Talk:O Holy Night
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the O Holy Night article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
What about the music?
editTo me, as some-one not well-versed in music theory, the song has some interesting and unusual patterns. Could some-one in the know add a discussion of the music of this song? If nothing else, at least give its tempo. Kdammers (talk) 05:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- I also just came here for this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
First music on radio?
editThere's some argument at Reginald Fessenden as to the first music broadcast on radio. It's agreed that Fessenden was responsible, and that it was his violin solo. However what was the music? The only source so far says it's Gounod's composition 'O Holy Night ' ,http://earlyradiohistory.us/1940fes2.htm one editor is arguing that it's this piece instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Andy Dingley, you're right, the reliable source states it was Gounod's piece. Those popular Stories of the Best Loved Songs books are often unreliable re-hashes of popular myths (like the myth of the organ being broken when "Silent Night" was written). I've removed the misinformation. Softlavender (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- More info I've found out: On the first radio broadcast in 1906, Fessenden actually played on his violin a song by Gounod called "Adore and Be Still", and sang the last line of it as well. He later misremembered the title as "O Holy Night", but it was clearly "Adore and Be Still": [1], [2], [3]. The incorrect myth that it was Adam's "O Holy Night" (which Fessenden never even said or wrote) has been perpetuated over the years by various pop-culture publications, but it's just a myth. Softlavender (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
In order to prevent these sorts of articles from turning into WP:COATRACKs, most such articles avoid cover lists; see for instance Silent Night, which has none. I have removed all of the noncited cover material. You'd be hard-pressed to find a singer who has recorded a Christmas album and not recorded this carol; therefore cover lists are inappropriate unless the cover achieved some sort of cited milestone. Softlavender (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- I hadn't heard of WP:COATRACKs. Thanks for pointing it out since some of the nonsense was my fault. Ckruschke (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke
Unattributed Version
editWe have had since 2007 a version of the lyrics which begins "O! Holy night! The stars, their gleams prolonging". I can't find any evidence that this is a notable version of the song. It seems to have originally been a slightly different version of the normal English lyrics, which was then edited into a rather more different version by a number of edits (interspersed amongst others) by User:Skrooball: [4]. In the absence of any source or justification, I've removed these lyrics. If any one can actually provide a source - which does not itself derive from Wikipedia - where these lyrics appear, feel free to put them back with appropriate attribution. TSP (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Merge from O Holy Night (Ladywell Primary School song)
editI attempted to merge into this article material from the article O Holy Night (Ladywell Primary School song) but was reverted. My understanding of the consensus on song articles is that multiple notable versions of the same song should be included in the main article and not in separate articles. The Ladywell Primary School version is a charting version, and the material is referenced to multiple reliable sources (two newspaper sites and the Official Charts Company). I believe the Ladywell Primary School information should be merged into O Holy Night.—ShelfSkewed Talk 06:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- That does not apply to classical music and traditional songs. Just add one sentence about it in the "Recordings" section. And if you like, add it to the "Charts" and/or "Certifications" sections. Softlavender (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- It most certainly does apply to traditional songs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Not Christian hymns. Softlavender (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- I have restored and trimmed the content. Marking the other version a redirect here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for trimming it further. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Softlavender: I'm not sure where you got that. Hymns (Christian or otherwise), non-hymn religious songs, national anthems, commercial jingles, wacky parodies, etc. are all songs. They aren't set aside from every other song in the world because of what we feel about them. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- See "Amazing Grace", for instance, or any other Christian hymn or classical song ("Nessun Dorma") or national anthem that has had charting version(s). Judy Collins recorded "Amazing Grace" in 1970 and it reached #15 on Billboard Hot 100, #5 in the UK, #5 in New Zealand, and #12 in Ireland, but we don't have a separate subheading and section on it, or an infobox, cover art, etc. Now this article on "O Holy Night" is in the absurd position of having most of its text being devoted to a minor cover that no one outside of Scotland remembers, whereas the actual noteworthy and highest-charting covers (Carey's and Groban's) have nothing of the sort. This violates WP:UNDUE. It also violates WP:SONGCOVER, since the Ladywell Primary cover does not have sufficient independent reliable-source coverage in its own right. The only citation about it says nothing significant about the version itself, but only about the boy and his illness and death and how the proceeds were to be spent. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Starting from the end, it does not violate SONGCOVER as it is notable on its own. Notability does not rely on the presence of independent reliable sources. Those sources should be supplied though. If other hymns or classical songs have notable covers, the current guideline is to merge them into the primary article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- "If other hymns or classical songs have notable covers, the current guideline is to merge them into the primary article." For hymns, classical music, national anthems, etc., charting or notable covers do not get section headers, infoboxes, cover art, or charts tables. See "Amazing Grace", "Nessun Dorma", "The Star-Spangled Banner", etc. – all notable covers are simply mentioned in the body text, they do not get highlighted with section headers, infoboxes, cover art, or charts tables. Softlavender (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Your objection is noted and we can clearly fix the articles you refused to break back-links on. The way they are mentioned is up to the editors. If there is enough information about the version, and it has its own cover, it makes sense to use an infobox with the cover. It also makes sense to give it its own heading as there is likely a redirect from somewhere to it, although an anchor can be created without a heading. If there is only charting information, a table probably isn't necessary, just a one-liner, but since COVERSONG states that a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), if is noteworthy in its own right and could stand as its own article it makes sense that there's enough information for it in the separate article and it should have its own section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- "If other hymns or classical songs have notable covers, the current guideline is to merge them into the primary article." For hymns, classical music, national anthems, etc., charting or notable covers do not get section headers, infoboxes, cover art, or charts tables. See "Amazing Grace", "Nessun Dorma", "The Star-Spangled Banner", etc. – all notable covers are simply mentioned in the body text, they do not get highlighted with section headers, infoboxes, cover art, or charts tables. Softlavender (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Starting from the end, it does not violate SONGCOVER as it is notable on its own. Notability does not rely on the presence of independent reliable sources. Those sources should be supplied though. If other hymns or classical songs have notable covers, the current guideline is to merge them into the primary article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- See "Amazing Grace", for instance, or any other Christian hymn or classical song ("Nessun Dorma") or national anthem that has had charting version(s). Judy Collins recorded "Amazing Grace" in 1970 and it reached #15 on Billboard Hot 100, #5 in the UK, #5 in New Zealand, and #12 in Ireland, but we don't have a separate subheading and section on it, or an infobox, cover art, etc. Now this article on "O Holy Night" is in the absurd position of having most of its text being devoted to a minor cover that no one outside of Scotland remembers, whereas the actual noteworthy and highest-charting covers (Carey's and Groban's) have nothing of the sort. This violates WP:UNDUE. It also violates WP:SONGCOVER, since the Ladywell Primary cover does not have sufficient independent reliable-source coverage in its own right. The only citation about it says nothing significant about the version itself, but only about the boy and his illness and death and how the proceeds were to be spent. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- I have restored and trimmed the content. Marking the other version a redirect here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Not Christian hymns. Softlavender (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- It most certainly does apply to traditional songs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- I can't help but agree with Softlavender that excessive mentions of pop music recordings bring UNDUE weight on these. Something topping the charts doesn't make it "notable", only "popular". Most of the recordings in the article don't have any secondary source to support how they are "significant", just the chart number. I've added actual information about that from an actual secondary source which drastically trims the listing from a WP:INDISCRIMINATE one to something more significant. The criteria for inclusion of a specific version here should be the usual "secondary source which notes its significance OR article about it" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- There is no undue weight on them. Removing them just because they're pop covers of a traditional song violates WP:COVERSONG. There are many articles on singles that simply remain because they charted and no other reason. We keep the article from becoming a WP:COATRACK by only allowing songs that charted into a section where they are addressed. You can address the and UNDUE weight by expanding the rest of the prose on the traditional version. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Can't do that when you keep reverting it [5]... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- And WP:COVERSONG is a Wikiproject guideline (from a project that is basically about modern popular [in the broad sense] music). Basically WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and hardly valid advice for something like this. Doesn't even hold a candle when compared to UNDUE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nor does COVERSONG say that songs which charted can be included. Short of having an article, the Wikiproject advicee page says "the rendition is discussed by a reliable source, showing that it is noteworthy in its own right." Being in a chart (which is a statistical source which offers zero significant coverage) is not being "discussed by a reliable source showing that it is noteworthy"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- And WP:COVERSONG is a Wikiproject guideline (from a project that is basically about modern popular [in the broad sense] music). Basically WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and hardly valid advice for something like this. Doesn't even hold a candle when compared to UNDUE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Can't do that when you keep reverting it [5]... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- There is no undue weight on them. Removing them just because they're pop covers of a traditional song violates WP:COVERSONG. There are many articles on singles that simply remain because they charted and no other reason. We keep the article from becoming a WP:COATRACK by only allowing songs that charted into a section where they are addressed. You can address the and UNDUE weight by expanding the rest of the prose on the traditional version. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
WP:SONGCOVER isn't just a guideline, it is commonsense. If a song is worthy of an article then the history of the song should be all in one place for the reader to read, subject to the usual guidelines. Whether editors approve of the the style, the artist, the commerce or any other aspect of any particular version, there is no valid reason for the application of segregation on different versions of the same song. Other problems can be discussed separately. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's why I added this:
The song has been recorded by numerous well-known popular-music, classical-music, and religious-music singers. It makes a frequent appearance in the annual performances of the Choir of King's College, Cambridge. Notable recordings include a classical crossover version by Josh Groban and Andrea Bocelli in My Christmas, and a version by Mariah Carrey, alongside the chart-topping "All I Want For Christmas is You", in Merry Christmas (1994).[1] In French-language churches, it is commonly used at the beginning of the Midnight Mass.[2]
References
- ^ "What are the original lyrics to 'O Holy Night' – and who has recorded it?". Classic FM.
- ^ Bronze, Jean-Yves (December 6, 2003). "The Minuit, Chrétiens in Québec". La Scena Musicale. 9 (4).
- Which adequately covers notable renditions of the song without spending an UNDUE two thirds of the article on it. Being on a chart is not an automatic pass (there's no such thing), as NSONG clearly states: "this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable." - if particular cover versions are noteworthy and significant in the context of discussing this song (and not simply because they're part of a notable album), then please provide secondary sources which give credence to this proposition. If particular versions charted as singles, that can and should be mentioned first at the relevant album page. As to here? Maybe give a textual mention for the most significant ones (something like what I wrote above, or heck even Pachelbel's canon would be a half decent example), but excessively detailed tables about that are UNDUE and COATRACK here - they should go on the more relevant pages first. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- A section of prose is welcome, but does not remove the usefulness of the tables for individual charting versions. It keeps it visually organized.
- traditional songs will have many cover versions, and this is an appropriate way to represent their appeal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- FWIW, I agree with Walter Görlitz in part - traditional songs such as this are so ubiquitous that showing the few covers that actually chart is needed. However, showing charting of covers in actual charts seems to go both ways on Wikipedia (see Unchained Melody and Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (song) as examples of each). I like the physical charts, but that's just my POV. Ckruschke (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)