Talk:Yakety Sax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Deleted the Yakety Sax in Internet popular culture section.

Just two links to two very unknown wrestling related videos that happen to have the song in them. By no means would I consider them part of internet pop culture or worth mentioning.

Contents

[edit] tribute.wmv

tribute.wmv is a very well known internet video. to deny it a reference on the yakety sax page is a travesty.

I added a reference to it in the entry.

[edit] Passion of Benny Hill

I agree about the PSP videos having nothing to do with the song, but the Passion parody was hilarious and built entirely around the song, as well as being a perfect example of the best of the internet humor which has come from this song.--Sean 01:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not a song

The word "song" is used repeatedly and inappropriately instead of "instrumental" or "tune" MansLaughter 19:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Worst semantic argument ever. 70.50.199.74 (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Joe Caron

Manslaughter made a valid and important point. An article that uses the term song to mean any piece is not just un-encyclopediac; it's an embarrassment. TheScotch (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Year of release?

This page says 1961, but Randolph's page says 1963, as does an obit. --Calair 05:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was his version for Monument that was released in 1963, as you've indicated (and the entry was corrected to reflect this). That version was recorded in December of 1962, based on the matrix numbering system Monument used then (A12W- was the matrix prefix, the code as follows: A = 1962; 12 = December; W = 45 RPM). Within the page, a reference to his earlier 1958 recording for RCA Victor was added. –Wbwn 09:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benny Hill

Re: "It is probably best known for its frequent use in the sketch comedy program, The Benny Hill Show, to accompany otherwise silent, rapidly paced comedy bits (frequently involving a chase scene).":

I object to this sentence on several grounds. In the first place, the recording was very well known long before this television show, and it is very well known to many persons who have never seen this television show. In the second place, there is far too much irrelevant detail about the television show here anyway. In the third place, it apparently was not even the theme song of the television show. Any reference to the television show in this article belongs in a trivia section, and the phrase "it is probably best known for" should be deleted. 71.90.26.140 06:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with most of what you said, your "Re" fails to be effective. Why? Because in 2007, that's EXACTLY what it's remembered for. And while we should give note on the song's history pre-Benny Hill, it is definately a valid point in where it's best recognized. Case and point - Marlon Brando. Best known for his portrayal as Vito Corleone, the Godfather, albeit he was well known before this playing Stanley in "A Streetcar Named Desire". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.199.74 (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's understood that this was not "the theme song." That said, to Americans anyway, this music is almost synonymous with Benny Hill. It's a bit like Sousa's "Liberty Bell," which few people could identify by name but, once heard, is immediately recognized as the "Monty Python" TV theme. To many people, "Yakety Sax" is "that crazy music they play at the end of every Benny Hill show." Priceyeah (talk) 09:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Those "many people" are much deceived. I suppose I'd better check the Marlon Brando article for Godfather POV. TheScotch (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Trying to label someone or something as "best known for" is a slippery slope. How many 21-year-olds have ever heard of either the song or the Benny Hill Show? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how they are "deceived" if they happen to get to know this music through the Benny Hill show. Are the people who refer to Sousa's "Liberty Bell" as "the Monty Python theme song" to be described as "much deceived"? I say no. Maybe these people are not such big saxophone fans as other people -- being an expert in "Yakety Sax" is not a prerequisite for claiming a given association. To be clear, how things are regarded is completely different from a point of fact. If these Benny Hill fans insisted that Louis Armstrong were the chief interpreter of the music, then they would be "much deceived." As I am merely reporting a highly common association that you choose to disparage, deception doesn't enter into it. Priceyeah (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You said it yourself: "Point of view". It's reasonable to say it was known or well-known in the Benny Hill Show. To say "best known" requires a citation in a case like this, as it is not at all intuitively obvious. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The piece would have been very famous and would have had its own wikipedia article whether or not Benny Hill had ever used it. Its composition, recording, publication, and original fame had nothing whatsoever to do with Benny Hill. I watched an episode of "The Simpsons" recently with protacted enacted biographies of various historical figures including Mozart and Henry VIII. It's quite possible that many young persons were introduced to Mozart or Henry VIII or, say, Salieri (who figured prominently in the Mozart sketch) from this episode, but clearly that circumstance has nothing to do with the figures themselves, and should not appear in the main body of any wikipedia article devoted to any of these figures.

Re: "Are the people who refer to Sousa's "Liberty Bell" as "the Monty Python theme song" to be described as "much deceived"?":

They are much deceived if they think the name of the piece is "the Monty Python theme song", that the piece was composed for the show, or that Sousa's fame or notability has anything to do with Monty Python--or for that matter if they consider this a song at all. It so happens that I myself am only familiar with the piece through Monty Python (although I was aware that it was Sousa's), which means I am not qualified to assess the piece's notability, just as someone who is (or, more likely, thinks he is) only familiar with "Yakety Sax" through Benny Hill is not qualified to assess "Yakety Sax" 's notability. (As I've pointed out before, however, "Yakety Sax" was not even Benny Hill's theme music, which in and of itself makes this a poor analogy). TheScotch (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Yakety-Sax-45804.jpg

Image:Yakety-Sax-45804.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 23:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Writing credits?

Just wondering why people keep removing Randolph from the songwriting credits. He is clearly credited on the record's label, and I'd like to know what information people are using to assert that he didn't have anything to do with the authorship of the song. Anothermelbournite 13:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am also wondering why my Dad is not credited for the writer of Yakey Sax. Spider Rich did assist but Boots wrote it himself. When it hit the billboard charts in 1963 Dad wanted Spider to get some of the credit but not all of it. lonealtn@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.153.44.46 (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Original research, true or not, cannot be used. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sheetmusicplus.com names Boots Randolph as co-author, and as Anothermelbournite points out, Boots Randolph is clearly credited on the record's facimile in the the infobox. I haven't noticed that any explanation has been proffered for the deletion of Randolph's name in this connection, and it continues to be deleted.

I think it's time to consider disciplinary action. TheScotch (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If it happens again, post a complaint about the user(s) who are doing that, on WP:ANI, on the grounds of persistent vandalism. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
And by the way, I didn't do it. Currently, at least, the deleter is this IP address [1] whom I have now warned to Stop It. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Public domain?

Is this song in the public domain? I researched for an answer and it looks like it is. However I'm not sure. Anyone know? --Fez2005 (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but since it's not that old, I don't see how it could have got into the public domain unless the copyright owner failed to renew it. Considering how consistently popular it's been over the decades, that would have been a financially devastating oversight. In other words, I would be very, very surprised to discover that it's in the public domain. TheScotch (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Year of release" section of this discussion page suggests that the piece was first recorded in 1958, and it's likely that it was composed and copyrighted shortly before it was first recorded. This is from the U. S. Copyright Office Circular 15a:

"Works originally copyrighted between January 1, 1950, and December 31, 1963: Copyrights in their first 28-year term on January 1, 1978, still had to be renewed in order to be protected for the second term. If a valid renewal registration was made at the proper time, the second term will last for 67 years. However, if renewal registration for these works was not made within the statutory time limits, a copyright originally secured between 1950 and 1963 expired on December 31st of its 28th year, and protection was lost permanently."

If it were copyrighted in 1958, it would have been subject to renewal in 1986. Presumably it would then have been renewed and would not go into public domain until 2053. Don't hold your breath. TheScotch (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)