Talk:Aquarela do Brasil

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Brazil: Arts Low‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Arts in Brazil task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Latin music Mid‑importance

	Latin music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Latin music (music performed in Spanish, Portuguese and the languages of Ibero-America, see project scope for more details) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latin musicWikipedia:WikiProject Latin musicTemplate:WikiProject Latin musicLatin music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

The Aviator soundtrack

I cannot verify that Aquarela do Brasil appears in the aviator soundtrack

http://www.amazon.com/Aviator-Score-Howard-Shore/dp/B0006TYIN0
http://www.amazon.com/Aviator-Various-Artists/dp/B0006IINQE

--seunghun

Edit war

Please discuss why previous edit was better --JWB 01:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly.
- The first reason is that it didn't contain the copyrighted lyrics. If you look way back in the edit history, you'll see that someone did that very early on, and they were taken down by a later editor.
- Second, the phrasing is better in places. This is a matter of opinion on my part, though. For instance, I much prefer "one pluvious night" to "in a pluvious night", and don't really have a reason for it.
- Third, it wasn't a total revert. I considered the link to the 'history of Brazil' page to be useful, and pasted it into the revert.
Hope that answers your questions-Litefantastic 01:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe 'watercolor' is the more straightforward translation. 'Pluvious' is also an obscure word. I have no argument with the copyright issue. I was not sure which version you were partially reverting to, but now I see you did one earlier version. --JWB 02:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I like 'pluvious'. It's an interesting way of saying 'rainy', though I will give you that it's obscure. I assume 'watercolor' means 'aquarela'; that one kind of came out of left field. as far as this coversation goes. -Litefantastic 14:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wrote pluvious since I'm latinic and this word is more familiar to me. It could be changed to rainy. It is certainly less melodramatic, but does it matter? José San Martin 14:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer "one - night" to "in a - night", because the first is more emphatic about the time he wasted to wrote it. The second emphasize just the weather. José San Martin 14:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, English has two words for everything. Aquarelle is better, once it is closer to the original word. But why not use [ [ Watercolor | Aquarelle ] ] ?

Not many English speakers know "aquarelle", and those who do can understand the original "aquarela" anyway. --JWB 20:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pluvious rainy

Hey, Litefantastic, I just noticed that there's apparently discussion on this already. I really think that pluvious is too obscure to use when there's a more clear word in english. If need be, we can do a straw poll on this -- I don't think pluvious belongs. Would you be ok with that? --Improv 14:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I like it better, and I wasn't even the one who put it there (so that's 2 for pluvious, anyway) but you're right, it is obscure. Still, I like it. -Litefantastic 17:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Most English speakers will have to consult a dictionary, but I agree it is a fun word and like it there. --JWB 18:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It may be a fun word, but we're an encyclopedia, and we should take our obligation to be clear seriously. I would like to ask you to reconsider -- I do intend to advertise this as a poll at the Village Pump if need be. --Improv 00:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm in favor of clarity, OTOH this is not Simple English Wikipedia. A wider poll would be interesting.--JWB 04:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Bring it on :) -Litefantastic 14:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pluvious versus rainy poll

Votes

Please indicate your preferred word and reasoning for the relevant sentence near the end of the article. This is advertised under Wikipedia:Current_surveys.

Rainy - I feel that rainy is the better choice of word because pluvious, while flavourful, is very obscure, and I feel that at least for Wikipedia reasonable understandability should be a higher priority than flavour. --Improv 14:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rainy Yet, one rainy night, not in a rainy night José San Martin 18:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pluvious - Not too obscure and easy to look up if necessary. Keep in mind one reason kids are assigned to read encyclopedias etc. is to build vocabulary, so I don't think we always have to override authors' original styles in the direction of minimal vocabulary. --JWB 20:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pluvious - A good word used in good context. -Litefantastic 03:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Plainy - A compromise that satisfies no one. --SPUI (talk) 07:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pluvious- I respect our readers, and think that they will not have a heart attack should we push their vocabularies. --Maru (talk) Contribs 07:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rainy - I would have had to look up pluvious. --SPUI (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

One, when does the poll end, and two, what happens if there's a tie? -Litefantastic 02:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Then, I change my vote to pluvious. José San Martin 13:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose I failed to gain consensus to change it, for now. Eventually it might come up again, but I suppose pluvious wins the day today. --Improv 14:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah! -Litefantastic 15:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Two Cents

1) If the song was written in 1939, the lyrics ought to be in the public domain by now, and 2) This pluvious business is ridiculous. Never use a big word where a diminutive one would suffice. ThePedanticPrick 17:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia accepts different styles, within reason. The original editor used pluvious and a straw poll failed to achieve consensus so we stick with pluvious... Nil Einne 19:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Martini

Is there a reason why the Pink Martini version of this song is worthy of mention above all the other hundreds of versions? Is seems to me that either a fan or a member of that group has put in the reference to advertise.

Pluvious compromise?

Okay, I know this is a pretty silly debate, but this Lou Reed article suggested a potential compromise to me. In the 3rd paragraph of the article, at least at 02:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC), someone linked mellifluous (albeit a word I've seen before, as opposed to pluvious) to its Wiktionary article. So I hopped over to Wiktionary, made my first contribution to them, and linked the word to the Wiktionary article. Any objections?

Wrong usage in popular culture?

I disagree with listing at least the trailers for Bee Movie and Wall-E as examples of usage of Aquarela do Brasil. These two rather use the track Central Services / The Office from Brazil OST. While Brazil may have Aquarela do Brasil as a leitmotif, Central Services / The Office is a track of its own which has little in common with Aquarela do Brasil. --Abdull 13:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Removed them. (19 months later.) Shreevatsa (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Muldar, Esquivel & Lyrics

Geoff Muldar (did a version of this song in Gillingham's Brazil. It's got lyrics and all. It's on an album called Pottery Pie, 1968 (I think).

Esquivel also did an interesting version on 'see it in sound' where the sound is that of a man walking around a city (sound effects of cars and footsteps etc...), wandering into jazz bars, hearing the song performed in different styles. Well worth a listen.

Do we know who originally translated/came up with the English lyrics, and if/how they differ from the original ones?

Brendan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.166.33 (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Song title?

The original title of the song appears to have been "Aquarela brasileira (samba estilisado)", copyright 1939 for Brazil and Portugal (Irmãos Vitale, Rio de Janeiro) and for the rest of the world (Peer International Corporation, New York). Should we then not change the title into either "Aquarela brasileira" or (as the song has become known to the English audience) "Brazil"? Zwart (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Les Paul had Brazil on a b-side. He just died, and I heard the song. Please will someone include this in the list? I know the song from Tav Falco.. and learned that it was a cover from Les Paul, I bet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.60.200 (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics: I want the whole show

a) Huh? There's been an edit war? On lyrics versions? Must your lives be boring ... let me illustrate my reaction.

I'm a hobby singer (so far) and tend to change lyrics if they're chauvinistic or inappropriate in another respect (if they're provocative but the tendency's okay, then I rather tend to stress that aspect). I. e., I recently rewrote "The lady is a tramp" into "This woman is a tramp", as a "lady" is a rather artificial creature depending on helpful gentlemen (whatever those are supposed to be) instead of a highly self-esteemed, independently self-defining, emancipated woman.

But even if you disregard this: what happens when you try to get to know this song? Maybe you listen to Sinatra first. Then to Ella - to find Sinatra hasn't only slightly ring-a-d..., um, altered the main lyrics, but completely left away the prelude. Next: Shirley Bassey - similar to Ella (only adding all the thunder & lightning this dainty person's great powervoice is known for). And then Sammy Davis Jr. - again, at least two lines rewritten differently, and the prelude kept but also slightly altered.

In that case, too, I wouldn't understand an edit war. But would wish to read the original version in the first place, plus alterations/additions either in brackets, or in the referring lines - after a slash, in italic script -, or as footnotes with hint marks in the referring original lines. This or that way, I'd want to have the whole show. Like here. Meaning:

b) I know Brazil for almost half a century, but only now found out it's just a reduced, almost amputated version.

Here's what I'd like to know: is there an English lyrics version for the complete original 1939 (non-Russell) tune at all?

Peace(!), joeditt (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 2 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

--CactusBot (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which version was played over a million times on American Radio?

The article states that this was the first Brazilian song to be played over a million times on American radio. Is this referring to the original Brazilian language version, the English language version written by Bob Russell, or a combination of the two? --Jpcase (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Lyrics (bump, of sorts, of several above)

I have only heard two English-lyrics versions of this song - Sinatra's and Muldaur's. The article does not seem to clarify that these (and I would presume most if not all of the other English renditions) have an entirely different set of lyrics, or rather that Russell did not simply translate the original. IOW, the English translation of the authentic, original lyrics is easily misleading, in an article containing this much reference to non-Portuguese versions, without some mention of, link to, or third parallel column containing the lyrics actually sung in those versions.TheNusz (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The tables in particular should be changed. Maybe a whole section on the Russel versions? (Edit ... removed bad info on a movie) Alanf777 (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aquarela do Brasil. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://br.geocities.com/musicaschiado/AquareladoBrasil.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://br.geocities.com/musicaschiado/AquareladoBrasil.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150707235113/http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame to http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 19:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]