Talk:My Funny Valentine
 | This article was nominated for deletion on June 13, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Index
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Infobox
editAn infobox was requested for the 1954 Chet Baker version of "My Funny Valentine" at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/List_of_notable_songs/9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InnocuousPseudonym (talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Matt Damon
editJust a note, this song was also performed by Matt Damon in "The Talented Mr. Ripley." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottonorse (talk • contribs) 04:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Lyrics
editIs there a place for the actual lyrics in the article? Manytexts (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Simple and classic structure
editA reader, Rexpage, added this to the article, in reference to the statement "This simple and classic structure makes it easy to adapt to other genres and for jazz musicians to improvise over the established chords":
An explanation of what makes this structure simple and classic is needed. It does not seem simple, what with many dominant seventh chords, not to mention an augmented fifth. It also has a melody with many non-standard intervals. Could it be that the structure of the song is better described as "interesting" than as "simple and classic" and that the song attracts jazz musicians (but not, say, bluegrass musicians) because of these characteristics?
I've moved it to the talk page, where it belongs. This seems to have come up on the talk page before, and indeed, without a proper source backing this up, "simple and classic" just seems like someone's opinion. Eman235/talk 19:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Agree, and I may offer a rewrite. I was happy to see the chords explained, but then felt this was condescending and inaccurate. I’m new to editing, but I'll take a swing at this one. Marty Mangold (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
What the hell is all that Salman Rushdie nonsense doing here??
editLose the Rushdie bit. It's irrelevant to the discussion of this song. 2601:240:D300:B50:ED48:3FB7:6975:3EA7 (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. The correct place for it is the other way round – a mention in the Rushdie article with a link to the song, which already exists. Here seems wildly off – how is this neat little pun a notable usage? I am removing it, but feel free to discuss further. Best to all DBaK (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)