Talk:It Came Upon the Midnight Clear

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.

Isn't it normally the FOURTH stanza that's missed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.41.50 (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nope, it's the third stanza, just like it says in the article ("Yet with the woes of sin and strife..."). Thanks. Piercetheorganist 19:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I did refer here, Pierce. And i think that since at least two of us are aware of the fourth being skipped on occasion (we did just last week in my church, and sang the third), that my simple addition was appropriate. Theologically, it seems more likely that the fourth would be dropped, if only one were to be, but i was really just trying to be encyclopædic. Cheers, Lindsay (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, please don't start in with that self-pity crap ("I was just trying to...", preceded by "And I think that because I experienced XYZ, ABC is okay"). If you're actually, truly trying to be encyclopedic, then please act as such. Nothing is less encyclopedic than emotionality and reactance. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And so far as your question with regards to which stanza is skipped in modern times -- this cannot be based off of what you (or me, or anyone else) did in their church last Sunday. We'd have to send out a survey to everyone on the face of the earth. Rather, this must be based on published editions. I gathered up the current and first previous hymnals from each of the major Christian denominations -- Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopal/Anglican, Presbyterian, and Congrenationalist -- and looked at what verses were included vs. excluded. And it was based off of that bit of encyclopedic knowledge that I made the correct assertion in the article. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Mistake in Carol"

As a random passer-by, I of course have very little right to criticise -- but seriously, is it sensible to designate one version of the tune as "correct", and another that differs by one note as not so? I should think that for a Christmas carol, as with customs and with language the "correct" version, if anything, is simply the one that's most used. I'd suggest deleting the entire "Mistake in Carol" section, or at the very least renaming it "Original version of carol", etc. 141.70.93.180 (talk) 18:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, anything enough people do becomes correct. "Correct" isn't defined as "what's most widely done". The tune "Carol", as named/created/intended by its author, is one certain way -- one way, and only one way. And any other way is incorrect if what you're going for is the actual thing. If you take one of Bach's works, and change a note in it, it's no longer Bach's work. It's no longer correct, as it's no longer the original. No matter how many times it gets copied, and how many performers perform it that way, it will never become correct because it will never be Bach's work. So it's important, when giving information about a piece of music, to give the most correct/accurate information available -- which would, at least in my opinion, be the un-altered un-edited original. That's what I would call encyclopedic knowledge done to a high standard of quality. If anything, the widely-copied mistake shouldn't be included in the article at all; however, since it's so widely-known, and since it falls under the general heading of "encyclopedic knowledge", it's worth mentioning in the interest of completeness/full disclosure. But that still doesn't mean that the original is anything other than "correct". If you copy something, and don't copy it exactly, then you don't have a "correct copy". EOS. Pierce Phillips (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, yes, there is some truth to that; in fact, as a writer, i agree with it. But i also find that the way a similar fact is phrased in the Silent Night article is better: The version of the melody that is generally sung today differs slightly (particularly in the final strain) from Gruber's original. That way judgement isn't being passed. Either way, there could probably afford to be some harmonisation of style. Cheers, Lindsay (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

When you reverted my previous changes, you may not have realised that in addition to the stanza omission you reverted, i had also changed the language in the "Mistake" paragraph, in order to make it NPOV. I have changedd it back again, as calling the changed note a mistake is obviously judgemental and less within the scope of this project than simply noting the variation. As for the other, i completely missed that you had referenced the omitted stanza; my bad. Cheers, Lindsay (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)