Humanities desk
< June 12	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities 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.

June 13

Handly's Lessee v. Anthony, once again

Under what circumstances would a private party be identified by his role, rather than by his name or by a placeholder (e.g. "John Doe"), in a US federal lawsuit? Handly's Lessee was a guy who leased some land from Handly, not someone stuck with a weird name. Since the lessee was alive at the time of the lawsuit (he was the plaintiff, after all), and since he was filing by himself (it's not Jane Doe et vir, John Doe et ux, or John Doe et al.), I'm not clear why his real name would be omitted. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see Martin v. Hunter's Lessee. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old style of reporting and citation. In contemporary usage, the name of the party would be used. John M Baker (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in the "old days", they would often have a case named Plaintiff's Real Name vs. Defendant's Real Name. Why are these "lessee" parties handled differently? As if they are anonymous. In fact, I read the actual decisions. I don't think they ever once name the actual person (the lessee plaintiff or the lessee defendant). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a complete answer for you. Note, however, that these were disputes involving property rights. The practice seems to have been that when a litigant had rights that were derivative of another's record ownership, the case heading would reflect the party's relationship to the title holder. Another example is Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee. The only such procedural phrase that is still in use is ex rel., and then both names are included. John M Baker (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a clear answer for this, but I strongly suspect the reason had to do with the form of action being brought. In a variety of forms of action, the terms "plaintiff" and "defendant" were different: Parties might be called "deforciant", "querent", "tenant" or a variety of other (usually) antiquated terms. Handly's Lessee was an ejectment action below (thus X's lessee makes some sense). The reason you'd sue Handly's lessee generically rather than Handly himself is because Handly might have had good title, or maybe the plaintiff had defeated Handly in a different action, and the lessee held the land in some sort of very long term arrangement, similar to fee tail, rather than a lease of years. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee was an ejectment as well. Farifax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee is a continuation of that case, but I suspect the inclusion of Fairfax's Devisee as a party is because Fairfax's Devisee probably hadn't been vested at that point, meaning there was no devise, and so no named individual for the purposes of standing, but this case was probably allowed to be brought by some representative of Fairfax's estate ex rel. that undetermined devisee. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert in this area, but this chapter of Blackstone may be relevant. See especially the paragraph beginning "This is the regular method of bringing an action of ejectment." In many of these cases, although I can't speak for the two specific ones we are discussing, an elaborate series of legal fictions was employed in order to obtain a decision on the merits regarding title to the land, and the practice may have developed of using "Jones's Lessee" instead of "Smith" in the caption or style of the case to signify that the case is not really about anything Smith did or didn't do—and Blackstone suggests, although he disapproves the practice, that in some cases there was no actual Smith at all. See also our article ejectment. We haven't reached the ultimate answer but I think we are getting closer.Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes some sense. I recall from when I took medieval legal history back in the day, one of the distinctive differences at common law dealing with real estate was that you made your case by showing your opponent had deficient title, rather than the modern practice of proving you have superior title. Thus, it was relevant to show that Smith, Jones, Handly, Hunter, etc. had inferior title, and your suit was in one sense against that title and against the right by which he held title, but since the lessee had seisin, you needed a suit against him to take possession. I'm guessing there was rarely anything wrong with how the lessee came into possession of the land, or it was simply more advantageous to attack some earlier change of seisin. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

music question - half spoken half sung

Hi, I heard somewhere that songs by the band Cake are "half-spoken, half sung". What does this mean in terms of musical theory? Is it a proper thing, ie. can something really be half and half? Please don't move this to entertainment - it's about the nature of music. Thanks, IBE (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles that exemplify this in various genres: sprechgesang, recitative, talking blues, ... ---Sluzzelin talk 08:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also Singspiel. Nyttend (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really Singspiel - that's just an alternative name for an opera with a libretto. I would got for Sprechstimme though.--Phil Holmes (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? All operas have libretti, but a Singspiel is an opera with a significant spoken (i.e. non-sung) component, whether Der Schauspieldirektor that's so non-musical to be rather boring to me (I don't speak German), or Die Zauberflöte, with only occasional spoken elements. Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was using "with a libretto" as short-hand for "with a spoken narrative element, as well as singing". I'm assuming that this is not what the OP is interested in, since at any given time a singspiel is either 100% sung, or 100% spoken. The other techniques cited here mix speaking technique with singing/music at the same time.--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; I've never heard of this kind of half-sung-half-spoken (how does that work? One person speaks and another sings?), and I wasn't previously aware of "libretto" being used to mean anything except the script for an opera. Nyttend (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nyttend. It is really just a type of singing. See e.g. this [1] Cake song that I mention below in my answer. Parts of the song are more stacatto, some are more legato. It's all technically sung, but half-singing is a vaguely evocative description of the style. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To see half-singing in action, watch Rex Harrison in My Fair Lady. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. This is a metaphor, not an ingredient list. "Half sung" often indicates something that in some way is not canonical singing, in the opinion of the commenter. Cake has a distinctive singing style, for sure. I think what is meant, music theoretically, is that the musical notes have relatively short duration or sustain. Compare stacatto - when he sings e.g. "you. turn. the. screws" [2] you can definitely hear the space between the notes, and this is a good example of stacatto singing. Certainly pitch and rhythmic musical phrases are being used in Cake's singing. So, in a sense, of course Cake songs are sung. They easily fit the definition of singing. They are not chanted, nor rapped, nor screamed. A very speech-like example of Cake's singing is here [3] - but I'm going to go ahead and still that is technically 100% singing. Because of the heavy use of stacatto and clear enunciation, some listeners find the style as having more in common with the spoken word than other types of singing. Thus, half spoken, half sung. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nyttend: normally, when you learn an opera, you use the score to learn the music and the libretto for the spoken words. If you were learning an opera with no spoken words, you'd generally only use a score. Thus, in the society which I sing in, we tend to refer to the spoken words as the lib(retto), and I believe this is quite common.--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; thank you. My only experience of opera (or any other singing in public groups, aside from attending church weekly and singing with everyone else) is as a listener, so I don't know much of anything about the performance side of things. Nyttend (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very intriguing - can anyone give me the notes for even the smallest portion of the link 12, Rock 'n' Roll Lifestyle? I really can't imagine playing the tune on a piano, but it does sound exactly like what I mean - a bit like singing, or at least, I don't know anyone who talks like that. IBE (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here [4] they've decided they can't hear a clear pitch there either, and have transcribed the vocal part like percussion, giving "spoken" instructions. My personal opinion is that is a dodge. There's no rule that says singing has to change pitch with certain frequency, or that different pitches have to be easily notated. But I can hear different pitches on those lyrics. I agree it would be hard to play that part on piano but that doesn't mean it isn't singing ;) Focus on a smaller snippet rather than a whole phrase- I think with a minute of trial and error I could play e.g. "as long as the soda cans" on piano. Hope that helps, SemanticMantis (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you an example from punk: Jilted John (song). The line "He's more of a man than you ever were" is delivered in a vocal manner rather than sung, with natural vocal pitch and rhythm. It would, however, be easy to notate this musically, and you would expect if you were to see it live, to hear it said/sung with those notes every time. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"... than you'll ever be", I think. And I was at school with his bass player's brother! So nyah! Tevildo (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to all. Can anyone give me an example where they have worked out the notes, even for a small portion, for any such "half-spoken" song? I'm not that musical, and can barely work out the simplest tunes, even by trial and error. Eg. Glycerine - I thought it was 4-2-1 on the chorus (F-D-C in the key of C) but it's actually 3-2-1. That was with heaps of trial and error, and slowing the song down on my app. Sort of tone deaf here, but curious about music. I always thought it was just "tune or no tune" with "tune" meaning, western 12-note evenly tempered scale. I thought there was no other music, at least when I was younger. IBE (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A famous example of this style is Pierrot Lunaire by Arnold Schoenberg. You can download a full score from IMSLP and there are a number of performances on Youtube that you can watch and follow the score. HTH. --Phil Holmes (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I don't have time, but I've noted this, thanks. More examples, especially from pop, most welcome - it's in pop music that I often play a tune from the score, but it doesn't really sound like the song, and I wonder if they are getting it wrong. IBE (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]