Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2012 July 7

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 7

Why was he born so beautiful?

The above question about national anthems that have been parodied led me to mention "Why was s/he born so beautiful, why was s/he born at all". I put it into an Australian context, because I have always assumed it's an Australian song. I've only ever heard it at Australian birthday parties – if only because I've never attended a birthday party while overseas. It even borrows the tune of what later became our national anthem, Advance Australia Fair. But I was surprised to see no mention of it in that article or even the talk page, so I thought I'd do a bit of digging and find when and where it originated.

A quick look at Google tells me it's strongly associated with rugby or other forms of football – but with no special link to Australia. The first mention of anything Australian was this link, which says: "The renewed debate about the worthiness of Advance Australia Fair has prompted this musing from Anita Ryan, of Margaret River, WA: 'Is it just my imagination, or is our national anthem set to the tune of Why Was She Born So Beautiful?'"

So, rather than the ditty borrowing the tune of the anthem, the suggestion (perhaps not entirely serious) is that the borrowing was in the reverse direction.

All this is telling me that my own experience of the song is not a reliable guide to its provenance. I'm not a football lover, so I wouldn't have known it had any association with that family of sports.

My searches so far just confirm it sometimes uses bawdy lyrics (that are repeated ad infinitum), that it's a "football song" or a "rugby song" and so on, but I have yet to see any info about who first wrote the words and when, and what tune they used. Has the tune changed, or is it sung to different tunes in different places? Was it really set to the tune of Advance Australia Fair, or did that just sort of evolve antipodistically? Most importantly, did it predate Advance Australia Fair (1878), and is it even remotely possible the tune of our hallowed national anthem is based on a pre-existing bawdy rugby song from God-knows-where? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you give a link to this song being sung? The only clear version I could find was of some louts who sounded like they were singing "Miss Lucy had a baby". μηδείς (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Me too. There are a few YouTube versions, but they're of family parties or whatever and there's too much shouting going on to make out much.

Google and YouTube would have any reasonable researcher believing it goes:

• Why was he born so beautiful?
• Why was he born at all?
• He’s no fucking use to anyone
• He’s no fucking use at all.

I must have led an especially protected life, because the only version I’ve ever heard (always in polite company) is:

• Why was he born so beautiful?
• Why was he born at all?
• Because he had no say in it
• No say in it at all.

There are numerous hits for English and Welsh versions, all with the bawdy lyrics, and I guess if anyone knows about traditional bawdy raucous rugby songs, those good folk would.

Singing it after "Happy Birthday" is listed here as among the cliches Australians most love to hate, so that definitely proves it has a solid presence here.

This American site says he had no luck tracking down its origin. But then, he’s not the Wikipedia Reference Desk. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

In Prime Suspect, Tennison gets this treatment from the lads after solving her first case. Sussexonian (talk) 07:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a parallel with the American birthday song, which has a boring "proper" version:

Happy birthday to you,
Happy birthday to you,
Happy birthday to (insert first name here),
Happy birthday to you.

And the versions the kids sing when the adults leave the room, such as:

Happy birthday to you,
Happy birthday to you,
You look like a monkey,
And you smell like one, too. 

StuRat (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

When I did my A level music in the mid 1970s, my music teacher had a collection of humourous records, one of which contained the "O why..." song set to music in various different styles. So you had a Baroque version (with "he's no sanguinary use" as the 3rd line), a jazz version, a plainchant version... Blowed if I can find a reference to it now. From what I can see it seems to have been common in World War 2 and features in quite a few Army song compilations. I'll keep looking. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Further to the OP's original question, the tune is a hymn tune but I can't remember which one it is. I'm asking around. It's definitely not Advance Australia Fair! --TammyMoet (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. We're making headway here. There are 3 different non-bawdy versions of the lyrics here. More stuff here. There’s a “hasher” version here.

The commentary at this YouTube clip of the final scene of the film if.... identifies the tune as the hymn tune "Ellacombe". (If you’ve never seen if...., I advise you not to watch this clip as it will completely ruin your enjoyment of it when you do see it. Fantastic movie, not often seen.) We don't have an article on "Ellacombe", but this is a good instrumental version of it, and reveals it's anonymous but has been used for a variety of hymns. That prompts me to remember hearing people singing Why was he born to this tune, as well as to Advance Australia Fair.

The best known in the UK is the Easter hymn, The day of resurrection! Earth, tell it out abroad. Alansplodge (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

So, we have a song that's been sung to at least 2 different tunes and an apparently unlimited number of sets of lyrics. It's extremely well known in at least 3 major anglo countries - does anyone in NZ or Canada know this song? Yet, its origins seem to be a complete mystery. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

(after EC) The hymn tune is known today as "Ellacombe" and is first found in the Wurttemberg Gesangbuch (1784), thus predating AAF by a good century. I suspect the bawdy version has its origins around World War 1 but I've found nothing to back that up, just a hunch. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Right on. The two tunes have identical rhythmic patterns and are close enough melodically that one could easily morph into the other mid-song. Footballers etc are not exactly known for their musical skills, so it's very easy to see how "Ellacombe" could get distorted in Australia to something very similar that they knew better, the tune of Advance Australia Fair. For my money, that's as good as we're going to get on the tune.

That still leaves the words: who first dreamt them up, under what circumstances, and what was the original version? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I've found a couple of mentions of Winston Churchill, upon arrival at Bristol in 1929 (to take up the position of University Chancellor) being greeted at Temple Meads station by students singing "Why was he born so beautiful, why was he born at all?" The 1979 Australian film Dimboola included the song to the tune of "Ellacombe" at a wedding reception as seen in this you tube clip.--Melburnian (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The book "Fighting Songs and Warring Words" mentions that "The Erk's Lament" was based on OWWHBSB. As "Erk" is WW2 slang for the lowest ranked aircraftsman, that means OWWHBSB must predate World War 2. (I found this on Google Books, by the way.)--TammyMoet (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all. The earliest mention seems to be 1929 at this stage (Churchill, per Melburnian). But there's no suggestion it was written for that occasion, so presumably it was already well known by then. I'll keep looking. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 12:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Can someone familiar with "why was he born so beautiful?" listen to "miss lucy had a steamboat" and advise me if the melodies are the same? μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No, this is the right tune (the note attributing the music to Henry Smart is an error). Unless you're Australian, in which case it's this. Alansplodge (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet these guys seem to be using the Miss Lucy melody--am I mishearing them? μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right. I suspect the finer points of 19th century hymnody are lost on the younger generation. O tempora, O mores!. Here is a better class of drunken lout with the correct melody. Alansplodge (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

And here's the tune it is often sung to in Australia, or at least often morphs into at some undefined point of the song. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I've found a slightly earlier reference in 1928. Herbert Williams, MP for Reading, in the House of Commons 24 May 1928:

"...I was hoping that he [ David Lloyd George ] would have continued the very interesting disquisition which he gave in my constituency last Saturday, when the proceedings were enlivened by community singing. On the arrival of the right hon. Gentleman they sang: "Why was he born so beautiful?" Judging from the condition of his hon. Friends who have addressed the House, I think the song ought to have been: "Why was he born so pessimistic?" --Melburnian (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

And here's another mention of the same event referred to in parliament. It occurred on 19 May 1928. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that it's going to be WWI vintage. Another ditty to a well-known hymn tune was "Fred Karno's Army" to the tune of The Church's one foundation: We are Fred Karno's Army / Fred Karno's infantry. / We cannot march, / We cannot shoot, / What bloody good are we? / But when we get to Berlin, ? The Kaiser he will say; / Hoch! Hoch! Mien Gott! What a bloody fine lot! / Fred Karno's infantry." Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I suspect you're right, but I really want to see confirmation. It was certainly created pre-1928, because it wouldn't have been mentioned in the way it was in those two 1928 cites if it had been a recently released song. It was something that any MP/reader would have been expected to know, and the war had ended only 9 years earlier. I've googled the title with "first world war", "world war I", "boer war", etc, but produced nothing of value. I checked out the sound track of Oh, What a Lovely War! but it wasn't listed. Someone, somewhere, must have dreamt up the words ab initio. Maybe it wasn't a songwriter as such, but just some ordinary soldier, who had no interest in seeing their name recorded for posterity, and who may have fallen in Flanders fields, never knowing their little ditty survived, caught on and continues to be sung to this day. The words contain no military associations, so maybe it was written by someone who had no connection with the military or the war, apart from being alive at the time. It wouldn't even surprise me if it predated the war. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

A sort of indirect reference: The Advertiser (Adelaide, SA) Thursday 24 June 1937; "WIDER SCOPE OF NEW SOLDIERS' FUND - Appreciation Of Imperial Service Men... After insisting on the singing of "Why was he born so beautiful," His Excellency spent the next hour moving round the tables, chatting to those present and leading the singing of popular songs of the Great War vintage." Alansplodge (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating. Winston Dugan, 1st Baron Dugan of Victoria was that governor. Tks, Alan. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The march-like music composition played before every association football match

What is The march-like music composition played before every association football match, while the players are walking from inside the interior of the stadium to the play field? I think it was composed by Mozart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.231.152.8 (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you perhaps thinking of the FIFA anthem? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That is, the FIFA Anthem, composed by Franz Lambert. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no standard music played before every association football match. Each club chooses its own, although some tournaments may have a stipulated theme, like the Champions League. We are the champions is a common choice, but more idiosyncratic choices include Hi Ho Silver Lining (Wolves) and the theme tune from Z-cars (Everton). I think we used to have an article about this... I'll dig. --Dweller (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The best I can find so far is a userspace draft, entirely focused on English club sides: User:U+003F/List of football entrance music --Dweller (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This question maked me wonder, what is the organ tune played at american football (or was it baseball?) matches at the beginning? It is slowly starting then getting faster. --helohe (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings in negative reviews

I've never understood one thing – if there is a negative review for, let's say a movie, and the review says right away to the reader not to see the movie, then why would the reviwer still either not spoil the movie's ending, or if he does so, place a spoiler warning? A review saying that a work is so bad that you should never, ever see it and yet explicitly declining to elaborate on the plot or ending, or having a spoiler warning seems strange to me. It would be understandable if it was a positive review and the reviewer was recommending the reader to see the work, but since it's a negative review, wouldn't it be logical to spoil the film's plot right away so that we would never need to see the film? As it is sometime said, "I watch it so you don't have to". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There are people who will only go and watch movies that the critics hate. It often seems to be the case that what critics hate, turns out to be very popular with the public. Given that, why should a critic spoil the plot for such people? --TammyMoet (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

In case you need an example, here's one. Note that many of the reviews I have seen for the work in question were negative. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not the job of a critic to either actively encourage readers (to go and see the movie or buy the book/CD or whatever) or actively discourage them. It's to provide one person's perspective, but presumably that of someone who knows a thing or two about the film industry/writing/music profession. It should be balanced: very few films and books are so bad that there's absolutely nothing good to say about them; or vice-versa. Critics should have no interest - particularly not a financial interest - in whether readers see the films they like and avoid the ones they dislike. It would make no sense for a film critic to be employed by a film studio, or a book critic to be employed by a publishing house, as their freedom to provide frank and fearless independent opinions about their employers' products would be severely curtailed, and their reviews of other companies' products would be implicitly suspect. So, they have to remain independent and professional, and it's not professional conduct to be revealing the endings of movies (except where it's already well known, like Titanic) or the punch lines of jokes. Besides, a film critic doesn't waste space laboriously relating the plot. A robot could do that. They have to reveal certain aspects of the plot in order to have something to write about, but their focus should generally be macro rather than micro. Sometimes a book critic will point out an unexpectedly high number of spelling errors, or the absence of an index that would have made the book far more useful and attractive; or other things (both positive and negative) the public ought to be aware of before choosing to buy the book. But for a critic to come right out and say "I strongly advise you NOT to buy this book/CD/see this movie" is overstepping the boundaries. I guess that wouldn't bother you if you watch TV talent shows where the judges, rather than remaining impartial and objective, become just like any other audience member and sometimes even lead the standing ovations that have now become obligatory fare for anyone who's not totally horrible. Talk about devaluing special gestures once reserved for truly exceptional performances. If everyone's that exceptional, then no one is. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Critics will sometimes allude to an interesting ending, but not spoil what it is. They may not be earning money from the studios, but if they cross the line, they might be banned from preview screenings and the like, and that would tend to work against them. In the old days when I watched shows like Siskel & Ebert, I became aware that critics enter the theater with a predefined set of expectations. That may seem biased, but keep in mind they have seen thousands of films and know all the patterns. So if it meets or exceeds expectations, it's thumbs up, and if not, it's thumbs down. As Jack notes, it's not their job to lay out the plot line, but just to give you enough to decide whether you might like to see it, regardless of whether professional critics like it or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Roger Ebert, I am reminded of his review of the 1994 film North where he famously and bluntly stated "I hated this movie. Hated, hated, hated, hated, hated this movie. I hated it." Yes, he did briefly explain what the film was about, but I guess he was too upset about its entire basis and that he really did not need to spoil the ending to make his point. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing bad one can say about The African Queen, Star Wars, Gosford Park, The Fifth Element, or O Brother, Where Art Thou, and nothing good one can say about The Phantom Menace, Catwoman (film), or Shaft (2000). μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC) to all of that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

When the first Star Wars came out, most everyone loved it, but some criticized what they saw as the robots being human and the humans being cartoonlike. The box office figures indicated that was OK with the audience. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[[]]

The tricky part is when an otherwise decent movie has a terrible ending, like Total Recall. How can you tell them why the ending is bad without telling them what the ending is ? (SPOILER ALERT: The Martians apparently designed a system to terraform Mars in 30 seconds flat, but forgot to turn it on.) StuRat (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There are ways. I think it was Leonard Maltin's book that said the ending of The Usual Suspects "invalidates the rest of the movie", but he doesn't say what the ending is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I understand that critique. The ending was a "twist", meaning that what you thought was true was not, but this is intentional, so complaining that it invalidated the rest of the movie seems odd. StuRat (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What Stu said. Such a criticism fits Suspicion remarkably well though, imho. Also Bunny Lake Is Missing to some degree. —Tamfang (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The African Queen was spoilt by casting Katharine Hepburn who was slightly too old for the part and could not convincingly play an English woman. On the other hand Shaft 2000 could have been longer. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hepburn plays a spinster, so I cannot possibly see her age as a problem. She spoke stage English natively, so I couldn't fault her for failing to portray a British accent--she didn't try. Of the movies I listed above, this is the only one I couldn't praise for its cinematography. But you'd have to hold me down and force me to listen to Lady Gaga while waterboarding me with Budweiser to admit it. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I never mentioned her accent. I said she was not convincing as an English woman. As an aside, Borgart's accent was so bad they changed his part from British to Canadian. The point was that you made a statement about something that is down to individual taste. Which is why I no longer bother with reviews, preferring to judge a movie for myself. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they moved him to Tudor City, Canada. (Frankly, the accents were entirley irrelevant to the theme, characterization, and the effectiveness of the plot.)

I'm a bit lost here. If we put her accent to one side, what was it about the rest of her being/performance that did not convince you she was or could pass for an Englishwoman? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

After all these years I'm really not sure but I do remember at the time being unconvinced by her. Anyway as I already said that wasn't the point. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"Since I Don't Have You"

Does anyone have a hard copy of "Since I Don't Have You"? Our image of its cover has some background colors that have prompted a discussion at WP:MCQ regarding its copyright status; it would help to know if the spotty circular area of the black background is part of the original design or the result of a bad scan of what is actually pure black. Nyttend (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe it's supposed to be pure black, but the circular pattern you are seeing is actual wear on the album cover, where it's pushed up by the CD inside. Doing Google searches, I see plenty without this, and only one with it, which appears to be an exact duplicate of our Wikipedia image: [1]. There is also a "STRICTLY LIMITED EDITION ORANGE VINYL" version of this album which does have a circular feature, but it's SMALLER, bright orange, and at the top: [2]. StuRat (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)