Talk:One-hit wonders in classical music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page was voted on for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/One-hit wonders in classical music. There was no consensus. dbenbenn | talk 23:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(apologies for top-quoting but this comment really belongs to the vfd result) You listed one vote for merge, but actually the last block of comments shows a growing consensus for that option, and an acceptable compromise between some keepers and some deleters. It just wasn't recorded as a series of Merge votes. Where do we go from here? David Brooks 23:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about that; I tend not to read the comments that closely when they're really long.
Given that the page wasn't deleted, anyone can perform a merge, regardless of what was said on VfD. Of course, others might disagree, and un-merge. It's just editing as usual. dbenbenn | talk 23:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dunno. I think what I'll do is keep tinkering with it, with the idea of making it more information-rich and less just a plain list. In cases where there's an identifiable reason why something became thrust into the spotlight, e.g. use as a TV theme, we should give the reason. In cases where we can quote someone authoritative, we should provide the quote, etc. If it eventually gets merged, that will make for more nutritious kernels of merge-grist. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think now that the VfD is over and no consensus was reached we should discuss a merge, as it seemed that idea was getting more support than the vote tally suggested. Is that an option people are still interested in? -R. fiend 23:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Deciding who is a one-hit wonder in classical music is more subjective than in popular music. After all, there is no Top-40 chart for classical music. Even though a particular composer may have more than one piece performed or recorded, perhaps only one is really a "hit". Also, a particular composer may have a single piece that has been performed or recorded, that doesn't necessarily make it a "hit". The former would qualify by "virtue" of having multiple pieces but only one hit. The latter would not qualify for this article because he had no hits.

  • Yes, there's a real problem here, because given any alleged "one-hit wonder" there will always be aficionados who know other works. Conversely, even for important composers, there may be one work that is so much more frequently heard by the general public than all the rest as to give the appearance of one-hit-wonderhood. For example, you could make a case for Dvořák being a "one-hit wonder" because the New World symphony must be a dozen times more frequently than anything else he ever wrote. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:59, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It seems there are several possible ways of looking at this, and it will probably be rather difficult to do it NPOV.

  1. Composers who wrote one piece that is significantly more popular than the rest of their work, or have a piece which is significantly more popular in some part of the world (the Lalo Symphonie Espagnole is a good example--his other stuff is done sometimes, especially the cello concerto--also Dpbsmith's idea of Dvorak's NWS is a good example)
  2. Composers who have only one work which is performed at all--other works are rarely if ever revived (this interprets the "one-hit wonders" a little more literally) (Mascagni is a good example);
  3. Composers who wrote one piece which has penetrated into popular culture, e.g. through a movie (Barber's Adagio for Strings, Ravel's Bolero)

It will be interesting to see if people from Europe or elsewhere have a different idea about what is a one-hit wonder, since if you listen to classical radio (especially commercial) in the U.S. you get a skewed perspective--skewed towards non-vocal, non-chamber, 18th or 19th century, or bland 20th. Antandrus 02:58, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks this list is insanely POV. I mean, I have heard of mostof these composers and several of their works. Even Grofe. The page is already taking the POV of someone who hasn't!
Not only that, but we're not citing any outside source. Instead we are taking the opinions of Wikipedians as the source for the article contetns; that may be original research. I suggest we need a source citing all of the information on this page, get it NPOV or if that isn't possible to send it to VfD. :) --Sketchee 22:19, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Instinctively I agree, but the problem is that even within classical music circles, we often agree on a list of composers who are known for one hit. The trouble is, that list and the list here would be completely different, because the list here visualizes the somewhat-educated layman. For many of the composers here, I know and love lots of music. The aficianado's list would include, oh, I suppose Mascagni (Cav), Jarnefelt (Praeludium), Weinberger (Schwanda), people like that. I still would vote to delete. David Brooks 06:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Any encyclopedia article about art, literature, music, etc. is either going to have an element of subjectivity to it or is going to be essentially meaningless. You can't be a Gradgrind, facts, facts, facts and say anything useful about music. I have enjoyed tinkering with the article and putting my fairly-defensible-but-not-fully-objective opinions into it. I think this article is borderline-encyclopedic but acceptable.
But, hey, it's a great big free country. Nominate the article for deletion or don't nominate it, but don't go on and on about it here, where by definition you're mostly talking to people who've contributed to the article and probably think it should exist. If you've never nominated an article for deletion before, for technical reasons the process involves several steps you need to follow, but they're well explained. It takes about five minutes. See WP:VFD. However, I suggest you read the deletion policy first and be fairly clear and explicit in articulating your reasons why it should be deleted. Also (warning: in-joke) I suggest that in your nomination, you avoid calling this article any kind of "cruft." Dpbsmith (talk) 13:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I brought it up here because, like I said, if you think you can make it NPOV then do so or discuss how it can be done. (ie Cite sources and facts) If we reach a consensus on how to handle the article—move it, keep it here, check information, change types of information—a VfD can be avoided. If you're saying these are personal uncorroboratable opinions then I will list it on VfD and see what others think. I think it's pretty fair to discuss with those of you who did work on the article, first, and see what you have to say about it. I could agree with you after some discussion and, assuming good fath, the articles authors are probably open minded as well :)
See Wikipedia:Verifiability: "An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews nor perform original research. Hence, anything we include should have been covered in the records, reportage, research, or studies of others."
Yes, you can cite useful facts about music: "X said Y about piece Z." That would be verifiable. An article about various music can be have subjective ideas while still being thoroughly referenced; that just lets us know who's opinions these are. Music and art articles aren't an exception in that way. Critics, composers, biographers, and others have written a lot about various works. I don't think a straw poll of Wikipedians qualifies as a source is all. If there are various magazine polls, books, tv programs, statistics, or whatnot that have discussed the level of popularity of works of music and someone wants to compile them, that would be encyclopedic IMHO. This allows the reader to "consider the source" of the information. There are certainly possible sources for this kind of information... I'm not sure if I'd put that under this title. --Sketchee 15:05, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
It's not a "hard fact". But pretending there is no distinction because the lines are fuzzy is also POV, if you want to take that tack. If you want to be more precise about it -- and I agree, that would be a good idea; what is Elgar doing on here, anyway? Surveys about classical pieces are far from hard science. But you *can* find out what has been frequently recorded, what shows up in concert and recital programs, what shows up in things like Classical Music for Dummies, for example. Look at Amazon results for Pachelbel recordings. As pointed out below, yes, we are up to our eyeballs in Pachelbel organ works. But the first hit for "Pachelbel" is "Pachelbel's Greatest Hit": a recording entirely of the Canon in D. You have to scroll down pages before you get to any Pachelbel that *isn't* the canon (only the canon is canon?). I know, Amazon test even worse than Google test, but it gives you a rough idea. This is not essential encyclopedia material, but I'd argue that it has a place here nonetheless. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, it's true that a magazine survey isn't science; the fact in that case would be for example: "A Time Magazine survey said ____ about Pachelbel's Canon." That Time magazine said it would be verifiable and if the reader can decide whether they they trust the magazine as a source. We can all agree that there are certain works that are very popular compared to others. I think we can present information about classical music's popularity if we can find it. That would be encyclopedic. :)--Sketchee 19:28, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
I've used the words "borderline," "marginal," etc. I believe this page to be like (unfortunately) many Wikipedia pages.
In fact... it's classical fancruft.
It is an assemblage of very reasonable opinion by Wikipedia editors, based on their personal collective general knowledge, most of which could be referenced and made verifiable but hasn't been. When I say that Ethelbert Nevin is a "one-hit wonder" for Narcissus, I'm relying on my personal knowledge. Yes, I've been and will probably continue to be too lazy to take the twenty minutes it would take to find some music writer who could be quoted as saying the same thing. On my own unencyclopedic authority, I am totally confident that if I were to whistle the beginning of "Narcissus" most of the people reading this page could whistle the rest—and most of them would be utterly baffled to name or whistle anything else Nevin had ever written.
There is no doubt in my mind that a) this page does not pass even moderately strict criteria for verifiability, NPOV, or citation, b) that it theoretically could, but c) probably won't any time soon.
But there is also no doubt in my mind that the badly-referenced facts presented on this page are not seriously disputed That is: I think very few people would dispute that "The Dance of the Hours" is far, far, far better known than anything else Ponchielli ever wrote, and the same holds true for most of the items on the list.
The only real dispute on this page is where to draw the line, and whether it's possible to do so in any objective way. And the page itself acknowledges this. Nobody is going to read this page and come up with the idea that "classical one-hit wonders" is a recognized or well-defined concept and that this page is some kind of definitive list.
(Probably the biggest omission on this page is any mention of how some of these pieces got thrust into the spotlight. Doubtless many became hits as the result of a specific event and it would be interesting to have this researched....)
Anyway, I repeat: it's up to Sketchee. Nominate it for VfD, mark it for cleanup, slap an NPOV notice on it, whatever. I won't do it myself, though, because... I kind of like the page. (And if it Sketchee nominated it for VfD, my vote would be "Keep, although everything you say is perfectly true, because I kind of like the page.") So sue me. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nominated on VfD. Anyway, I have no problem with the actual opinions presented... I'm not disputing the information, but that it's sources are internal rather than external. I know it's not disputed but we shoud present who says what even when "even when the information is currently undisputed". In my personal opinion, I agree with you on the pieces you mention. I like the hearing about what the Wikipedia users have experienced a lot in regards to classical music, but just not as a general Wikipedia article. Don't worry, no lawsuits here. :D--Sketchee 20:47, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I have a problem with the opinions being presented. Wikipedia is not for personal essays, even group personal essays in which everybody throws in their opinions and votes. The articles are not fun little forums for people to bullshit with each other. It is an encyclopedia. The concept of "one hit wonder" has no definition, so it is going to be defined by some kind of "consensus" of the people participating, although what people will think they are achieving consensus about beats me. Have the editors heard more than one piece on the radio by the composer? I see we have little votes going on this Talk page about who is a "one hit wonder": the article is basically going to be about the outcome of votes on its Talk page. It is as if I started an article List of sexy classical music. There is no definition of what "sexy" means in relation to classic music, but people might think they subjectively can tell whether a piece is "sexy" or not. If there is any disagreement, we vote on the Talk page, and the article is the sum of the votes. We could create any number of articles like this -- they would be great fun for the editors writing them to write. Is that what the Wikipedia is all about? This is complete stupidity, and the lot of you should be ashamed of yourselves for using the Wikipedia for your own amusement in this way. --BM 06:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If this article survives, would it be worth re-emphasizing that we are listing composers who have one work that has become more noted than any other, relative to their own corpus? It isn't intended to be a comparison among the works. For example I've heard the Elgar Cello Concerto (his second "hit") many times in the US and UK, and I've heard the d'Indy symphony...never.

But by that token we would list Mozart for the Elvira Madigan slow movement (lots of people have also heard the Confutatis without realizing it; does that count?). Like I said in vfd, it's out of control.

Contents

[edit] Bizet

I'm not sure Bizet qualifies as a one-hit wonder. I've heard his symphony in C and L'Arlesienne Suites played many times over the years on classical radio stations. Performed in the symphony myself. Rsduhamel 07:56, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Oh, I'm sorry. I'll take it out. Quop 07:59, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Maybe we don't need to be too hasty to remove Bizet, I just thought it needed some discussion. "Carmen" is enormously popular and parts are well known outside classical circles. The question is, do the symphony and L'Arlesienne qualify as hits. I used to hear them on the radio frequently so I think they do. Other opinions are perfectly welcome. I'm putting Bizet back in the article with an asterisk to refer to this discussion. I'm also putting a place to leave votes to qualify or disqualify him to be in the article below. Rsduhamel 00:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Votes to include Bizet

  • Yes - Quop (based on originally adding Bizet to article)
  • No - I've heard one or both of the L'Arlesienne Suites (or parts of them) on the radio frequently. Rsduhamel 00:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • No. Don't his operas count? Specifically, Carmen... and the Carmen suite?
    • "Carmen" is Bizet's hit. The question is, do any of his other works qualify as hits?
      • Oh, I thought we were discussing whether the L'Arlesienne Suite was his one "hit." I'd think the duet from The Pearl Fishers ought to count, too. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:14, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • No. Not only are lots of his works in the standard repertory (muddy concept that) but they are in the standard pops concert repertory. The two L'Arlesienne Suites are perfect examples. Antandrus 02:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm removing Carmen. It has occurred to me that given that Carmen Jones was a great big Broadway hit and movie that it is very likely that Bizet may have even had more than one song on the pop charts. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:57, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Franck

Ditto Franck. His—what did he call his piano concerto?—"Symphonic Variations"—is wonderful and considered a staple of the repertoire as well as his Symphony in D Minor. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some of his other music gets quite a bit of air-time, at least here in the U.S. The Variations symphoniques, as you say, as well as Le chasseur maudit ("the accursed huntsman"), Psyche, the F minor piano quintet, and above all the great A major violin sonata (we used to call it the "Frank Sinatra" for violin and piano...) I've played the string quartet, which gets programmed once in a while, and his organ music shows up on recitals pretty often. Happy editing, Antandrus 21:24, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Votes to include Franck

  • No - Dpbsmith (see above)
  • No - Antandrus (see above)
  • Yes - Never heard anything by Franck except the symphony. (probably missing out) Rsduhamel 00:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • You may think that's all you've heard, but I betcha a nickel that if you listen to "Symphonic Variations" you'll experience a shock of recognition. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:01, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Smetana

Votes to include Smetana

  • No - I've heard "The Bartered Bride", the suite or portions frequently on classical radio. Rsduhamel 00:50, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ravel

I'm putting this here on the talk page because I expect it to be shot down. And I have to admit that he has at least two hits: Bolero, and "Pavane for a Dead Princess." Still... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:16, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I think Ravel deserves an "honorable mention" because "Bolero" is so well known outside classical circles. Perhaps a composer with such a "superhit" should qualify by virtue of having a single "superhit". However, Ravel is quite popular within classical circles, i.e. "Concerto for the Left Hand", "daphne et chloe", not to mention his definitive orchestration of "Pictures at an Exhibition", just off the top of my head. Rsduhamel 02:17, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, I was wondering about "Pictures at an Exhibition" for Mussorgsky, but I think "Night on Bald Mountain" is another Mussorgsky hit, disqualifying him...
  • Not to mention La Valse, surely the best known piece of Ravel... What a lot of nonsense this article is! 80.255 22:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Borodin

Does "In the Steppes of Central Asia" qualify as a hit also? Rsduhamel 02:18, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually I think Borodin is more widely known (in the U.S. anyway--can't speak for the rest of the world) for the tunes in the musical Kismet, which came (mostly) from the 2nd String Quartet and the Polovtsian Dances than for any other single piece. The Prince Igor overture is pretty well known (not the whole opera, though), as is the 2nd Symphony (there's two others I don't know). Hard to say. It may actually be that "In the Steppes of Central Asia" is more often programmed on U.S. classical radio stations than any other single piece, though I'd be willing to bet the Polovtsian Dances are a close second. He wrote a lot of piano music and songs that are unjustly neglected, IMHO. Antandrus 02:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Boccherini

Even though at least one of his cello concertos may qualify as a hit, his minuet is quite familiar outside classical circles. This gives him a popular one-hit. Rsduhamel 02:47, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rimsky-Korsakov

He should qualify because his "Flight of the Bumblebee" has transcended classical circles to become a popular one-hit.

  • I think Scheherzade and Capriccio Espagnole should also count as Rimsky-Korsakov "hits." I don't think we should base this on crossover because the interest is composers who had only one significant achievement, not composers who had many significant achievements in classical circles but got popularized because they were used as theme music for a movie, radio, or TV show ("The Green Hornet," I think, in this case). See also List of popular songs based on classical_music. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:33, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Elgar

His "Pomp and Circumstance March No. 1" certainly qualifys as a popular one-hit. However, his Enigma Variations are somewhat populer in classical circles, a frgment of which was used in IBM commercials in the 1980s.

Actually, I thought about adding this myself, but decided not to. His Enigma Variations are fairly well-known and so is his cello concerto. The latter was sort of a signature piece for Jacqueline du Pré. One of the problems I have with this page is: where do you draw the line? So much depends on how much familiarity one has with classical music.
Is Beethoven a one-hit wonder for the "Ode to Joy" section from the Ninth Symphony? It is certainly the only Beethoven piece many people know. Ditto Rossini and the William Tell" overture.
Is Colin McPhee a "one-hit wonder" for Tabu-Tabuhan or is he a zero-hit non-wonder?
Henryk Gorecki: one-hit wonder for Symphony 3, "Symphony of Sorrowful Songs," or zero-hits?
Scriabine: one-hit wonder for Poème de l'extase, or many hits?
Saint-Saens: one-hit wonder for "Carnival of the Animals," or does Danse Macabre bring it up to two? Or the Organ Symphony (parts of which were used by some Olympic figure skaters as dance music) to three?
Gorecki is an excellent example of a huge one-hit wonder--the sales totals for the Symphony No. 3 were astonishing. He's the only one of these several above that I think qualifies. As far as I know he's still alive, so hopefully there will be more "hits" --IMHO the symphony deserves its reputation, it's an amazing piece. Antandrus 00:33, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
OK, in it goes... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:56, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Suppé

I think Suppé definitely qualifies because "Light Cavalry" is such a hit outside classical circles. However, I have to mention that there is a memorable "Popeye" cartoon where Popeye and Bluto battle over conducting an orchestra playing Suppé's "Poet and Peasant Overture". Rsduhamel 17:48, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pachelbel

Pachelbel is really not a one hit wonder. While the "canon in D" has achieved a sort of iconic status, it has only done so in the last few decades; it certainly was not a "hit" in Pachelbel's day nor in the coming two centuries. Further, the "canon in D" has only achieved popularity because of modern stylings of it. During Pachelbel's lifetime, he was best known as an organist and composer of keyboard music. The repertoire he left behind was extensive, and much of it survivies to this day. This music is still heard regularly and considered part of the standard baroque organ repertoire. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:55, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Villa-Lobos

Just added: "Bachianas Brasilieras by Heitor Villa-Lobos". But which one? Aren't there several? There's the little train, the cello orchestra, the soprano song. I wonder whether the entry is meant to encompass all of them or one in particular? David Brooks

There are several of the pieces that Villa-Lobos wrote for guitar that are regularly played and are considered part of the standard repertoire for classical guitar. I know that I've heard at least two of them on the local classical music station recently (KUSC), so I really do not think that Villa-Lobos counts as a one-hit wonder. BlankVerse 14:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ibert

If Ibert belongs here at all (and I think of him as a no-hit wonder), I'd vote for Divertissement, not Escales. At least the waltz was turned into some intro music for some radio show many years ago on the BBC. Any arguments?

[edit] Holst

Ethan Mordden is quite entitled to an opinion, but having an opinion is not ground from it to be reported as fact.

"Outside of Britain, Holst's hold on the repertory depends almost exclusively on The Planets.'"

  1. the validity of this fact is disputable. The likes of, for instance, the St. Pauls Suite or the Somerset Rhapsody are hardly obscure works.
  2. the title of this article is One-hit wonders in classical music, not One-hit wonders in classical music outside of Britain
  3. simply being Holst's most well-known large-scale work doesn't make the Planets Suite a 'one-hit wonder'; moreover, as a suite, it isn't so popularly well-known as the short excerpt incorporated into the hymn I vow to thee my Country.

This list seems to be using all manner of different yardsticks to determine what qualifies for the silly (and encyclopaedically worthless) lable of 'one-hit wonder'. Being 'in the repetory' does not equate to 'being popular' or 'popularly well-known'. Anyone who is reasonably knowlegable on his genre will know of many works by Holst; someone who isn't won't--I suspect that many people, even if played extracts from The Planets Suite, wouldn't be able to identify the composer. The fact that people's musical interests and knowlege vary is not reasonable grounds for an encyclopaedia article. You may as well create a page called List of pieces of music I've heard of!

At least with the popular music 'one-hit wonders' list there is actually an objective yardstick for measuring popularity--record sales. This article, on the other hand, is a POV mish-mash seemingly comprising a mixture of pieces that different contributor's happen to know best from various composers, or, in Holst's case, Ethan Mordden's opinion. Someone's opinion alone does not justify the inclusion of anything in an ostensibly objective list. And if this list is not objective then it's pretty worthless. 80.255 00:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] imminent merge

I'm going to soon start merging this article into the One hit wonder article, and I'd like to get some input on how this should best be done. I was going to have a separate large section at the end of the page which would start by mentioning that the term has unofficially been applied to classical artists at times, then going in to the problems of doing so. The real issue will likely be the list, and who's included on who isn't. I'm thinking of breaking the list into sections, and pointing out that the criteria is slightly subjective. Sections will be based on the criteria, as discussed on the VfD: whether the composers has a single "hit" far above his other music, or if he really has only one piece that is known at all, etc. I'm not familiar with some of the peopl on the list, and may need substantial help. -R. fiend 18:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We have many lists on Wikipedia where inclusion or exclusion is done on the basis of consensus opinion, such as List of major flops, List of unusual personal names, List of movies that have been considered among the worst ever. All are considered borderline "listcruft" but they are amusing, people like them, and the survive VfD.. This really isn't any better or worse than many others.
I think part of the problem with this list is that it tempts people to show off their personal knowledgability by demonstrating personal familiarity with some relatively-less-well-known composer. So far, nobody's challenged the inclusion of Ethelbert Nevin, but I am sure there are those that could reel off the names of dozens of compositions by him and imply that you must be an ignorant fool if the only Nevin piece you know is Narcissus.
I had thought that I could help by slowly nibbling away at providing sources for assertions, but, as you will see above, 80.255 knows all about Holst's many choral works and therefore will not accept the inclusion of Holst on the list, despite the fact that a very well-known guide to classical music says "Outside of Britain, Holst's hold on the repertory depends almost exclusively on The Planets."
Maybe it is possible to do it as a narrative, rather than a list, with specific names and works being mentioned as examples. "There are composers with a body of work that is well-known to serious musicians, but have only a single piece familiar to the general public, often as a result of its use as a movie, radio or television theme; for example..." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think I might prefer a narrative to a list, as it explains as it goes, which is important in cases like this, and it encourages less of the "hey I think they forgot Mendelsson, I'll slap his name on there, after all he only wrote that bridal march thing as far as I know" mentality that was the bane of the Jumping the shark article. The downside of a narrative to a list is that many of the names would have to go, as it would be far too tedious to mention them all in such a format. -R. fiend 00:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)