Talk:Some Enchanted Evening

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

Requested move[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some Enchanted Evening (song) → Some Enchanted Evening – The song is the obvious and very clear and uncontroversial WP:PRIMARY TOPIC; all of the other three entries on the now-primarily-titled disambiguation page are simply minor usages clearly based on the famous song. I'm not sure how or why this article on the song was titled with a piped title in the first place. Softlavender (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supports:

  • It appears the Simpsons episode was the original topic at the base title, and was considered the primary topic for some time. Yes, really. Support unreservedly. Powers T 12:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also Support, as this is what most searchers will be looking for. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Trimmed list of so-called "recordings"[edit]

I trimmed the list of "Recordings" as follows: I trimmed the redlinks; the instrumentals; and the TV and movie performances which aren't actual recordings. Namely:

I also trimmed this bit of trivia in the body text: "The song is sung by an itinerant chanteuse in a pivotal scene in the movie Crossing Delancey."

Also, the existing list of notable recordings could use more dates and then it should be put in chronological order. EDIT: I've put the recordings in chronological order, with the exception of the two which do not have dates. Softlavender (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would put back in a brief paragraph about the instances where the song is performed in feature films and on TV, including the Ally McBeal, Muppet Show, American Graffiti and Crossing Delancey references (obviously this should be sourced). It is of interest, I think, that the song is used in films and TV episodes that are unrelated to South Pacific. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to replace or source that info, but if someone wants to, here are some more (not exhaustive, people input these things only sporadically) from IMDB: [1] Plus the other uses of the title that are on the dab page should perhaps be mentioned. Softlavender (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm going to be mostly offline for the next week, but I'll try to get to this asap. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Willie Nelson never released a recording of the song. He did however sing it in a video: [2]. It's not even listed on IMDB. Anyway, I'm removing his name from the recordings list. The video can be added to video usages/performances when that section gets created. Softlavender (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a wonderful version by Al Jolson. It should be included in the list.98.162.136.248 (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that shows that it was a hit recording or otherwise particularly noteworthy? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verbs?[edit]

Re: "According to the running commentary on the DVD release of South Pacific, this song provides an example of Oscar Hammerstein II's use of verbs in a song. The DVD commentary mentions that Lehman Engel remembered how Hammerstein wanted to write a song based around verbs, but waited ten years to do so before he wrote this song.":

Don't all sentences, and thus virtually all lyrics have verbs? Isn't it generally agreed that since verbs show action, virtually all sentences except "to be" sentences are "based around verbs"? The verbs in "Some Enchanted Evening" are pretty ordinary and not especially emphasized. I really haven't a clue what the above paragraph in italics is trying to say. TheScotch (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to get the DVD and listen to the commentary and see what exactly it says. (I don't personally have the DVD and have never listened to the commentary.) To me, though, if that's what the commentary says, it makes as much sense as anything, because there's not a lot else in this article. UPDATE: The info, which was added by Yip1982, also included this sentence: "The song is rich with verbs, such as 'see', 'hear' and 'find.'" -- but someone deleted that part. It might be worth re-adding. Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the story has been told on the DVD and other places, and I added the verbs into the text, but the article needs more references. Somebody needs to dip into a real book about South Pacific or R&H to get some refs for this article. As for the list of recordings, that should be available on the internet, if someone searches for each one. For example, here is one for Bryn Terfel: http://www.allmusic.com/album/something-wonderful-bryn-terfel-sings-rodgers-hammerstein-r309313 -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph as it currently reads is not acceptable. If you want something about verbs to stay, you'd better post a verbatim transcription of the relevant portion of the DVD commentary here, and we can try to sort it out.

Re: "To me, though, if that's what the commentary says, it makes as much sense as anything, because there's not a lot else in this article."

I don't see logic in this statement. The article says, for example, that "Some Enchanted Evening" is a song by Oscar Hammerstein II and Richard Rodgers from the Broadway musical South Pacific. That makes perfect sense and therefore makes appreciably more sense than the bit about verbs. (I doubt very much, by the way, that the commentary is accurately quoted.) In any case, if we have nothing especially to say about this song, why have the article in the first place?

Re: "UPDATE: The info, which was added by Yip1982, also included this sentence: 'The song is rich with verbs, such as "see", "hear" and "find."' -- but someone deleted that part. It might be worth re-adding."

It's not worth re-adding. All three verbs are utterly plain and common, and the song is not "richer with verbs" than any other song. TheScotch (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a threat?  :) Softlavender (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The passage in question is "threatened", if you like, because it is nonsensical as it currently stands. The obvious way to support it is to provide the verbatim transcription. If Ssilvers hasn't got and never had the transcription, he shouldn't have added the passage. We can't just go sticking things into an article that we vaguely remember maybe having heard on some DVD commentary or other. TheScotch (talk) 07:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers didn't add the passage. The editor who did, whom I mentioned in my first reply in this section, has responded to my query by saying "I'm referring to the 2006 Fox DVD release of the 1958 film version of South Pacific with Gaynor and Brazzi. This is part of the running commentary of the film on the first disc by Ted Chapin and Gerard Alessondrini. Gerard Alessondrini mentions that Hammerstein told Lehman Engel that he wanted to write a 'verb' lyric ten years before he wrote South Pacific. This is part of the 2006 Fox DVD release and also part of the recent 2008 Blu-Ray version of the film." By the way, if you edit your comment considerably after someone has replied to it, please note your edits/updates as such, or create a new comment down below the last one posted. Softlavender (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling with a laptop pad, rather than a mouse, and I didn't edit my comment after I first noticed you'd replied. You're going pretty fast here. Can Yip1982 give us something we can accurately put quotation marks around? (What did Ssilvers mean when he said he "added the verbs into the text"?) TheScotch (talk) 07:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a query on Yip's talk page just now. It would obviously take some time for a verbatim transcript of the comment(s). Meanwhile, we now have the exact source, which is checkable by any editor or reader. Also, I've found a similar but not identical quote from a Lehman Engel book: [3]. He also makes the following comment about SEE two paragraphs above that: "In this song the words and music are so inseparable that (as Hammerstein once wrote, speaking generally) you can scarcely think of one without the other." [I can't make the Google-snippets show that directly]. One more request: Please remember to use colons to correctly indent your post so that it's indented more than the post you are replying to. Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that more than one colon is ever necessary. We only need comments to be alternately indented and not indented. In any case, please do not edit any comment of mine in any way. I am certainly willing to wait for an actual DVD commentary quote. Okay, I can barely make out the Engel passage from Google books. It seems to say each section of the song is organized around a key verb. Well, that's very different. That could certainly go in the article. As for the words-and-music matching quote, that could go in the article as well maybe. (Still struggling with this awful pad--sorry.) TheScotch (talk) 08:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Help:Using talk pages#Indentation. Softlavender (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK to remove refimprove tag?[edit]

It seems that everything that really needs to be is referenced, except possibly for the precise DVD in question (so that can be tagged inline if desired, instead of up top). Softlavender (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed tag at the top and instead inserted cn tags were references are needed inline. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lehman Engel material[edit]

Here is some material I've found relating to the Lehman Engel comments about the song.

  • Yip1982 says, regarding the source of the commentary he paraphrased:

I'm referring to the 2006 Fox DVD release of the 1958 film version of South Pacific with Gaynor and Brazzi. This is part of the running commentary of the film on the first disc by Ted Chapin and Gerard Alessandrini. Gerard Alessandrini mentions that Hammerstein told Lehman Engel that he wanted to write a 'verb' lyric ten years before he wrote South Pacific. This is part of the 2006 Fox DVD release and also part of the recent 2008 Blu-Ray version of the film.

  • Yip1982 posted a transcription of the commentary:

Gerard Alessandrini:

Lehman Engel, the great conductor and teacher of musical theatre, used to tell his class that – you can confirm this or deny it – that Hammerstein had told him that for about ten years prior to writing the song, he was searching for a song that he wanted to write – a lyric that was a "verb" lyric that was all about seeing, hearing, doing, feeling – taking action, and then he finally found it with this character. And indeed if you listen to the lyric, "you may see a stranger", "you may hear her laughing", and then take action and do it. And then Rodgers just scored it with the emphasis on the verbs. So it's the "verb" song."
  • I've found a similar but not identical quote from a Lehman Engel book: [4]. He also makes the following comment about the song two paragraphs above that: "In this song the words and music are so inseparable that (as Hammerstein once wrote, speaking generally) you can scarcely think of one without the other." [I can't make the Google-snippets show that directly].

Softlavender (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a ref to the correct DVD. I think that Alessandrini's statement backs up the text. Unless someone is trying to take this article to GA or FA any time soon, I don't see why this start article is the focus of so much attention. There are no controversial statements being made here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB[edit]

Unfortunately, IMDB is not a WP:Reliable source. See WP:IMDB. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of citations are you wanting for the 4 TV/film uses, the 2 acting awards, and the #1 Billboard hit? (And what about the 4 TV episode titles, and the 20 recording artists?) As you stated above, "I don't see why this start article is the focus of so much attention. There are no controversial statements being made here." The awards are not cited on either South Pacific or the List of awards and nominations for the musical South Pacific nor on most any article on any musical I've seen, except for the tiny handful of FA musical articles. Same with #1 Billboard hits. The succession navbox is even at the bottom of this article. IMDB is not a reliable source for trivia, biographies, and other textual observations and opinions, but it is the source of record for cast and crew listings, and for some other listings. I'd rather delete the film and TV uses, as I did previously, than spend days finding other mentions of the uses. You personally re-added the TV/film uses and promised to source them before re-adding them. Could you please do that yourself, then? And are you willing to find the original Billboard listings? (And do you want to tag the various other South Pacific articles, and every Wikipedia article on acting awards and Billboard listings?) These are all non-controversial statements that are a matter of public record. In my personal opinion you are over-tagging this article. If you really want to help, could you please find sources, rather than tagging things that are not tagged in any other WP article and then leaving the article full of unsightly tags (making it very hard to read) and leaving it up to others to find sources for those elsewhere-untagged items? (And/or could you please remove the tags for the items which are not tagged in any other WP article anywhere on the subjects?) If so, thanks, and thanks for helping with the article. Softlavender (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. First of all, happy holidays! I think that you and I have brought this little article forward quite a bit from where it was last year. I am very pleased by its progress. I've just added the acting awards, which are online. Someone else added a ref for the #1 hit. The list of recording artists should be referenced. Some of it can be verified on Allmusic.com and some can be referenced here. I agree that it is time consuming to do, but it does not need to be done now - eventually, people will come up with references. But if we are going to say that something was a #1 hit, that requires a cite needed tag. You're right that I promised to source the cultural references, and now I have done it. Sorry for the delay! Perhaps you could take a look at this and at Allmusic.com to try to find some refs for the list of recordings? No problem if you're too busy. But please don't remove cn tags, even if you think they're unsightly. They are how Wikipedia alerts people that something is needed - indeed, that is how we got someone to come and help us reference the #1 hit info. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture[edit]

Someone tried to expand the popular culture section into a long bullet-point list that looks like WP:TRIVIA. The more compact narrative paragraph is, I believe, more appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Also, there is no reason to subdivide the relatively short sections of this article further. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Some Enchanted Evening. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinza[edit]

Ezio Pinza was a Baritone ( mid range ) male singer : not a Bass ( lowest voice ) If you listen to the recording of him singing Some Enchanted Evening you will clearly hear him singing Baritone. A quick Google search reveals his vocal range ( in scientific pitch notation) to be from A2 to D4 Baritone : definitely not Bass. -- 49.181.206.109

Well, Pinza's article says he was a bass. You should bring this up on his Talk page if you have sources that state he was a baritone, not a bass. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Some_Enchanted_Evening&oldid=1218918669"