Talk:Pictures of Lily

Fair use rationale for Image:TheWho PicturesOfLily German.jpg

Image:TheWho PicturesOfLily German.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thewho-picturesoflily1.jpg

Image:Thewho-picturesoflily1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Claim of reference to masturbation

The article in its present (21 October 2008) form states: "When his father gives him the pictures of the song's title, his problems are solved thanks to masturbation". In fact the lyrics of the song do not mention masturbation, nor even hint at it. That is a possible interpretation, but it is not justified by the lyrics, so I am replacing that sentence. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember when the song came out (actually I've still got the single somewhere, I think). At the time, everyone (ie my friends) all thought it was about wanking. Bluewave (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"In fact the lyrics of the song do not mention masturbation, nor even hint at it." WHAT? They hint at it so much that they do everything except say the word itself. Use the 'duck test': if it looks like a duck, if it flies like a duck, if it quacks like a duck... maybe, just perhaps, with a tiny little bit of imagination and thought we might consider the possibility that it is, in fact, a duck. This discussion should be on the front page, because the subject matter is an important facet of the song's history and effect. It's hard to mention, for instance, that the single did very well in many European countries but failed to make much of an impact in the US charts (despite being exactly the type of music that was topping the pop charts at the time) specifically because US radio stations didn't want to play a song about masturbation. 76.105.238.158 (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"They hint at it so much that they do everything except say the word itself." How? Can you quote a passage from the lyrics that hints at it? The version of the lyrics that I have says that the boy is happier when he has pictures of Lily to look at. Of course he might be happier because he was masturbating, but where in the words of the song is that fact indicated? Have I missed something? The fact that "US radio stations didn't want to play a song about masturbation" is merely an example of how many people have inferred that that is the subject matter, and does not establish that the song refers explicitly to masturbation. Only reference to the words of the song can establish that. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Poems and songs make a point of using allusion, hints, allegations, counterpoint, and many other tools that thwart a strict and literal translation of the words. It's a song, not a shopping list. And as a song, it is clearly about masturbation. But when the song was first released in the US there were people who had an agenda in favor of squelching it because of the subject matter; now the song is out of the box so they're squelching discussion instead. 76.105.238.158 (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, of COURSE its about masturbation....!!! 74.4.24.34 (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

However certain any individuals may feel that the song is hinting at masturbation, it does not MENTION masturbation. Wikipedia's policy on verifiability is perfectly clear, and "I know that that is what is about" is not sufficient grounds for making the assertion. A publication in a reliable source of a statement by the song writer that that was the intention might perhaps be sufficient. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I was being a bit flippant above, but what about John Atkins: "The Who on Record: A Critical History, 1963-1998", Published by McFarland, 2000, ISBN 0786406097, 9780786406098, p.84: "The theme of 'Pictures of Lily' is masturbation, which was an unprecedented subject matter for a Top Five hit." Bluewave (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This would clearly be enough of a citation to verify the statement that John Atkins regarded the song as about masturbation, if that fact were regarded as noteworthy, but that is not the same as saying that the song is about it. However, it seems to me that a more fundamental issue is whether the song is about masturbation. It is about a boy who finds erotic interest in photographs of a woman, and certainly in that situation it is likely that the boy would masturbate, but the song does not state that he does, nor, as far as I can see, does it even hint that it does. While it is certainly true that many people listening to the song when it came out thought the boy in the song was supposed to masturbate, that is not the same as saying that the song is about masturbation. Surely to justify that statement the song has to allude to the subject, even if only indirectly. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This pedantry is exactly the reason why the masturbation discussion should be in the main article. It's looking like the same puritanical impulses that kept the song off the airwaves because it was about masturbation are now being used to say we can't even talk about that aspect of the song. It reeks of censorship and selective application of the rules.76.105.238.158 (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

One man's pedantry is another man's trying to be clear. I am not sure in what sense it "reeks" of censorship. I have never suggested that anyone can't talk about any particular aspect of the song: I simply said that the song does not mention masturbation, and that the fact that some people think it is implicitly about masturbation does not justify asserting as a fact that it is. It is now clear that there is more justification than that, and far from following the "puritanical" line that the above anonymous commentator accuses me of, I intend to put a suitably referenced mention of the fact in the article when I have time, if nobody else beats me to it. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"I will put a suitably referenced mention of the fact . . .": I have now done so. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Now the article says "However, the song does not mention masturbation: it is left to the listener to guess that that is what is being hinted at". I find this brave new direction for Wikipedia to be very refreshing! Emboldened by the logic presented on this page, I am now heading over to modify the entry on the 'Star-Spangled Banner' because the song never explicitly mentions the United States... in fact, it doesn't explicitly identify the 'land' or 'home' over which the 'star-spangled banner' (a description that applies to the flags of no less than nine countries throughout the world) waves at all. Despite this fact, that page mention "United States" 21 times, "US" 6 times, and more egregiously the descriptor "America(n)" is used 26 times, a thoroughly unjustifiable use of a word that in fact applies to 35 countries spread over two continents. I look forward eagerly to the day when the entirety of Wikipedia is replaced by a single page showing, without unnecessary and unsubstantiated comment, the Periodic Table of the Elements... though it now occurs to me that nowhere within the symbols contained within that chart does it specifically declare anything about periodicity, tabularity, or elemental status. I guess there is still editing work to do. 76.105.238.158 (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume that this is meant to be irony. However, it is not clear to me what the point of the irony is supposed to be. The anonymous editor who wrote it appears to be trying to imply that there is something wrong with stating that the song is supposed to imply reference to masturbation but does not explicitly refer to it. It might perhaps be interesting to know what is wrong with it. 79.123.73.248 (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

See http://everything2.com/title/Pictures%2520of%2520Lily for quotes from Townshend, Daltrey, and Entwhistle that explicitly state that the song is about masturbation, and explicitly state that they sang it sweet and innocent to disguise that fact. 76.105.238.158 (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the John Atkins quote that I give above is not an isolated opinion. Just about everything that I've ever read about the song mentions masturbation. Why else was it banned in some countries? Bluewave (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the role of wikipedia to report on other sources, and not original research and speculation? It doesn't matter what the current person editing the article THINKS. It matters what various external sources think, and contradictory thoughts can be reported in the wiki article. Find well-published opinions about the song and source them -- did Rolling Stone think this was about masturbation? Have prominent musicians published any opinions? External sources, people. Anything else in this discussion is ... well, you know ... Paulc206 (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

But what about the French horn solo? Don't tell me that's not a musical imitation of an orgasm! 205.250.242.207 (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Claim of reference to pin-ups

The song never explicitly mentions pin-ups, nor does it explicitly mention women in any fashion. That is a possible interpretation, but it is not justified by the lyrics. All mention of pin-ups, women, and masturbation should include the caveat that those ideas are not substantiated within the lyrics, which clearly refer to a nice picture of flowers and the peace of mind that can be found by meditating on the same. 76.105.238.158 (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Claim of reference to being a 'song'

The sound-patterns contained within this noise-form are never explicitly declared to represent the English language, or indeed any human language. That is a possible interpretation, but it is not justified by the "lyrics". Any claims that the noise-form contains any specific content in any language human or otherwise is therefore a fabrication, and should either be deleted or qualified as being "left to the listener to guess that that is what is being hinted at". 76.105.238.158 (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Have a life? A job? Then you won't outlast the Aspergers-ridden basement-dwellers who insist black is white and up is down. Sorry, man. It's a shame, yeah. 208.111.220.136 (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This is evidently more of the same anonymous author's attempt at irony. In the context it is clear that it is meant to be a criticism of my comments. The analogy that is being made is not valid. There is a difference between stating something and trying to hint at it so that the listener will guess at it, and I am unable to conceive why this anonymous editor thinks there is anything wrong with making the distinction. I also think it is a pity that he chooses to ridicule views he disagrees with, rather than explaining his reasons for disagreeing: if there is a good reason I would be very interested to know what it is. Or, to put it another way, the intended criticism of my comments is lost on me, as I do not understand the point: it would be more helpful to state the point explicitly. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"old Vaudeville star - Lily Bayliss"

There is no such person as "old Vaudeville star - Lily Bayliss". Townsend seems to be getting confused, or being deliberately silly. Lilian Baylis was a vaudeville figure in her youth, but best known as a theatre manager, and if you've seen her picture it's difficult to imagine even the horniest teenager being turned on by it. Other sources suggest that the Lily in question was the stripper Lili St. Cyr. Paul B (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I wish that Paul Barlow had linked his sources, so I could edit the page instead of the discussion. Sources make wikipedia happy fun place. Paulc206 (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

An alternate theory to the identity of "Lily"

I realize that this is edging close to WP:OR, but I thought I'd put it out there as a possible explanation for the identity of "Lily". Lillie Langtry is the most frequently suggested reference, and she did indeed die in 1929. However, her name was spelled differently than the song's title, and Townshend may have chosen 1929 as a date for its rhyming value rather than representative of Langtry's influence. A bit closer to Townshend's time was Bild Lilli, a German comic strip of the 1950s-'60s about a very racy and often scantily-clad young woman. "Bild", of course, is German for "picture" and it also refers to the title of the tabloid in which the strip appeared -- Bild. It's possible that Townshend derived "Pictures of Lily" from "Bild Lilli" but was reluctant to make that association known, as that may have presented trademark issues. Bricology (talk) 07:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

An interesting theory, but do you have any sources to back this up? Without sources, it remains WP:OR. The references to Lillie Langtry in the article are backed up by sources, and here is another one I found. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)