Talk:Ronnie Hazlehurst

Untitled

• I have reformated the page to make it easier to follow the SClub7 debate, please do not revert. Please try and keep all debate together! SouthernElectric 10:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment

The list of themes Ronnie has written speaks for itself. These tunes are embedded in the psyche of every British person over the age of 30. The mans an unsung genius! If he was some obscure itailian movie theme writer everyone would falling over themselves to praise him. There should be more info on this page! Supermatch Game Supermatch Game....Supermatch Game02:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Obituaries within External links

I've actually removed the Obituaries from the External links section. I normally do this, as I believe that there is no reason to have them there. All notable people have obituaries and I feel its superfluous to have them as External links. All are linked as they are references. Is this alright with everyone?--UpDown 19:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If they are already cited then there really isn't any point in listing them again IMO, that would go for any subject or article. (SouthernElectric 20:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

The SClub 7 Hoax

Please, please, please don't keep adding the dubious "fact" that he co-wrote "Reach" by S Club 7. He didn't. All of the obituaries referencing this sourced their information from Wikipedia, so don't think because they say it makes it true- because it isn't. James2001 11:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, whilst I'm leaning to your side of the argument the problem is that there are now citations (probably incorrect but citations never the less) that says he did, so unless you can cite proof he didn't write the song could you not reach a compromise to the effect of a short sentence stating that there are un-cited rumors etc. etc.... ? (SouthernElectric 12:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

James2001, where is your cite that the obituaries copied it from Wikipedia. Seems a very odd things for these papers to do.--UpDown 12:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Find me some proof he DID write it then. He's certainly not listed in the song's writing credits. It had never been claimed anywhere until someone added it to Wikipedia last week.

Four indepedent and reliable sources. I can't honestly believe they all copied from Wikipedia, as most newspapers would not think of Wikipedia is a reliable source (especially how this page looked, and still does look). --UpDown 12:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, can you find any proof whatsoever, that pre-dates the entry being added to Wikipedia which states he wrote the song? Because I can find none. None whatsoever. I (embarrasingly) own a copy of the single, and Ronnie's name is mentioned nowhere.James2001 12:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Believe it, User:UpDown. They shouldn't, but they do. If you want to see something equally absurd, take a look at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/15/tom_melly_wikipedia_comment/ and then look at the references on George Melly (ref number 5 in particular). Tomandlu 10:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Chaps!
UpDown; It's common knowledge within the media that Wikipedia is used to obtain info, it was even admitted to in an interview last week were a presenter cited the very problem James2001 is complaining about. The problem is that copywriters just don't have the time to research their sources anymore in this 24/7 'rolling news' age, if one media source runs with it then it's likely others will.

James; This is becoming a citation war, there are works that (for example) Paul McCartney had involvement with but are un-credited to him, I think you need to work to-wards a compromise if this isn't going to get into a revert war or similar.
(SouthernElectric 12:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

I will do more research into this later. In the meantime I would ask James2001 to leave the verifiable version of the page intact. 3 sources support my side of the argument, none his. Can we leave the page as it is until a conclusion on this is decided on this page. We do not need an edit war!--UpDown 12:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added sources to prove that Cathy Dennis and Andrew Todd are the writers. I think it's fairly clear from the rogue edit being made only a few days ago that Hazelburst had nothing to do with the song. Davidbod 12:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. Due to these sources, which of course I trust, I believe the whole thing can be excluded from Wikipedia article. It is not notable, and we also have no evidence (however likely) it was copied from Wikipedia. I think it is a far better idea to not mention it at all. If it is ever added again we can then remove it.--UpDown 12:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I vote that we should keep a note of it on the article, otherwise we're going to see it repeated as a "fact" forever. Anyone else? Davidbod 12:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I just remind people of the Three-revert rule.... If there are no citations to the effect that he did contribute then there really should be no mention of the song, As for the apparent errors in the media, again there doesn't seem to be any facts or citations that the media got the information here - it's possible that the 'rouge' editor got their information from the same place as the media. IMO leave this off the article page for now. (SouthernElectric 13:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

It's clearly not true, but it's now been in several reliable and verifiable sources, and under Wikipedia rules it makes no difference whether it's true or not. -88.110.106.100 13:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

But nor is there a rule that says every 'fact' needs to be recorded, anyway, unless someone can cite proof that he did contribute and not just reports he did then surely it's just recording rumor? Perhaps we should all wait a week or two on this, just to see if any corrections need to be printed...(SouthernElectric 13:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Here is a definitive source for the composers of "Reach" by S Club 7. Sourced from EMI Music publising and backed up by MCPS, (via www.theregister.co.uk) A couple of seconds in Google takes you to a real, primary source, EMI Publishing, where the correct credit for 'Reach' is hidden in plain view: Cathy Dennis and Andrew Todd. The MCPS confirmed to us that the royalties are split 50:50 between the two composers. [1] 16:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Great, but we're now linking to obituaries that we now know are wrong. Wouldn't it be best to include a note to clear things up? Davidbod 17:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can cite/prove that these obituaries are wrong, doing so in an encyclopedic way, then do so, the problem before was that rumor was contesting here-say. A warning is not encyclopedic, citing legend or fact could be. (SouthernElectric 18:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Yes, but we not responsible for external links. We link to IMDb, TV.com etc etc, they are not always right. --UpDown 18:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Err if the MCPS get these things wrong than there are going to be a lot of unhappy musicians and singers! If the MCPS can be cited via a definite document the that should be OK to prove that Ronnie wasn't taking any royalties although it does not prove one way or the other that he had no involvement in the song. (SouthernElectric 18:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

To be honest I don't really understand what you talking about and how it relates to my comment! All I was saying if that there is no need to say something isn't true. We are not responsible for the content of external links. If Hazlehurst didn't write the S Club 7 song, we don't mention it in article. Just because 3 other obituaries did doesn't mean we need to mention it. --UpDown 19:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I thought you were questioning the notability of a MCPS document. As for your comment above, I agree - at the moment, but if the rumors become 'urban legend' then this is a place (IMO) were that legend can be recorded and the record put straight. (SouthernElectric 19:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Let's not be nitwits here. A) It's not going into the article. B) There will, however, be a commented-out note explaining the situation. DS 21:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats good, I like the commented-out note.--UpDown 07:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It was on Newswatch on BBC news 24 this morning about the hoax, and the BBC had cited an anoyomous edit from Wikipedia on it's news story! Lugnuts 08:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The Times printed a retraction yesterday. --UpDown 07:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It probably should be mentioned, actually;

I think the Reach debacle should be mentioned in the article. Yes, it's something of a self-reference, but given that it was mentioned in The Register and - as mentioned above - on BBC Newswatch, surely that makes it notable in itself, not just to us Wikipedians. Newswatch, at least, is a solid and reliable source. Why shouldn't the error be mentioned, other than to avoid making Wikipedia look a bit silly, which is not a good reason? 86.132.138.205 14:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No it should not be mentioned, and why;

It's tangentially related to the life of Ronnie Hazlehurst, yes. However, given the relatively little material on that for which the subject is notable (ie. decades of being a composer of well-known television themes etc), a whole paragraph on the cock-ups of Wikipedia editors and newspaper researchers would give undue weight to what is a minor blip in the chap's life (and death). --Scathlock 14:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If every hoax was mentioned, Wikipedia would be full of nothing else, if this 'debacle' is a notable it's more to do with the gullibility of the media than anything to do with Ronnie Hazlehurst. If it's to be recorded it should be elsewhere, perhaps within the history of the BBC, recording the facts relating to 'Their year of fakes and hoaxes' which could then be wiki linked back here! Sorry, I know it happened and I know it centered around this article but it doesn't belong here, in this article, it belongs in an article about 'infamous' Wikipedia hoaxes or media history. (SouthernElectric 14:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

• Please also see this WP:BLP#Reliable_sources. (SouthernElectric 23:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

re On-article warning

Please leave the on-article warning up, the editors warning is still being ignored. It's not doing any harm to 95% of the article, it would be different it it was at the top of the article. (SouthernElectric 17:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Sorry I didn't discuss here first before removing for second time, I didn't see the comment. However, as I said in the edit history, since we agreed on this page on 3rd Oct. that the S Club bit was needed and the pasted comment was put on, only 1 person has added it. This was reverted and has no been re-added. There is no dispute, there was but its been discussion and settled. --UpDown 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As per below, I've put the commented out warning back in, as there's been atleast one IP editor in. And it made [Have I Got News For You] as well... --RedHillian 20:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

The latest issue of Private Eye (issue date 12 October) has laugh at the expense the newspapers which reported the SClub7 "fact". I suppose this might lead to an upsurge in people trying to reinsert it - suggest a quick WP:RFPP if it comes back. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes thats a good idea. Hopefully it won't come to that though (fingers crossed).--UpDown 07:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Or just reinstate the on-article template that was removed... 99% of these edits are being made in good faith, they are not vandalism, protecting a page that is not subject to vandalism will look like censorship. The on article warning template gave a heads up to those who wish to make good faith edits but are unaware of the issues. (SouthernElectric 10:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC))

I don't doubt that most of edits so far were in good faith; however press articles about Wikipedia vandalism have a tendency to encourage copycat vandalism (see also Stephen Colbert), so if there's a sudden upsurge now there's a good chance it will be from Private Eye readers having a laugh (the report clearly stated that the story wasn't true). However, it's not really an issue unless it actually happens - hopefully Private Eye readers are more mature than that. I just saw the article last night and thought I'd drop a note here quickly. Best Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 10:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This nonsense has also just been mentioned on Have I Got News For You - by Ian Hislop. However, he was having a go at lazy journalists rather than WP itself, so that's no bad thing. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 20:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And we've had one, from [Talk:212.137.53.1]. I've reverted, and put a note on their talkpage. I've also put the note back in. --RedHillian 20:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

iv just edited the article to include infomation about the hoax, its a fantastic example of why if your going to publish a piece of infomation double check it elseware on the internet. I havn't referenced my bit on the s-club hoax, if somebody could do that it would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristan and the Troubadours (talk • contribs) 22:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just deleted the above edit by User:Tristan and the Troubadours. It was quite NPOV, and badly written. I wasn't aware of the discussion on this talk page when I erased it. I think that the hoax should not be included, it's bollocks, let's not be intimidated by references in popular culture. Gareth E Kegg 22:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

For posterity

90.202.68.194 (talk · contribs) added the s-club information on 20 September (so the incorrect information was on the page for under a month). --h2g2bob (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, should I remove the {{Content}} tag SouthernElectric put in, or is that still under discussion? --h2g2bob (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Leave it for the moment, this issue's just had a fresh burst of publicity in the past day or so. When things quieten down and everyone oves onto the next source of lulz, it can come out again. --RedHillian 02:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes leave it in, it shows that we are attempting to control the situation locally should we end up needing to ask for a full or semi locking of the article (which is a serious thing to ask for if you think about it, admin should not just place them lightly), as I said before where it's placed is not affecting 95% of the article. (SouthernElectric 09:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC))

Where to mention the Hoax

I've added a two-sentence mention of the hoax here , which I think is a more logical place for the material to sit - I agree with other editors that it is not relevant material for this article. It could be included as a See Also wikilink, though, maybe, partially as a deterrent to editors wanting to add the material here. What do others think? SP-KP 08:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all sure about even mentioning it as a 'see also', that might actually give more credence to having a full textual reference, this hoax is not a notable fact of Ronnie Hazlehurst's career or life, this hoax belongs in the article you cite above with a link back here - not an out going link from here. Taking that on board I'm renaming this sub-section. (SouthernElectric 10:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC))

I think it should be mentioned in the article as a 'see also'. I think it is relevant - if not to the article, then to Wikipedia itself. It amazes me that journalists at esteemed organisations like the Gruaniad, Times and Beeb do not check what they find here further. So I think its kudos to us for how highly they obviously rate us. No? --Kylemew 21:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's relevant to some things like WP in general, but not to this article. Therefore for the purposes of this article, it's not relevant, and should not be added/linked. --RedHillian 00:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. ok then. Leave as is?

Where's a good place for stuff about WP in the news etc? There's loads of stuff out there. Private Eye never goes an issue without mentioning us. --Kylemew 18:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

OUTDENTING FOR LAYOUT Well, SP-KP put a link above to History_of_Wikipedia#Controversies, where it's mentioned. But it's not really part of WPs main purview, reporting on itself surely? --RedHillian 19:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks good there, as it is with its pesky bedfellows, in context, rather than confusing the reader on the main article. Gareth E Kegg 21:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment − Doesn't the fact that nearly every national newspaper published their obituaries for Ronnie Hazlehurst verbatim from Wikipedia demonstrate a certain laziness on behalf of the press - a lack of checking and confirming facts? It demonstrates the importance of Wikipedia and I certainly won't pay attention to obituary sections in the press in future, I'll just refer directly to Wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.155.106 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 28 October 2007

Again...

Is there anything wrong with mentioning the hoax very briefly? The reason I think it's worth including is because the S Club 7 reference was made in many of what are otherwise considered reliable and respected media sources. For future historical/archiving purposes, when this is long forgotten, shouldn't Wikipedia's article aim to be a good and inclusive source of information and disspeller of disinformation?

I'm not sure there's any consensus that it's completely non-notable, though I agree it shouldn't be given undue weight. Comments/thoughts plz.. • Anakin ^(talk) 03:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with the discussion that was had at the time - in which I took part - that this is not notable in Hazlehurst's life. It is mentioned - or should be - on a relevant article about Wikipedia, but don't think its relevant here. But if it does have to be mentioned, then as brief as possible.--UpDown (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It should be included given its press coverage it is highly notable, to the extent i'm surprised it doesnt have its own article Sherzo (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

My God! It really didn't get that much press attention...it is not notable in Hazlehurst's life. It mentioned on the relevant pages, but not here.--UpDown (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Similarities between theme tunes

An editor has been adding content to the effect that Hazlehurst's theme music for To the Manor Born is similar to Yes, Minister. Initially these were added as unsourced personal observations; when pressed for sources, the editor provided a customer review on a DVD site, and a Guardian blog mentioning that the two songs are "not dissimilar". The first source fails WP:RS, as anybody can write anything in a customer review; the second also seems inadequate - it's a Guardian blogger saying how an anonymous colleague of his thinks the theme tunes are "not dissimilar", which doesn't meet the "professionals in the field on which they write" of WP:SPS.

If there's a quote from a reliable source, or an expert in the field, or even an interview with Hazlehurst himself, then they'd be fine sources. As it stands, if the best sources we can find are from a DVD customer and an anonymous friend of a Guardian blogger, then this is an obscure enough similarity that it doesn't need documenting in an encyclopaedia. Plenty of songs sound like other songs, and we should use the filter of verifiability to judge which comparisons are worth drawing.

Do any better sources exist? --McGeddon (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am the one who has added information regarding the similarity between the opening themes of To the Manor Born and and Yes Minister/Yes, Prime Minister]]. It's an incredibly small point in the greater scheme of the universe, but I always thought it odd that there is no real mention of this similarity in any "official" web sites relating to Hazelhurst or the two series, or in Internet Movie Database (IMDB) profiles on the series, etc. I did, however, find comments regarding this similarity on britcom comment forums, fan blogs, and a couple mentions in the DvD review and Guardian article referenced above.

Each series has a different introduction, for example the opening to Yes Minister/Yes, Prime Minister]] has the unique chimes of Big Ben, but after a few bars both themes go into the same melody. The chords sound like they may have been transposed to another key, but as I'm not alone in noticing these similarities, I wonder why it really ahsn't been discussed in any detail in any "official" article or media regarding the series or Hazelhurst, only in the forum and blogs. --Jango Davis (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is that although aurally they bear a resemblance (for reference: To the Manor and Yes Minister), they are essentially different themes. The reason you and the Australian DVD review assume that they are the same is because they feature very similar chord structures and similar melodies but they are melodically no more similar than, say, Eric Coates' "Dambusters March" and his march "Calling All Workers". That similarity is really just a hallmark of Hazelhurst's compositional style which he employs throughout many other sitcom themes. For reference, the YM theme is based on the Westminster chimes, which is a mostly descending melody, TTMB is the opposite.

In both themes, the music follows a "Fanfare-regal theme-conclusion" structure (let's call it A-B-A1), although even that is only in the end titles of YM. The central themes feature very similar orchestration, with the main melody played on strings, accompanied by the catchy percussion, woodwind and rhythm guitar giving a similar "feel" to the pieces. However, that's just because both were probably recorded by a standard BBC session orchestra at Maida Vale studios. The other innaccuracy in the proposed paragraph is the implication that the composer was somehow trying to get away with presenting the same piece and getting paid twice. However, because Hazelhurst was an in-house composer and conductor for the BBC, I assume he probably didn't take a fee for each composition but wrote them as part of his work. I may be wrong there, but I think the accusation that he was somehow taking advantage is just plain wrong. Hope that explains it. Bob talk 01:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting Bob. I'm not a musician, so I can't explain the technical aspects of the musical structure, as you did. I appreciate the examples you offered, however, why is it that we only hear this similarity on these two works by Hazelhurst and no others? I think the answer is simply that he "borrowed" from himself.

The resembalance between the Yes, Minister theme and To the Manor Born is more akin to the "similarities" between Chiffon's "He's so Fine," and George Harrison's "unintentional plagurism" with "My Sweet Lord." Also, I have found many, many links online of posts by people who agree that the similarities between the themes for YM and TTMB owe more to just the composer's "signature style."

Online, I have read dozens of posts on this relatively obscure topic. So, I'm not alone in my position, but merely echoing the sentiments of many others. I have also read comments on British TV sites, and in the Guardian, but for some reason the editorial gods at Wikipedia have deemed them as being unworthy of inclusion. I'm not sure why, because other editors for Wikipedia have let similar postings stay up, so the lack of a central editorial authority at Wikipedia is a bone of contention here as well. If there are so many people noting this similarity, then the issue is relavant enough to be included in the Wikipedia articles for To the Manor Born, Yes, Minister, and Hazelhurst's profile.

I leave you with this Bob: If the themes for Yes, Minister and To the Manor Born were written by two different composers and the former sued the latter for plagurism, I have no doubt that the case would be settled in favor of the claim of plaguirism. I appreciate Hazelhurst's talent, but he was definitely guilty of some lazy composition in this instance. So, I think Hazelhurst was "phoning it in a bit" on To the Manor Born (which came after Yes Minister I believe). While I think your point about Hazelhurst's style is valid, there simply are no other compositions by Hazelhurst to prove that point as being the causality here. If a poll was conducted online with people being able to hearboth themes I am fully confident that the majority would also note the similarity between the two themes is due to substance not style. --Jango Davis (talk) 14:1, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious as about more of his life.

Is there any further information on his life that can be obtained? Primarily, I thought that I read elsewhere as to the reason why when working on 'Last of the Summer Wine' that he created the music by why another person (Phil ?: mentioned in the credits) did the recording in the studio of his works?

Also, there is no mention of his Laurel and Hardy work? http://www.laurelandhardy.org/RonnieTribute.html I remember seeing his name on the credits of a documentary to the two comedians and I was wonderfully surprised by it. That explained to me seeing the time line why the reference to Stan Laurel's daughter appearing in an episode and the usage of the L&H signature tune when she showed up with the same hat as Nora Batty at Ivy's cafe.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.58.82 (talk) 08:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Did he really compose theme music to Only Fools and Horses?

This article currently says that Ronnie Hazlehurst composed the theme music to Only Fools and Horses. If one goes to the history of this page, one can find that according to a revision by User: KevM, the theme music to Only Fools and Horses was composed by John Sullivan, not Ronnie Hazlehurst. Vorbee (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit debatable really - he did compose the theme tune that was used on the first series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaCg93od-qY - it was then changed to the John Sullivan theme (which in any case Ronnie Hazlehurst still arranged). The original theme is usually replaced with the familar one on repeat broadcasts. Bob talk 18:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Musical education and training

Apart from learning that his mother taught piano, the article gives us no information on Hazlehurst's musical education and training. Is there any publicly available info on this? yoyo (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

More specifically:

• what instruments did he play?
• where and how did he learn arrangement and composition?
• how did he invent his themes?
• what were his methods of work?

Also, some information on his frequent collaborators could help paint a fuller picture of his musical life. yoyo (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)