunes happen to be what is called "common meter" so the lyrics can be switched. If you look in an old hymnal (or any other traditional songbook, for that matter) you'll see notations like "CM" (common meter) "SM" (short meter), "LM" (long meter), "8s 7s" (8 syllables alternating with 7 syllables), etc. These notations are telling you the meter, so that if you happen to be leading the singing you'll know you can sing the tune on page 117 with the words to the song on page 324, etc. In R. Burns' day and up to the mid-19th cent, songs were not typically even printed with tunes, just the words, so people had to use whatever tune they knew that fit. It goes back a lot further than that, even. See Bay Psalme Book, e.g.

So I feel doubtful Burns actually "picked a tune" to go with his poetry, (unless he published it in song form during his lifetime.) He must have known people would sing it with whatever tune worked! Even Amazing Grace did not become firmly associated with the tune we now think of, called New Britain, until pretty late in the game, I think late 19th cent. It can be, and still is, sung with many other tunes. 75.63.4.101 (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the allegation that this was the tune Burns had in mind in other places too (eg 1st comment here), but I'm too lazy to try and find a source reliable enough to incorporate this into the article. Happy New Year! --Thrissel (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
It's an old folk tune - almost certainly Scots (although it may be Northumbrian!) and was certainly around long before Burns. Its earliest recorded use (i.e. the first time something very like it was actually written down) dates from 1781 - there is a passing allusion to it in the conclusion to the overture of Rosina a light opera by English composer William Shield. This is periodically resurrected as a "new discovery" that "Auld Lang Syne was written by an Englishman". Shield uses the tune to invoke farm workers indulging in a lively folk dance, incidentally - anything less like a morbid hymn would be hard to imagine. Hymns quite often use folk tunes (as has been hinted above, often the one hymn will be sung to several different folk tunes), and it is hardly surprising that the funeral hymn above has been sung to the Auld Lang Syne melody (probably to an even drearier metre). But have we any evidence that the hymn in question predates Burns composition of the song? It looks very Victorian to me both in style and in its treatment of the subject matter - in the absence of documentation to the contrary I would date it to somewhere in the mid 1800s. If it was originally meant to be sung to the Auld Lang Syne tune (and we certainly can't assume that) it was most likely actually derived from the tune, not a source of it. It is also at least an interesting coincidence that it is a funeral hymn - and Auld Lang Syne is often sung at funerals. If this is NOT a coincidence then it would indicate that the hymn is derived from Burns' song rather than being his inspiration. So I have to agree with Thrissel that we need a source - and a scholarly one at that!! before we can take any note of all this in the article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Another note - there is strong evidence that Burne very often DID have a particular melody in mind when he wrote lyric verse. There are for instance two different versions of Ye banks and braes of bonnie Doon that differ in scansion to fit different melodies. Unless the "singing of an old man" that Burns claimed as the source of Auld Lang Syne is a complete fiction this seems even more likely in this case.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
The folk tune linked above by Thrissel is indeed a variant of the tune first associated in print to any of the Old Long Syne poems. The earliest form of the tune comes from a Henry Playford book published in 1700. Its first association with any Old Long Syne poetry comes from Orpheus Caledonia, a 1725 publication from William Thomson, who used a 1723 Allan Ramsay poem. A variant of the "old" melody accompanied the first publication of Burns' Auld Lang Syne poem in 1796, which predates the association of the more-popular melody by appr. 3 years.
I do intend to update the Melody section of this article with some of this information, and possibly create an article about the history of the two tunes themselves. As the former will come first, any advice would be appreciated. I am still new to Wikipedia editing. --ErikJBell (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

--CactusBot (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


Beethoven

Of course, Beethoven did, perhaps, the first arrangement of the song but there is another story (a long one) that places him as the author of the music. This isn't as "out there" as it seems and, though a well known story amongst musicians for a very long time, I have never found a reference in a book about it. As the lyricist and the famous composer did know each other and had worked together on arrangements and even fabrications of "traditional" Scotish melodies, the story is... maybe true. Gingermint (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Taking you seriously (sorry, but imputing humorous motives might be in breach of policy on assumption of good faith) but NO. The "story" you are thinking of may very well be this one William Shield and Auld Lang Syne. Beethoven has never been credited with (or accused of, depending on one's point of view) having anything to do with the melody of "Auld Lang Syne" by anyone. William Shield has - but even then it is recognised that he was quoting a folk melody. It's all in the article. And by the way - edits to discussion pages go at the end - unless you are specifically adding to a topic. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I was a little TOO dismissive of this - Beethoven did indeed arrange the melody as part of a little suite of Scottish songs - but of course it had already become quite famous by that time, and he certainly didn't write the melody itself. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

File:AuldLangSyne.ogg Deleted

 An image used in this article, File:AuldLangSyne.ogg, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Adrignola for the following reason: No OTRS permission received
What should I do?
A different bot should have (or will soon) remove the image code from the article text (check if this has been done correctly). If you think the image deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons. You could also try to search for new images to replace the old one.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Non English Speaking Countries

My wife, who is from China, has informed me that this song is not actually seen as a sad song but a song commemorating a long lasting or everlasting friendship. This article states that the song is sad and notably signifies the end of a relationship in China, which is not necessarily true (possibly for the younger generation). I would be keen on updating the entry to be more correct from my Wifes point of view but thought I would open a discussion on it first. Comments? Justacec (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the song is particularly sad in English-speaking countries either. It's just happily nostalgic. Your wife has a very sensible view on the song. -- Derek Ross | Talk 08:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

other movies with the song

30 Seconds Over Tokyo (1944) - sung at a party before airmen are deployed to the naval carriers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.135.100.20 (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Auld Lang Syne in Taiwan

The article says "In Taiwan, the tune is generally associated with funeral services". and then "It is also sung at graduation ceremonies". I would say it is just the other way around. If you talk to people in Taiwan about the song, first thing that comes to their mind are the graduation ceremonies.

At least now the article added the "graduation ceremonies". A couple of weeks ago it said the song is only associated with funerals which was totally wrong.

Sorry I am not familiar with using/editing etc. Wikipedia yet, so I might not do this correctly here. Ilon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.218.150.126 (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Use in Non-English speaking countries

Several of these simply stated that ALS was sung in the country concerned for New Year, Farewells, Funerals, Graduations, Boy Scouts functions etc.

All very fine - but unless there is something distinctive about the use of ALS in a particular country (like, say, it was once used for the National Anthem, or is the tune for the song of a popular football team) this was never really notable. In fact ALS is used almost everywhere for these things - and they are detailed above.

The problem was that once you add the name of one country (province, state, city, village, school etc.) and (no doubt quite accurately) attach the "common" uses of the tune - then you have no real comeback for anyone who wants to add to the list. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Those "lists"!!!!!

I have "been bold" and taken an axe to some of the we sung it too lists. The only one I have left untouched (as yet anyway) is the films list. Would a film buff like to eliminate all not-particularly-notable films, as well as those where the use of ALS is extremely peripheral and/or confined to the opening or closing credits? Otherwise I'll have a shot at it sometime soon. The point is very simply that this article needs to be (at least in the main) about its subject. Lots of what we either have, or will, delete might be a very important part of another article, just not this one. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't know what kind of crack judgement you used to thin down the "notable covers" list. It looks like you just left a half dozen arbitrary bands from the old list and tore a bunch out for no good reason. "Scottish singer-songwriter Dougie MacLean sang "Auld Lang Syne" on his 1996 Tribute album." I have absolutely no idea how that's notable in any way. Tons of schmucks have put out Auld Lang Syne covers on albums. Meanwhile, Phish riding a giant hot dog into the crowd while a multicultural ensemble on stage dances and sings for 20 minutes isn't notable. PiemanLK (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
If you don't like him then cut him off too! In the past we've been far too lenient on the "notable" if you ask me. Remember this article is MUCH "larger" (more fundamentally important) than any pop band. And yet how important would the cover of ALS be in an article about the band? If their cover of ALS is not a vital part of THEIR history, then why should it signify at all in the story of ALS?? Would it be best to cut all the lists completely - and give people a chance to reintroduce particular bands/film/renditions, but to have to justify their notability to a basically hostile gallery first? Yes, I have been a bit arbitrary, to be honest, but someone has to cut the gordian knot here, or a good article will continue to be spoiled by a load of stupid trivia. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with removing the lot. Really, the only reason for including any is where the performance is of particular notability within cultural history. The kind of performance that many people would specifically mention if asked about ALS. Noting that an artist of middling significance recorded yet another version of ALS adds absolutely zilch to the significance of ALS. It may be important to them, but is of no importance to the song. Fact is thousands of artist have performed this song. We cannot list them all, and even if we could it would be pointless list cruft.
And Phish's performances aren't going in unless it can be cited and demonstrated they are of interest to anyone other than Phish's fans. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The "films" list

I have basically deleted this. Reasons as discussed above - but this list in particular added nothing whatever to the article, and threatened to continue to grow expotentially into the future. Someone might like to resurrect it as a "list" type article in its own right? Or to a general article about films, or film music? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Ye're daein the richt thing, chiel. It's nae loss. This sang's that embeddit in the cultur that it's aw ower the plaice. Nae need to pit them aw doon. Or ony o them for that maitter. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"Lyrics" table

I have several questions about this one - which for a while now has been cluttered to the point of illegibility:

Are we justified in including:

  • The James Watson poem? would this be better done by quoting (say) a single stanza and chorus in the history section, where this poem is mentioned? It only has pretty peripheral interest, after all.
  • The "as a Scotsman would pronounce it" guide that was recently deleted. One can see the rationale for deleting it, to be honest - it is hardly academically respectable, but was it in fact useful to some readers?
  • The Scots Gaelic version someone recently added. After all the poem is a Scots one, and does not have a Gaelic origin, any more than it has a Tibetan one. Scots may well be a language in its own right, but it is not related to Gaelic. Gaelic's relations include Irish and Welsh - in the same sense the relations of Scots are other dialects of English, such as Geordie, Yorshire, Scouse, and Cockney (or, for that matter, my own native Australian). No matter how "Scots nationalist" one might be, I just don't see the connection.

Anyway - depending on feedback, or lack of it, on this one I hereby signal my intent to:

  • Hack out James Watson - adding at least an idea of this poem elsewhere.
  • Restore the "rough and ready" pronounciation guide (with all its faults)
  • Remove the Gaelic version altogether as irrelevant.

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I approve. Go for it! -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Why was the Scots pronunciation guide deleted?

Somebody from 93.91.49.11 deleted the entire "Scots pronunciation guide" column in the lyrics section without stating any reason. If this was vandalism, is there a reason why it was not restored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.13.69 (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

See above - it went to make room for the Gaelic translation, I think - see above where I discuss this - waiting for a bit more feedback (and the end of the "silly season" on this article) before I fix it, though. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Burns did not write Auld Lang Syne

I was surprised to see this said here because I thought it was fairly well known that Burns collected this old song and wrote it down but did not write it himself. See http://www.themorgan.org/exhibitions/online/AuldLangSyne/zoom.asp?id=9 treesmill (talk) 07:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"Fairly well known" maybe - but wrong all the same. Please read "history" just under the lead, where Burns' authordship is discussed, and the germ of truth in this particular common idea discussed. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"Grammar"

I was probably a little hard on the good faith edit I just reverted, that claimed a piece of perfectly good English prose that had been there for many years was "ungrammatical". For what it is worth, if they'd claimed their version was a little clearer (although even that would have been questionable) - it would probably have been allowed to stand. Anyway - sorry if I was grumpy. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to do with "without the old land", please

Deeply shocked and upset that one of the most consulted articles on wikipedia could have been so cunningly vandalised, and NOBODY (mea culpa too) saw it for four hours. Or was it good faith after all? PLEASE what wiki does NOT need is "editors" who barge in on very "high traffic" articles with really drastic revisions. PLEASE first actually read the article, then bring up your queries on this talk page, and then wait for a day or so before barging in. It really is VERY unlikely that we've got something quite THAT wrong. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Jipy Jay

The addition to the article about a song called Jipy Jay has been removed because it appears to be original research, which Wikipedia does not permit, and is uncited. Before adding it again could a source be provided that connects it to Auld Lang Syne, either by explaining it is the same song, a translation, or bears musical similarities. Otherwise it appears that the connection between the two is just someone's personal opinion. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-Peruvians, at least, need a bit more information here to decide whether this should remain as part of this article. It is important that we get this right - since this is one of those articles that attracts a great deal of trivial, irrelevant, and otherwise "non-notable" information, as well as interesting things that simply belong somewhere else.
  • Is this (more or less) a translation of Auld Lang Syne into Spanish, with (more or less) the same melody?
If so it is probably not notable - there are many, many translations of this "universal" song into different languages - we could not possibly note them all in this article - which is after all essentially about the original song.
  • Is it used more or less like the original version of the song? (for New Year, graduations, funerals, farewells etc. etc.).
So many countries have a version of Auld Lang Syne that is used in this way that we have stopped listing them, unless there is something ususual about its use (have a look at the examples we have kept to get some idea what we are talking about here).
  • Is it really quite a different song - with its own lyrics and/or melody?
If so it may even be notable enough to have its own article - but it probably doesn't belong here.
--Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I believe that you haven't heard the song or read the citation that i put there so that's why you believe that you need further information to decide if my contribution should be in the main page of ALS: http://www.locheros.com/culturayocio/id/24/cantando-la-verdadera-historia-del-jipi-jay
I believe it's really unfair that many countries have their own section because of international versions of auld lang syne that are only sung in universities or parades, while "jipy jay" is sung all over Peru, has very distinctive peruvian music (but still with the main tune of ALS), and it's usually sung as a farewell song (see videos on youtube if you are unsure).
Thanks! Juanmaklaot (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
This is an article about a Scots song called "Auld Lang Syne". Because that song has become a universal part of world culture and has been translated into many languages, and is sung (especially to greet the New Year) all over the world we do have a section about its international use. This is NOT there, however, as a "we sing it too competion", with rules, the breach of which would be "unfair". Fairness or unfairness don't come into it. From your own statements the Peruvian version of the song is not in the context of this article unusual, either in substance or in the way it is used. In other words it is a rather "straight" version of the song, and is used in the "normal" way. The specific "national" versions of the song that we DO mention all have something interestingly different about them. Sorry, but as I have already said - we need to keep this article a reasonable size - we just don't have space to describe every variant. Is this the sort of thing that belongs in a Peruvian (or a general Spanish language) version of Wikipedia? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Cite wanted for use by Scouting movement??

About as necessary as for citing that it is used at New Year, surely? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's used for everything-in Japan it is "the store is closing" music-so yes, if such a claim is made without reference, it needs a source.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I have no objection whatever to there being a reference, if we happen to have one. In fact you look like just the person to supply that reference! I have searched a bit for a good one myself, and have located several accounts of Jamborees etc where the singing of ALS as part of the closing ceremony is mentioned - but I don't think that this is quite what we want (WP:RS and all that). The point of my deleting the tag, and of my initial remark on this thread, is that this is (honestly now, and you know as well as me!) not exactly a doubtful or controversial statement, or one that needs a reference to establish its veracity. The only reason we'd want a ref is that its nice to everything referenced, not that this is a particular case where we especially want one. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

"Scots pronunciation"

Sure this is a bit problematic - depends on where in Scotland you are, and how you interpret the very makeshift "phonetic" spelling anyway. But it has survived the scrutiny of many Scottish editors now, so it can't be all that wrong! Raise in talk first, at least. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It may not be the Scots pronuciation but it is definitely a Scots pronunciation. And that's really the best we can do. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The IPA transcript provides a Broad Scots pronunciation from Ayrshire, which is Burns's cauf kintra. Nogger (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Number of translations

A recent addition to the lead claims that ALS has been translated in 40 languages. But it is sourced to a source of very dubious verifiability that makes no attempt to expand on the claim. The section on In_non-English-speaking_countries|other usage also doesn't verify this. The lead is supposed to summarise the article, not introduce facts not discussed in the article. If it is to be used, can it be obtained from a better source and mentioned in this section. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Revert well-meant edits adding "example" to the "films" section.

With a good deal of regret - the following (obviously good faith) addition has been excised:

The most notable use of the song in a film is the 1946 Christmas classic, It's A Wonderful Life by Frank Capra. The song is sung by the entire cast in the final scene. The film uses the Robert Burns version of the song. [1]

The fact is that ALS is used in the music soundtrack of literally hundreds of films, and at one stage we were accumulating many more or less "notable" examples of this. The end result was that quite a lengthy section (almost a "list" type article in its own right) was devoted to the use of ALS in films. Attempts to reduce this to a "highly notable" core of representative examples had to be abandonned, and it was decided by a consensus of editors that we should cut the list altogether. The problem is that statements like "The most notable (moving, appropriate, beautifully performed, characteristic etc. etc.)" really remain unverifiable opinion, however "reliable" the source.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ "How Auld Lang Syne took over the world". BBC News. 30 December 2013. Retrieved 16 January 2014.

Use in Non-English speaking countries

Almost everywhere in the world, it seems, Auld Lang Syne is used for New Year, graduations, farewells, especially by the Boy Scout movement. Having said this, as we do near the top of the article, there is no benefit (at least in this article) of repeating these "standard" uses over and over and over again, for every country or region on Earth. The "uses" we have left that ARE attached to some country all have something at least mildly different and interesting about them. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

English pronunciation.

An English pronunciation should be added as the article's in English and the only pronunciation given is the Scots one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meemo16 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The Scots English is the English pronunciation. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The "English pronunciation" (or standard English anyway) for the phrase "auld lang syne" is "old long since". Actually someone has pointed out that "syne" often corresponds to "then" rather than "since" - making the "English" for "syne" (if there is such a thing) "since", or perhaps "then", but certainly not "zyne" - which isn't a word at all, either in Scots or any other language. Another way of saying the same thing - "auld lang syne" is Scots, "old long since" is "Standard" English, but "auld lang zyne" is NOT standard English but just badly pronounced Scots, and certainly doesn't deserve a special mention, or translation into IPA. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Adding this content would move forward considerably if you could demonstrate (and cite) that there is such a thing as an "English" pronunciation, distinct from the Scots. And then explain why we also don't include the American pronunciation. And the Australian, Irish, South African, Canadian..... Thanks.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that oblique reference to the fact that Scots IS a dialect of the language we insist on calling "English", Escape - I don't dare say things like that or my Scots friends may never talk to me again! Although even in Scotland they used to call it "Ingis" or something like that to distinguish it from the Gaelic. Not that long ago, either.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Well whether you consider Scots a dialect or not, it doesn't really matter in regards to this edit. What is there is how the Scottish pronounce it, either speaking Scots or English language. Whether the English (or anyone else) pronounce it differently is something that isn't cited, largely irrelevant, and not significant enough for the lead. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure we're on the same line there! The person we are "arguing" with only made the one post anyway, looks like s/he got the point between us. There are of course several different reasons but only one conclusion. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

File:John Masey Wright - John Rogers - Robert Burns - Auld Lang Syne.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:John Masey Wright - John Rogers - Robert Burns - Auld Lang Syne.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 31, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-12-31. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Auld Lang Syne
A mid-19th century illustration for "Auld Lang Syne", a Scots poem written by Robert Burns in 1788 and set to a traditional melody. It is traditionally used in the English-speaking world to bid farewell to the old year at the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve; this has led to the song being used to close other activities as well.Engraving: John Masey Wright (artist) and John Rogers (engraver); restoration: Adam Cuerden
Archive – More featured pictures...

Translation of "auld lang syne"

The reason I changed the minimalist translation from "auld lang syne" to "long, long ago" was just that I felt that those three words are the part of the poem which standard English speakers have most difficulty with. I am just as happy for it to be "days of long ago" as I am for it to be "long, long ago" since either of these puts over the idiomatic meaning and they both scan. I just felt that leaving the "auld lang syne" phrase in the translation was defeating the basic purpose of the translation. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No worries. What seems to happen is that there is a certain type of person who you can tell them all day what "auld lang syne" means and they will ask you (either right away or after five minutes) YES, but what does it MEAN? Whether they have been brainwashed into thinking the phrase is incomprehensible, so that understanding it is actually in some way reprehensible, or they just don't believe it when you explain I have no idea. The point I made in my edit summary is that if we do add something idiomatic it has to make sense (just not idiomatic otherwise) in each line. "Long long ago" doesn't actually make sense in several of the places "auld lang syne" is used in the original Scots, whereas "days of long ago" does (more or less anyway, I think). Either totally wrecks the good old ballad rhyme scheme (ABCB).
We actually visited this idea before, as you can probably remember, and thought that since "auld lang syne" is not actually directly translatable into standard English, we'd be better off leaving it in Scots, and explaining the range of possible standard English equivalents appropriate in different contexts somewhere else. Hence calling this translation "minimalist". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Davide Riccio?????

An interesting but uncited edit is quoted in full below. There have been a string of edits of similar import put in lately - various editors have reverted them.

According to the Italian version of Wikipedia, the original music is from musician Davide Riccio (or Rizzio), a singer, player and composer from Piedmont (a northwestern region of Italy) who lived in the 16th century and was in the royal court of Savoia; in 1561 went to Scotland with a royal delegation and his brother Giuseppe and was hired as a court member of Queen Mary Stuart. The original tune then was not a "waltz," and its rhythm was 4/4.

This seems extremely unlikely - the only cite we have seen was to an Italian Newspaper, which is on the face of it certainly NOT a reliable source. Please note that Wikipedia is NOT incestuous, and that another article, even on another edition of Wiki is NOT a source. Surprising "new" facts do sometimes come up - but Wikipedia is not the place for them to make their first appearance. This ought to be common sense. Incidentally ALS has never been in 3/4 time, just hum it and count the beats for heaven's sake. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

There are many books, scores, manuscripts where is written that Rizzio is composer of Valzer delle candele.--Vito.Vita (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
As far as can be determined, the fact is that apart from a single Italian newspaper article this is totally false. This is an encyclopedia, and "facts" do need proper documentation. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Valzer delle candele

Hello, it is not true that my update is silly season" practical joke. My updated is with source, not only the Italian newspaper (as you wrote). http://www.marisalivet.com/blog---the-soap-bubbles-vendor/lets-sing-a-carol-along is not a newpaper. In any case, there is written in many books and scores that Davide Rizzio is composer of "Valzer delle candele": for example in Piemonte magico e misterioso by Renzo Rossotti (edited by Newton Compton, Rome). Here http://robertobrumat.wordpress.com/2014/01/02/italiano-il-valzer-delle-candele/ you can read all history about Davide Rizzio. If you do not know a thing, this doesn't mean that it is false.--Vito.Vita (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but it just ain't so. Auld Lang Syne is not a "waltz" anyway, so either Valzer delle candele is misnamed (a waltz in 4/4 time?) or it is not the same melody as Auld Lang Syne". Published scores often misattribute music and do not constitute "reliable sources" in themselves - nor does a personal or commercial website or blog. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I have spent a few happy hours surfing the web for Valzer delle candele (in plain English "the candle waltz"), including listening to several Italian people singing it. It certainly has pretty much the same melody line as Auld Lang Syne, but it DOES feel more like a slow waltz than the fairly brisk march of the original. Whether this is more because it is simply a slower version, or because the time signature HAS actually has been changed I am not, to be honest, enough of a musician to pick with any certainty. More to the point, for every place where it is stated that Davide Rizzio wrote the original melody, there are nine or ten places where that melody is very simply described as "Traditional Scots", or, "based on a song by Robert Burns", or words to that effect. Where Davide Rizzio IS mentioned the wording seems suspiciously similar, as if they are all copying each other. There are in fact other Scottish strathspeys (what we call a dance tune to that particular rhythm) that are very similar to the "Auld Lang Syne" - among them the tune to "Comin' through the rye". A clincher, while the Rizzio bit DID get into the Italian version of the article, it got edited out again (and NOT by me). I'd like to know - when exactly did "The candle waltz" become popular? That is, which Italian singer actually introduced it, rather than covering it? It seems surprising that if "The Candle Waltz" is an Italian folk song that has been around for a while that we haven't mentioned the fact in this article before.
Having said all this we probably need a mention of Valzer delle candele being an Italian version of "Auld Lang Syne", (with very different words set to a much slower version of the melody) and even (perhaps) that some (Italian) people attribute the melody to Rizzio. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Scots a "dialect" or a "language"?

Whether one considers Scots to be a dialect of "Common British" or a language in its own right rather distantly related to that degenerate Sassenach version (what's it called?) depends very largely on one's (legitimate) POV - perhaps it is best in an article like this to remain as neutral as possible, and not to plump too definitely for one or the other? (this is related to the minor edit I have just made in the lead. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Use in Non-English speaking countries (Old topic from Archives)

Several of these simply stated that ALS was sung in the country concerned for New Year, Farewells, Funerals, Graduations, Boy Scouts functions etc.

All very fine - but unless there is something distinctive about the use of ALS in a particular country (like, say, it was once used for the National Anthem, or is the tune for the song of a popular football team) this was never really notable. In fact ALS is used almost everywhere for these things - and they are detailed above.

The problem was that once you add the name of one country (province, state, city, village, school etc.) and (no doubt quite accurately) attach the "common" uses of the tune - then you have no real comeback for anyone who wants to add to the list.

The above was archived some time ago - but people are still trying to add the fact that ALS (either using the original words or a local translation) is used in a particular country in what one might call the "universal" or "standard" uses. There are just too many countries where this is true for the fact to notable, UNLESS there is at least something "different" or exceptional about the use or history of the song in that country. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

"We sing it too"

This old post (from 2012) remains very apposite, worth bringing back from the archives in fact - we were talking about the use of Auld Lang Syne in various countries, and just how to cope with the fact that its use in certain "standard" contexts was, well, "standard". There are about 200 countries in the world and about 190 of these use the song (more or less frequently) for New Year, Funerals, Graduations and Boy Scout functions...

Several of these [mentions of different countries] simply stated that ALS was sung in the country concerned for New Year, Farewells, Funerals, Graduations, Boy Scouts functions etc.
All very fine - but unless there is something distinctive about the use of ALS in a particular country (like, say, it was once used for the National Anthem, or is the tune for the song of a popular football team) this was never really notable. In fact ALS is used almost everywhere for these things - and they are detailed above.
The problem was that once you add the name of one country (province, state, city, village, school etc.) and (no doubt quite accurately) attach the "common" uses of the tune - then you have no real comeback for anyone who wants to add to the list.

So no, please - we don't need to start down this road again. Let's keep the article on the subject of the song. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Auld Lang Syne. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 14:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hymn

Just for the record - the origin etc. of the tune is already covered, in well referenced text - its use for the tunes of several hymns (not to mention many other things - also covered in the article) came after. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

"Notable performances"

Just removed the "improve cites" tag on this section - not realising how many "live" performances still uncited - but perhaps most (all?) of these actually need weeding rather than citing. Does a cite for a specific album have a built-in (implied) cite to the album concerned? The value of this sort of thing is actually highly debatable anyway. One might check that each album/performance at least has its own article. May do this myself later - otherwise... -Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Scots Pronunciation Guide

The indication that the word "auld" should, in Scots Pronunciation, sound like "ald", is mistaken. I can cite no textual authority, however as a Scots speaker (albeit Urban West of Scotland) I can definitely attest that a Scots speaker would pronounce this word to rhyme with "bald", and not in any other way. Nuttyskin (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC) Nuttyskin (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The so-called "pronunciation guide" is a shade on the meaningless side, "English" (or Scots for that matter) is simply not spelled very consistently - in fact an English (or Scots) word spelled "ald" could probably be pronounced several different ways including your "Rhyming with bald (although English (and Scots) speakers from different parts of the world pronounce "bald" differently, so...). The IPA spelling gives a better (although still not 100% accurate) idea of the pronunciation - remembering that it is Burns' own Scots accent (probably different from yours) that we are aiming to reproduce. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

"S" rather than "Z"

This very obviously needs to be specifically mentioned - non-Scots sometimes become quite stubborn in their insistence on "Z" rather than the correct "S". Until most people can (and do) read IPA this is important and should not be attacked. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Jipy Jay (old archive thread)

A VERY old edit was re-raised after several years - here's how we dealt with it then...

The addition to the article about a song called Jipy Jay has been removed because it appears to be original research, which Wikipedia does not permit, and is uncited. Before adding it again could a source be provided that connects it to Auld Lang Syne, either by explaining it is the same song, a translation, or bears musical similarities. Otherwise it appears that the connection between the two is just someone's personal opinion. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-Peruvians, at least, need a bit more information here to decide whether this should remain as part of this article. It is important that we get this right - since this is one of those articles that attracts a great deal of trivial, irrelevant, and otherwise "non-notable" information, as well as interesting things that simply belong somewhere else.
  • Is this (more or less) a translation of Auld Lang Syne into Spanish, with (more or less) the same melody?
If so it is probably not notable - there are many, many translations of this "universal" song into different languages - we could not possibly note them all in this article - which is after all essentially about the original song.
  • Is it used more or less like the original version of the song? (for New Year, graduations, funerals, farewells etc. etc.).
So many countries have a version of Auld Lang Syne that is used in this way that we have stopped listing them, unless there is something unusual about its use (have a look at the examples we have kept to get some idea what we are talking about here).
  • Is it really quite a different song - with its own lyrics and/or melody?
If so it may even be notable enough to have its own article - but it probably doesn't belong here.
--Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I believe that you haven't heard the song or read the citation that i put there so that's why you believe that you need further information to decide if my contribution should be in the main page of ALS: http://www.locheros.com/culturayocio/id/24/cantando-la-verdadera-historia-del-jipi-jay
I believe it's really unfair that many countries have their own section because of international versions of auld lang syne that are only sung in universities or parades, while "jipy jay" is sung all over Peru, has very distinctive peruvian music (but still with the main tune of ALS), and it's usually sung as a farewell song (see videos on youtube if you are unsure).
Thanks! Juanmaklaot (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
This is an article about a Scots song called "Auld Lang Syne". Because that song has become a universal part of world culture and has been translated into many languages, and is sung (especially to greet the New Year) all over the world we do have a section about its international use. This is NOT there, however, as a "we sing it too competition", with rules, the breach of which would be "unfair". Fairness or unfairness don't come into it. From your own statements the Peruvian version of the song is not in the context of this article unusual, either in substance or in the way it is used. In other words it is a rather "straight" version of the song, and is used in the "normal" way. The specific "national" versions of the song that we DO mention all have something interestingly different about them. Sorry, but as I have already said - we need to keep this article a reasonable size - we just don't have space to describe every variant. Is this the sort of thing that belongs in a Peruvian (or a general Spanish language) version of Wikipedia? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Racist?

Some dear little American person thinks Scots language is racist. Oh dear. Americans should talk! As Professor Higgins famously remarked "In America they haven't used it [proper English] for years". Of course everyone knows that true "proper English" is only spoken by well-educated Australians born earlier than (say) 1940 or thereabouts - and is therefore dying out. Sad, but inevitable. Fortunately the badness of all English spoken outside my own nationality and age group is normally masked by our use of conventional spelling. Scots spelling, on the other hand, is "conventional" on its own terms rather than "phonetic" - we didn't make it up to poke fun at ignorant Scots (honest). Scots poets like Burns wrote his Scots verse using Scots spelling and his (standard) English verse, which he would have pronounced with a strong Scottish accent of course, using standard spelling. This means that we assume that the English spoken in Alabama and Tasmania are the Same Language - while Scots is a Variant Dialect. (This post is satire) and composed in a holiday spirit - please do not take it seriously. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I have (already) got some feedback from someone who feels my levity in the last post is quite inappropriate. It probably is and all - I do have a very serious point to make however - but it is NOT one that can be made in a serious tone without being impossibly "preachy". Lighten up - and be assured I am not the slightest bit racist (even about Americans, and even after the recent presidential election). I am very old now, and grew up in a totally different world from this - bear with me. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

A section does not necessarily need to contain a list.

A section is not "nul" because it doe not contain a list, or even if a list it used to contain has been deleted. The need to point this out seems very silly. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

A section is null if it does not contain any information. It's expressly labeled and linked in the TOC as a subsection titled "Recordings" under the section "Notable performances" and not a jot of information about any recordings is found there. Note, I was not removing the information, just the vacuous subsection heading as it is disingenuous. As a simple intro paragraph/sentence noting the that section "Notable performances" will not contain any information about notable recordings, it then proceeds to the "Live and broadcast" subsection (please note the capitalization here, as that, per the MOS, is what the section should be headed, but the editor above acting uncivilly in edit summaries, exhibiting behavior of WP:OWN, and incontrovertibly guilty of violating 3RR in lieu of discussing, insists on capitalizing the subsection incorrectly as "Live and Broadcast") for easy readability. I can see no rationalization for these changes, other than the editor simply "wishing to win" rather than contribute meaningfully and collaboratively to the encyclopedia. JesseRafe (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
In the version of the article I have been in this case trying to preserve - Notable recordings used to contain a list of such recordings - the section remains after the list has been deleted, with a little note about why, in this article such a list isn't really appropriate. I assume you are in agreement about deleting the list, since you have neither restored it (or perhaps an edited version) nor argued in talk against its removal. Incidentally, if you were to think that the original list was basically a good and useful thing, one might have a separate article with a title something like Auld Lang Syne (discography).
Do we still need a Notable recordings section? On the whole I think the truncated section, without the original list that was its primary point, still needs a little explanatory stub. Its showing up in the contents list is even a good idea, as a reader looking for the section in its former state will at least find a little note explaining why it has gone. It is not "nul" in spite of the list going. The note remains useful (well, I think it does, anyway, for what that is worth).
Your first edit corrected an MOS capitalisation error that I should have noticed and left as it was - the second edit amounted to deleting the heading Notable recordings- but moving the explanatory paragraph about why we don't list them now up to the top of the main section, where it was not only out of context, but potentially very confusing. The heading, as is often the case, is really part of the section itself. Removing the section whole (complete with its heading) might have made more sense, especially if you thought it was "nul", although this would have meant further re-organisation of the remaining headings.
Might I suggest that next time you make an edit that is disputed, especially by a fellow editor with an established record revealed by his/her talk page, you consider the possibility that you are wrong. If you are, on consideration, still sure that you edit was an improvement to the article, and should stand, then it is YOUR responsibility, as the instigator of the change, to justify it on the talk page. This will open a discussion, which will result in either the edit being re-instated, deleted, or replaced with a compromise that satisfies the concerns of both "sides".
Assume good faith. This includes not leaping to the conclusion that anyone with a point of view not identical with your own, or questioning the value of your work, thereby intends a personal attack on you. The odd grump is natural and human - but there is generally nothing whatever to be gained by answering in kind. And the complaints page is not something to fly to whenever you feel piqued - especially before you have made any attempt to open a discussion on any genuine point at issue. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Boy Scouts use is notable

It occurs in many countries - in fact for many years it has been as closely associated with the Scouting movement - almost as pervasively as its association with the new year. This is in itself far more notable than much other very peripheral stuff in the article. In fact it warrants a mention in the lead. This has been the case for years and is in effect a long standing consensus - please do bot remove it without arguing a new consensus here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This one has been recently revived - one short sentence, as part of a general list of uses mentioned in the lead - does not seem to this editor "undue weight". But provided the mention of the Scouts in the main article remains this is perhaps a minor point - what do other editors think? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Soundofmusicals:I've sung it at the end of Scout camps and sure it's in the songbook, but I had never particularly associated the song with Scouting in general. I've cite-tagged it and removed "Boy" as deprecated terminology as most are co-ed now.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Kintetsubuffalo:The point is that the Scouts sing it all over the world - although in some countries probably more than others - so it's one of the things binding the movement together. At least it's worth a mention. Agree the "boy" bit is very old-fashioned - plain "Scouts" more NPOV (provided it's clear we're talking about the youth movement. Will have a look at things from this viewpoint. Citation tags are best left for items that are genuinely doubtful, or even surprising. Your scout songbook would be as good a cite as any - in fact a more "academic" cite would be almost comic. why not add this if you really think we need one here? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I've been a UK Cub/Scout/Leader for 50 years and only sung it once in a Scouting context, at the close of the 16th World Scout Jamboree. Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
My own "scouting" career was many years ago (it ended in the late 1940s, when I was 14, and due to go up to the "seniors" (I think a lot of lads lose interest at about that stage) and in Australia - which is a long time ago and a long way away. And (FWIIW) I must admit I can't remember ALS even being in our "camp fire songbook" - much less sung regularly at the end of our meetings, (never got to a Jamboree). On the other hand if you do a google on "Scout Auld Lang" or something like that you get lots of hits. It has certainly become a fixture at Jamborees, at least in recent years. All this may well be relatively recent - and more U.S. than "British Commonwealth". Still reckon it is worth this very lightweight little mention - if only to stop people who want to add a "national uses" section for their country on the grounds that "in [x country] it is also widely sung by the scouts". Is it worth going into detail about when and where and how much the scouts have used it? This would in effect be giving it MORE weight than it already has(!) In any case I don't think it belongs in the article about the song. Perhaps in one of the "scouting" articles? Anyway, I have added a "web" citation, for what it is worth. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Song's title

A good deal of the (very extensive) archive of "talk" on this topic concerns confusion, indeed stubborn controversy, over what the title means. The fact that it is simple Scots for "long ago", or even "once upon a time" still needs (alas) all the help it can get if it not to become mired in strange and fanciful speculation. In fact clarification of the meaning of "auld lang syne" is quite probably the most important reason this article is consulted. The little note referring to the works of Matthew Fitt has remained unchallenged now for a good many years - and why not? - is totally relevant to this point. It effectively has its own "built in" verification - but otherwise a reference should not be difficult to find, if only a specific citation to one of Mr. Fitt's stories? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Melody not necessaily entirely pentonic

The article says, "The tune to which "Auld Lang Syne" is commonly sung is a pentatonic Scots folk melody." While the melody can be played as entirely pentonic, it often isn't. Commonly, the third note (first syllable of "acquaintance") is lowered half a step to the leading tone. (A minor point, perhaps.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinkatron (talk • contribs) 21:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

"Stroke of midnight on New Year's day?"

But surely - that would be Jan 2nd? The date changes at 24:00 (midnight). Isn't that the point? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Translation of "right" (Scots) into standard English?

Just quietly, isn't the very idea slightly silly? The word (whether in Scots, Scouse, Cockney and even Broad Australian) can in different contexts have different meanings and connotations, of course, but surely they are pretty much the same set of meanings, regardless of dialect? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Poem or folk song?

Burns' poems very often draw on folk song lyrics (to varying degrees) but it is more helpful, as a rule, as well as more in accordance with the wider consensus in this particular case, to call it a "poem" in the first instance, and then go to its possible (probable?) folk derivation after. We do not have the "old song" referred to by Burns himself - although we can reasonably infer its existence because of "similar" poems that resemble Burns', and look as if they all draw on a common source. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Auld Lang Syne is a folk song that predates Burns by a couple hundred years. As the article notes the opening and chorus were already documented many decades before he composed his version of them. To give.the impression that he created Auld Lang Syne is just weird. An option would be to disamboguate the folk song from his poem / ballad. But certainly he did not create Auld Lang Syne and stating that he did anything other than create an enduring version in an article about the subject is misleading. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
There very possibly was a folk song behind Burns' poem. There is a folk song behind most of Burns' work actually - that's how he worked. The folk song is not, however, the subject of the article - Burn's poem is. Very important to establish at the outset what we are talking about. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
A folk song, title unknown, predates Burn's "Auld Lang Syne". A ballad called "Old Long Syne" with similarities also predates it. This article is not about these, it's about the poem published by Robert Burns, which he did indeed write. There's good evidence that, in writing it, he 'borrowed' elements of earlier works, as was not uncommon at the time. But this is all discussed in the article. What would be misleading is to suggest that the notability of the poem and song doesn't lie with Burns. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

New Year's Day edits (2019)

As sometimes happens at this time of the year - several persons were moved to edit the article in various ways! Regular editors (including me!) made various less than perfectly co-ordinated attempts to keep things on track. I have endeavoured to restore "last years's edition", with any really useful changes I could discern in yesterday's wild flurry. ---Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Notable performances/recordings etc

It's a version of the song that made Top 10 on two major charts. This fact should be at least mentioned somewhere in the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

No - the song is so very much more important than the singer in this context that it doesn't belong here at all. If we tried to list all the versions of ALS at least as important to this article as this one we'd have hundreds of them and they'd completely swamp the article. Please in future do not "edit war" - go to the talk page for the article concerned (to which I am moving this) and raise any objections you have there. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
But it's going to be confusing when someone clicks on the link to "Auld Lang Syne" link from Kenny G's page, and sees no mention of Kenny G anywhere in the article. WP:COVERSONG says that cover versions can be included if they have some sort of notability to them. Peaking at #7 on the Hot 100, and being the oldest song ot make the Hot 100, are notable claims specific to Kenny G's version that I feel make it worth a mention. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps - and a notable part of the Kenny G article - but not this one! Incidentally you are in contravention of the three revert rule! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Soundofmusicals: Why don't you think it should be on this article? It clearly meets WP:COVERSONG as a noteworthy example of a rendition. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Incidentally - how is it "confusing" that an article linked to the Kenny G article does not necessarily return the complement? There must be thousands of such links - few if any of which cause any confusion whatever. This is a distinct, different and totally separate article from the Kenny G one - stuff that is highly relevant to one article may very easily be pretty irrelevant to the other. With all due respect, an individual artist, even one so illustrious as Kenny G, has at best very little relevance indeed to the article about what might be the most famous song of them all. Just who hasn't done a cover version of it - THAT list would probably be shorter than the other one! (OK, not a lot longer, anyway.) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Artist covers - perhaps a new article ?

Especially in view of the above - how about a new 'lists" article about particular "covers" of this song? Or even a category "Musicians and others who have sung ALS". Personally I am very strongly against this - among other things because almost everyone and his dog would rate a spot on it - but it would be MUCH better than burdening this article with such a list!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake to treat this article as if it was modern day popular music, documenting "covers" notable because of their chart position (e.g. as done in My Way). It has far more in common with articles about traditional standards like Amazing Grace, Danny Boy, Home on the Range or Waltzing Matilda. We should look at what has been done in these. They all address the issue slightly differently. But absolutely, venturing towards what could become a massive list of everyone who has ever recorded Auld Lang Syne would be madness. A separate article might work, but I reckon it would quickly become a junk list article that pleases no-one. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Hear hear! Oyez Hear ye all! 110% agree! Thank you Escaper!!! (excuse exclamatory style but I have been trying to cancel an unwanted New York Times subscription) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
As with the Amazing Grace and Danny Boy, popular recordings should be included to some extent. What wiki policy are you using to exclude any mention of them at all? Be specific. Not your personal opinion. You are clearly in the minority.24.127.111.210 (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
See the policy here; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

First sentence of a lead paragraph of a Wikipedia article...

defines very briefly what the article is about. This one is about the poem by Burns - who in this case (as very commonly for him) was using an old folk song as the basis for his poem. The actual words of the old folk song have in effect been lost, so the best we can do is to mention its (probable) existence in our 'history" section - although we do include a stanza or two from another literary reworking for comparison. Sorry it seems to mention this yet again, but a lot of useful matter has been (necessarily) archived. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Melody

It is suggested that the melody for Auld Lang Syne may have been taken from the strathspey The Miller's Daughter also known as "The Miller's Wedding" -- and then several reasons are given why this is unlikely.

I find it very unlikely indeed, as the melody from this strathspey resembles neither the popular modern version of Auld Lang Syne, nor the original melody which Burns is said to have preferred. The only similarity between the two tunes is a superficial rhythmic coincidence:

http://abcnotation.com/tunePage?a=trillian.mit.edu/~jc/music/abc/mirror/BruceShawyer/strathspey/Millers_Daughter_2/0000

Indeed, other than on Wikipedia, I've never heard The Miller's Daughter suggested as the source.

I have, however, frequently heard Sir Alexander Don's Strathspey suggested as the source for the more contemporary melody, and the resemblance here is far more than superficial -- the melodic and harmonic shapes coincide 90% or more:

https://digital.nls.uk/special-collections-of-printed-music/archive/91248092
See also: Fuld, James J.; The Book of World Famous Music; Crown Publishing: New York; 1966.

This section of the article needs to be re-written; it is in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Scouts

This was recently added by a thoughtful editor - who obviously (and commendably) took the necessity for referencing very seriously:

*Claus Ludwig Laue wrote the German translation Nehmt Abschied, Brüder in 1946 for the German scouting organization Deutsche Pfadfinderschaft Sankt Georg.[1] One of the founders of the French scout movement Jacques Sevin wrote the French translation Faut-il nous quitter sans espoir in 1920.[2]

The problem is that ALS is sung in so very many countries that we need a criterion for selecting which of these we specifically mention - or we'd end up with an immense (and immensely boring, repetitive and unhelpful) list of the nations of the earth - remarking that they all use this song (to a greater or lesser extent and in a myriad of translations) - for things like the New Year, Scout jamborees etc etc. Where something is really pretty universal - listing particular cases adds bulk but no real information. It is NOT clear from the above, regardless of the quality of its referencing, that the use by the German (and French) Scouts is particularly unusual in an international context. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

This edit, which has been stuck back in is simply not notable in this context - if the editor who did this feels we are wrong s/he needs to cogently argue the case here rather than engaging in a pointless edit war. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Nobody is arguing for an extensive or long list, this is about rather an illustrative example from 2 large countries/languages, which also shows the international angle of boy scout movement aspect and one reason the song exists in so many translation. That other half sentence mentioning the boy scout movement before doesn't cover the international angle and that (international) boy scout movements use it and use it in translated versions. And it is certainly not clear from it alone that translations where directly done or done on behalf of various national boy scout organisations. we're just talking about extending the information on the boy scout aspect from half a sentence to 2.5 (short) sentences. I really don't see an issue with that and don't understand the aversion against adding this. We currently don't have an issue with an overboarding list of international examples of unclear relevance or boring repetitions.
As far as the notability is concerned. The boy scouts aspect as such is clearly notable and mentioned in variety of sources. The only question is how much information/detail on that our article should provide and imho it can live fine with 2.5 short sentences. This isn't really question of notability at this point but editorial discretion/judgment and ours seems to differ on that issue.
A far as a needed strict criterion is concerned, what is it exactly? I don't see the few remaining examples of international use necessarily fulfilling one. The Thai example for instance just speaks of familiar melody (= similar?) with an unrelated text.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The Boy Scouts aspect is pretty universal. If you read the article this is already covered (even mentioned in the lead paragraph) - but because the Scouts almost everywhere use the song in some form or other adding an endless list of "here too" is not appropriate. The Thai entry (and the other "non-English ones) all have some unique factor - they include some special aspect(s) (important or otherwise) that are not true of other countries - this is not true of your French/German one. (Just quietly - the Bengali one barely scrapes in!) There are many "translated" versions of the song, many of them by known (even well-known) lyricists - again, we don't want a full list, or for that matter, a substantially longer one than we have. We have had this discussion before - and on that occasion one of us remarked that "this section is not a "we sing it too competition" with "rules" that it would be "unfair" to break. The article is about the song - if it is sung in France and Germany by the Scouts that is very nice - but there is nothing, in the context of this article remarkable about this, if only because that is true of so many other places. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The "remarkable" aspect is not the song being sung in Germany and France, but that there is translated version and that the translation was done the behalf of boy scouts and the French case even by well known jesuit and boy scout founder.
The mentioning in the lead wasn't properly sourced, moreover the lead merely summarizes/repeats what's written in the article's main body which normally contains more details than rather just rehashing the info from lead.
Not sure what older discussion you are referring to. Nobody he argues for an extensive, long or "fair" list, there is no disagreement in that regard. The editorial disagreement is only about how much information/details on the boy scout aspect the article should provide, i. e. 0.5 or 2.5 sentences.
--04:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)~
In this context, neither being sung "in translation", nor used by the scouts, is in any way unusual, far less unique, so far as this song is concerned. To put it another way, more countries have a Scouting movement that uses ALS than otherwise - and the song is at least as widely sung in (myriad) translations as in either the original Scots, or the usual English mangling of it! We have in fact excluded many "national" notes from this section that were more, rather than less unusual than this - so yes, adding this one would change the criterion to the extent of opening the way to adding a very long list indeed. Older discussions have been archived, of course, but if you're really interested you can read them. Whether there is important information about the use of ALS by the Scouting movement that we do not cover is another question. I have not been involved with Scouting myself for over seventy years (since I was fifteen, in fact) so I am probably not the one to argue this one. Since there is in fact no mention of "Auld Lang Syne" in our scouting article at all (I just looked!) one can't help but wonder. Is there anything in that article we would want to cross-reference here (or vice versa)? How important, really, is the relationship between the movement and the song, and what is "due weight" for that relationship in either article? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.volksliederarchiv.de/nehmt-abschied-brueder-ungewiss-ist-alle-wiederkehr/ (German, retrieved 2018-12-21)
  2. ^ Philippe Benhamou, Christopher Hodap: La Franc-maçonnerie Pour les Nuls. edi8, 2011, ISBN 9782754034043, p. 378 (French)

German text and melody diverge

I am not sure if there is anything notable about it, but there are two features that strike me about the German (scouts') version:

  • Nehmt Abschied, Brüder is not really a translation, being more religious in tone. The German text translated literally into English is:
    Bid farewell, brothers, uncertain is all return, the future lies in gloom and makes our hearts heavy.
    Chorus: The heavens arch above the land, farewell, auf Wiedersehn! (i.e. till we meet again) We all lie in God's hand, farewell, auf Wiedersehn.
    The sun sinks, the night comes up, the day is past. The world falls asleep and quietly the nightingale's song awakens. (Chorus)
    At every start the end is not far. We come here and pass away and with us passes the time. (Chorus)
    Bid farewell, brothers, close the circle, life is a game. And those who know how to play (or: live, I do not know what is original) it right reach the great goal. (Chorus)
  • Many Germans sing a non-pentatonic version: they tend to throw in a few leading notes, e.g. to start so - do - ti - do. But I have discovered that some performances of "Auld Lang Syne" do this too, though I think they form a lower proportion. If I search YouTube for "Nehmt Abschied, Brüder", I find that almost all use the leading note (I found one exception), but (very) roughly half those of "Auld Lang Syne" do, perhaps mainly North American. Incidentally I cam across Susan Boyle, who appears to omit the third note altogether, singing "Should auld 'quaintance be forgot..."! I also found French (unlike German) scouts singing pentatonically, although some other French versions were heptatonic.

PJTraill (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting at least. Pentatonic tunes quite often get embellished with the odd grace-note (especially a VII, or "leading note") - and when they are sung in four-part harmony (as ALS often is) you can also get non-pentatonic notes in the "under-parts". This is not usually considered to render the tune itself diatonic - in fact since this can be (and probably is) done to any pentatonic melody the term would cease to have meaning at all! More to the point is the very different words. - the Auld lang syne melody is used for several different English language hymns, too. Most of them are even drearier - as they are sung (or used to be) at funerals. But I believe there is also a German translation that is much closer to the original? All in all, especially if you can find a good reference, we may be approaching something notable here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Soundofmusicals: I had wondered about grace notes, though I though they were additional rather than altered notes (as Wiktionary suggests – does that need expanding?); perhaps it is just that Germans on the basis of their tradition quite automatically use that leading note in that manner; I have not actually looked for a score of Nehmt Abschied, Brüder so far. I am not aware of another widespread German translation, but perhaps that is my bubble; it must have been done now and then. What sort of content do you think it might be worth adding to the article? I could look around a bit more. PJTraill (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@PJTraill Look at what we already have: there may be an analogy with the entry for the Japanese and Thai versions where the words have little or no relationship to the original, and yet the resulting song is used in similar ways. But everything needs to be properly sourced. At best it is getting a bit peripheral. Yes, the leading note that sometimes intrudes itself into the first bar looks like a fairly typical grace note to me - although I am not a professional musician and there might be a technical difference I am missing the effect is certainly the same. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

You're a Grand Old Flag

The song "You're a Grand Old Flag" references this song in its lyrics, and the melody is only nearly identical; that is, in Auld Lang Syne the first syllable of the word "forgot" is an F; in "You're a Grand Old Flag" it's an F sharp. Any corrections?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, sure. It's a musical quotation. It has to be almost identical otherwise few people would notice it. The change from F to F# is just there to introduce an air of foreboding. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

"Minimalist" translation

This is not really a full translation into standard English, of course - just a little gloss to help a "mere Sassenach" make sense of the Scots. Since the phrase "auld lang syne" has already been fully (too fully?) explained earlier in the article, and since it is in any case is VERY familiar (to understate the case rather) it is left in the original language. As for translating "acquaintance" as "aquaintances" - this is as best rather "quaint" and at best adds nothing to the reader's understanding. "Old aquaintance" is a common (standard) English phrase for "old friends", even if only from the influence of this song. Is there a case for omitting this column from the table, perhaps clarifying the "different" Scots words with notes instead? On the whole I think it does at least as well exactly as it is, but by all means let's discuss this if you think it worthwhile. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer to view a full translation in modern English. I have referred to it many times and I am very surprised and disappointed that it has been removed. You may be a linguistic genius but I am definitely not. I do not find the poem understandable, even with a partial translation because I relate much more easily to modern English. Surely that is what Wikipedia is for: to explain things in plain English? By removing the full translation you reduce the number of people who can easily understand the poem and reduce the utility of the article. Also, why bother with a partial translation? I don't see the logic in that at all. Either translate the whole thing properly or don't bother. The only reason I can think of to publish an English-Scots hybrid of the poem is to provide something that is easier to sing for those who can't remember the original lyrics but that isn't the primary purpose of Wikipedia articles. For those who would like to see the more complete translation that was deleted you can view it here on this past version of the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Auld_Lang_Syne&oldid=929611520 Jklsc (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
The "difficulty' of the Scots dialect (or "language" if you like) vis-a-vis "standard" English is greatly exaggerated anyway. The meaning(s) of the (very few) particular words/phrases likely to give real problems to anyone prepared to actually read the text of the poem IS given - and the minimalist "translation" as you remark, IS an understandable "nearly standard" version that anyone can sing. What, do pray tell us all, is the "purpose" of a Wikipedia article that is somehow contradicted by that - isn't it closer to what we are trying to do here than translating (for example) the standard English cliche "old acquaintance" (meaning "long-lost friends and relatives") as "old acquaintances" (a very bad translation indeed, since it is real friendships and close relationships that are implied by the phrase - whether used in Scots or standard English. And is anyone STILL so confused about what "Auld lang syne" means that even after our detailed explanation at the head of the article they STILL need the translation "Days gone by" repeated 8 times in case they missed it the first time? I don't think so. The only other difference I can see is the replacement of "seas between us broad have roared" with "broad seas have roared between us" - in what way is either a translation of the other rather than a slight and inconsequential re-juxtaposition of the same words? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Having said all that - is "minimalist translation" the best heading we could have picked for the table - what about "Singable standard English version" - since that's more or less what it is. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
O.K. I've binandunnit! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Annual clean-up!

Every year this article is attacked by folk that know it all - this time someone who wanted to anglicise the original Scots (as if an English translation wasn't enough) - and yet another attempt to introduce the French use of the song (which is quite lovely, I'm sure - but pretty well exactly the same as the rest of the world). Plus the other little bit of spleen on this talk page - not at all sure what they think they're on about - they probably don't either. We'll leave it in - but it has to go down the end, of course, like every other new comment.. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Someone else eliminated the irrelevant remark (about Brexit?) anyway I'm not re-instating it! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Old long since

That's what it means word for word - but it isn't exactly English. So we give three examples of more "idiomatic" renderings of the phrase. Perhaps our editor was confusing "idiomatic" with "colloquial"? Look up both words in any dictionary. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The examples given are not idiomatic. :
1. of, relating to, or conforming to idiom (a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words) (e.g. over the moon, see the light, talk the hind legs off a donkey)
2: peculiar to a particular group, individual, or style
The phrases given are neither of these. Ironically, 'colloquially' would actually work better. To describe 'long, long ago' as 'more idiomatic' than 'old long since' is absurd, frankly.
More generally, this article is not well-written and I would suggest reverting me is not the answer.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
OK, we'll concede that one, "less literal" may be clearer here. I have taken the liberty of regularising indents here to make this exchange clearer to other editors --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Problems with the article

Hi - this is a level 4, C-class article and it's in a bit of a state. This isn't helped by what appears to be WP:OWN and the regular reversion of attempts to improve it. We need to start somewhere, so let's address this:

The song begins by posing a rhetorical question: Is it right that old times be forgotten? Alternatively, "Should" may be understood to mean "in the event that"(expressing the conditional mood) referring to a possible event or situation. The answer is generally interpreted as a call to remember long-standing friendships. Thomson's Select Songs of Scotland was published in 1799 in which the second verse about greeting and toasting was moved to its present position at the end.

This reads very badly and we should rewrite it completely.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Not one in twenty of the "edits" to this article can be described, however charitably, as "attempts to improve it" - I wish you had looked at some of the reverted edits before you had been quite so free and easy with accusations of WP:OWN!
On the other hand I agree about the offending paragraph. By all means suggest a re-write of this. The offending bit seems to be:
Alternatively, "Should" may be understood to mean "in the event that"(expressing the conditional mood) referring to a possible event or situation.'
This was added at some stage, and allowed to stand, as it is a point that "should" here is possibly ambiguous. Would it even be an improvement to remove the offending sentence to the end of the paragraph, where it possibly belonged in the first place? The sentence about Thomson's Select Songs of Scotland also looks as if it may need to be moved. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks - I will attempt a tweak and put on here.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Notable recordings / Use in films

We gave up on these sections when they got too big - Is it time to start a new article? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Notable performances / Recordings

There is a stub section in the existing article where "notable" recorded performances were once listed. There are so many of these (each one highly "notable" to someone or other) that they were starting to swamp the article, and a consensus was reached that the "Notable performances' section would need drastic pruning - and that "recorded performances" would no longer be listed. A solution might be to start a new "list" article? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  • I think the Kenny G version should be listed. It was a top-10 hit, and it's linked from his article and discography. So anyone going to here from there would be like "wait, why isn't it mentioned here if it charted"? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, and like about umpteen zillion other people would also be utterly convinced that someone else is at least as notable as Kenny G if not more so - in fact if you really go back in the "history" of this article you will see what I mean. Now if you think all this is worth a "list" article (devoted to films and recordings of ALS) then go for your life for all I care - but if you put it in THIS article then everyone with a favourite singer/musician will be jumping in! We've been there, done that! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Accurate Original Burns Text?

Just reading the 'Burns text' overleaf and see that it differs in several, albeit small, ways from the text in my 1893 copy of the Poetical Works of Robert Burns (The 'Albion' edition) published by Frederick Warne and Co. (Printers Morrison and Gibb Edinburgh).

So just what is the authentic original text? A bit of a mystery for someone to research methinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.55.95 (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The Morgan Library & Museum, seen at the top of the External links section, offers multiple versions that could claim to be the original one: a manuscript by Burns (dated to 1793); The Scots Musical Museum, which they say is the first publication (1796); and what they say is the first publication with the current tune (1799). —2d37 (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

IPA pronunciation guide: Alveolar tap or alveolar trill?

In the IPA pronunciation guide in Auld Lang Syne § Lyrics, which aims to describe Burns' own Ayrshire dialect, the 'r' sounds are transcribed variously as an alveolar tap or flap /ɾ/ and an alveolar trill /r/. However, the cited source on "The dialect of Robert Burns as spoken in central Ayrshire" repeatedly says that the 'r' is a trill[1]: 11,21,82,180  and, so far as I see, never calls it a tap or flap. I'll BOLDly change the pronunciation guide to use /r/ consistently, to follow what the source says. —2d37 (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Wilson, James (1923). The dialect of Robert Burns as spoken in central Ayrshire. Oxford University Press – via Archive.org.

Stoup/stowp: cup or mug?

@Soundofmusicals and Getting The Knack: Regarding Special:Diff/997345100 and Special:Diff/997379746, when I saw the former edit in my watchlist, I checked the Dictionary of the Scots Language and found that it indeed says "mug" for "stoup" (and even doesn't say "cup"):[1]

2. A smaller-sized vessel for holding liquor, sometimes also used as a drinking-vessel, acc. to its size, which varied considerably, a mug, flagon, tankard, decanter (Sc. 1808 Jam.; Cai. 1939; n. and em.Sc. (a), Lnk., Wgt. 1971), freq. with the name of the measure of its capacity prefixed, as chopin-, gill-, mutchkin-, pint-, quart-stowp; hence the measure itself (Sc. 1808 Jam.; Cai. 1939). Obs. or dial. in Eng. Now chiefly hist.

[...]

Ayr. 1788 Burns Auld Lang Syne ii.:
And surely ye'll be your pint stowp! And surely I'll be mine!

I would have added the citation then, but, the "Standard English version (singable)" having no citations anyway, I didn't see where would be least awkward to put such a citation and moved on to other things.

Personally, I don't see much of a difference between saying "pint-cup" or "pint-mug", as the size of the cup/mug is fixed by the preceding word "pint". —2d37 (talk) 08:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The source cited for "The dialect of Robert Burns" translates it as "pint-pot",[2]: 146–148  but then their translation overall seems strange. (Should old friendship be forgotten / And never brought to remembrance?) —2d37 (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Having a closer look at this - there is actually nothing sacred about our "translation" here - it does not, so far as I can see, literally follow a quoted source. Just a word for keeping the current text - it has evolved as a version that makes the meaning of the Scots lyrics clear, while avoiding multisyllabic "dictionary" equivalents that would be awkward to sing. In this respect there seems to be little to choose between "cup" and "mug" - to this non-drinker a "cup" is what you drink tea from, whereas a "mug" suggests coco. "Pot", on the other hand, sounds more like the implement used for cooking porridge! Although I am told that in some places it is an official "pub" measure (more often a half-pint than a full one). A toast is sometimes called a "loving-cup" (or, indeed "a cup 'o' kindness", as here!) - which might be what whoever put together our original "English" version had in mind. How would people (other than Scots, of course, and non-Scots at least making an attempt to sing in dialect) sing this verse? The short answer is they probably wouldn't sing it all - a very large proportion of the people who will be singing it in context over the next twelve hours or so will not go past the "first verse and chorus", when all is said and done. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

My answer to your edit summary is "no, not to me", and I make no objection to your position (though, for the last two sentences, that's because I don't feel qualified to comment, being of a culture that doesn't seem to sing the song at all). —2d37 (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Stowp n.". Dictionary of the Scots Language. Scottish Language Dictionaries. 2004. Retrieved 31 December 2020.
  2. ^ Wilson, James (1923). The dialect of Robert Burns as spoken in central Ayrshire. Oxford University Press – via Archive.org.

Robert Aytoun reference

This article contains this phrase: The phrase "Auld Lang Syne" is also used in similar poems by Robert Ayton (1570–1638)

Encyclopaedia Brit., 1911 states this: "...and the old version of “Auld Lang Syne” ...certainly not Aytoun's. "(https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Aytoun,_Sir_Robert)

It appears that Charles Rogers, Aytoun's XIX century publisher, privately printed the poem in 1871 in "The Poems of Sir Robert Aytoun".

Nowhere on the net could I find any reference to the year of creation of the poem by Aytoun.

Thus it might be a literary mystification, stressing the importance of Burns' work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.112.96.51 (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Melody

This is not the original melody, and by smoe accounts, it's not the one Burns prefered. There are numerous recorded versions of the original available, and the notated melody is also available. Should be at least some mention of this, and perhaps a sample score so the two melodies can be compared.

"Old long since"

This is still perfectly good, if rather old-fashioned, English. No need, especially in the lede, to elaborate on the close equivalence with "Auld Lang Syne" more than we already do here, or mention the derivation of both phases from Middle English. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Auld_Lang_Syne/Archive_2&oldid=1050409709"