Talk:Puff, the Magic Dragon

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.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this revision (diff) of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.


03:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Raryel

Contents

[edit] Copyright infrigement?

Is it copyright infrigement to post the lyrics here?

Probably not, but we don't generally post lyrics to songs unless we are presenting an analysis of them or something. Don't add them just for the heck of it. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk June 28, 2005 20:39 (UTC)
It is infringement --Tenfour
No, I don't beleive it is, as long as you give credit. There are 1000's of places on the Internet that do it--many commercial--that don't get in trouble for it. It's covered under fair use or some such thing. But as long as you give credit to whoever came up with them, you aren't infringing on their copyright.
Tenfour, please sign your posts. I added your signature above, but you can do it with 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~). The latter is preferred as it also adds a timestamp. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:30, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
It is most certainly copyright infringement to post lyrics. Several music companies have actually began to take action against web sites that post lyrics in recent weeks. ~MDD4696 07:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Will do, Frecklefoot. Yeah, it's definitely infringement. In the leaflets that come with CDs even, they have to get legal permission to print the lyrics, even though the leaflet is accompanied by the recorded songs. That's why they say "Lyrics reprinted with permission". Tenfour 19:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urban Myth

How about adding that this song is popularly believed to be about marijuana? It's a very common association and gained the song quite a bit of notority.

It was in there originally, but got removed somehow. I re-inserted it. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
original text: Believed by many people to refer to smoking marijuana (a rumor perpetuated by the film Meet the Parents), it became a hippie anthem. But the oringal hippie movement had pretty much died out decades before the movie Meet the Parents was ever written! Ckamaeleon 13:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not much of a stretch to point out how easily it can be constrewed as being a reference to marijuana smoking... Puff the magic ... drag-in, plus this dude Puff lives by the C (cannabis, yes a little bit of a stretch, but not too much), and his friend is little Jackie Paper. You have several elements here that can be pieced together to say, "Of course it's about puffing a little magic stuff". If you're going to write a whimsical song about dragons and such, you should really make sure that it can't be easily misconstrued as an allegory about something else.

My personal take on it is that no matter what PP&M say, you can bet that they are saying it to protect their asses from any sort of legal action or loss of royalties. --Thoric 21:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with drugs. It's a simple story about a child growing up. Anything can be construed as being about sex or drugs if one tries hard enough. The only reason the rumor got started is because the term "Puff" is in the title. So then people said "Puff the magic dragon.. the magic dragon obviously must mean a joint!" First of all, "magic dragon" is not a term for a joint, a pipe, or any kind of smoking implement i've ever heard of, and its not close to any names of any smoking implements. Second of all, the song is "Puff, the Magic Dragon". Note the comma. The term grammatically translates into "The Magic Dragon whose name was Puff". If "puff" was used as a verb, not a proper noun, then the comma would be grammatically incorrect. Also, on grammatic terms, "Puff the magic drag-in" doesn't make sense. A drag on a cigarette or joint is not called a drag-in, it is a drag. Drag-in sounds grammatically awkward, and magic drag-in where magic is describing the "drag-in" is a real stretch and an awkward statement. Also, if drag-in is another unheard of term for drag, then the sentence still doesn't make sense. "Puff the magic drag." You don't puff a drag. A drag is a pull of smoke from a smoking implement. A puff is a pull of smoke from a smoking implement, usually referring to pipe or cigar smoking.
Puff lives by the sea. He does not live by the C. Anyway, now that we're refering to Puff as a proper noun again (seeing as how he lives by something), I guess the whole idea that puff was being used as a verb can be thrown out. Either way, sea meaning C meaning cannabis is a ginormous stretch, even if the song WAS for some reason about marijuana, which it's not.
Jackie Paper. It's a kid's name. It's a fairy tale name, and it happens to be paper. Paper is used for more than rolling cigarettes. If his name was Rolling Paper or Bugle Paper or XL ZigZag Cherry Flavored Paper, then I'd be suspicious. But it's not.
It isn't easily misconstrued as an allegory about marijuana. None of your conclusions were arrived at easily. They were all forced and shaped to fit a certain viewpoint, and the fact is, they are all stretches which no one would easily come to a conclusion about unless they were trying to.
Why would PP&M care about legal action or loss of royalties? For singing about marijuana? Even if the song was about marijuana, why would there be legal action or loss of royalties? Songs from the 60s and 70s constantly referenced drugs, in much more real and blatant ways than this song. Listen to some Jefferson Airplane or some Grateful Dead. Listen to some Beatles even. Listen to Lake Shore Drive by Alliota-Haynes-Jeremiah. Listen to Neil Young. I can keep on going. Specifically referencing LSD, marijuana and getting high was commonplace back then. PP&M's song didnt reference any of these things unless you desperately want it to. Hell, even today listen to the stuff played. Drug use is referenced completely blatantly in modern hip-hop and rock and alternative music. It's no secret that people get high, and there isn't legal action or loss of royalties against people who sing about it. PP&M have no reason to lie about Puff, the Magic Dragon, and they AREN'T lying. Because they don't admit to something doesn't mean that they are holding out. They have nothing to admit to.
I'd finally like to say that the problem here is that people are looking at stupid words and phrases that could me forced into a certain interpretation to possibly mean something that may be referencing marijuana. The song as a whole is being ignored. When looking for song meanings, its much better to the try and actually look at the story as a whole and not a handful of words that may or may not be double entrendres on their own. --insertwackynamehere 04:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I meant it could be interpreted as, "Puff the magic. Drag in". This would mean for you to "puff the magic" -- meaning that cannabis was magic, and to puff on it, and "drag in" -- meaning to inhale deeply, to get maximum effect. --Thoric 22:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I know Lenny and asked him directly. He states that it is not a song about drugs, but rather one about lost innocence and he just wanted to create a really cool story about a dragon. If I remember right he made it up while walking between the library at Cornell and his friend Peter's house. Peter wasn't home, so he let himself in and saw a typewriter sitting on the table and typed it up and left. Michaelbrowne 18:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm in a mini-content dispute about the movie reference to marijuana. Apparently, an anon thinks that the scene in question was in Meet the Fockers, not Meet the Parents. I'm pretty sure it was in Meet the Parents, but it's been a while so if anybody wants to confirm which movie the scene they were talking about Puff was in, please do so. UnfriendlyFire 22:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The scene was definitely in Meet the Parents, as I just finished watching that film. Whether or not there was a similar scene in Meet the Fockers, I do not know. (JosephASpadaro 04:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] The Movie and other slang terms?

Does anyone have info on the movie? I could post the slang terms associated with this but I'm not sure I want to.

[edit] Something must be done

Hasn't anybody else noticed that this page states that Puff is written by Peter Paul and Mary, only to change it the next line saying that Leonard Lipton wrote it as a poem and Peter Yarrow made it a song? Seems mutually exclusive to me, as a poem/song can only have one author (unless two collaborated, which this page does not even insinuate). Kingerik 23:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Lipton wrote the poem, but PP&M made it famous. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
After looking at it again, I think it's okay as it is. The song was by the "Peter" or Peter, Paul and Mary. The poem the song was based on was written by Lipton. The article states this. In a way, it was a collaberation: each person contributed something. The band contributed by actually recording the song. I think it's okay. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The first sentence in the article is "Puff, the Magic Dragon is a song written and popularized by Peter, Paul and Mary in the 1960s." Either they wrote the song or not. If they were the first to record the song, or make it popular, or something other than writing it, the article should state that implicitly. Also, "the 1960s" is kind of vague; we should be able to figure out exactly when the record was released, on what album, etc. Dyfsunctional 03:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and BTW, the Peter, Paul and Mary article states that PPM member Peter Yarrow wrote the song in 1958, a year before Lipton. Dyfsunctional 03:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Fixed it. Dyfsunctional 03:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds

It is attested by the Lennon estate that he wrote the song about a picture his child drew (check the page Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds - not about an LSD trip. If anybody has another example, add it please - but Lucy in the Sky will go due to disputed accuracy Lochok 08:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Paul McCartney admitted that the song was about LSD in a recent interview, although he does not confirm or deny that it was intentional that the song title has the same initials as LySergic acid Diethylamide. Do you think the Beatles denied the song was about LSD for nearly 40 years for any reason other than to protect themselves? Do you honestly think that others haven't done the same sort of thing? --Thoric 21:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you honestly think that you can prove they DID? (And even if you could - No Original Research ring a bell?). I find it really weird that so many people honestly feel they HAVE to read drug references into a children's song, though (it's not like the Beatles, who were aiming all of their stuff at teenagers you know, this song was aimed at kids originally). I mean honestly, I know the title is suggestive with the "Puff" in there as the dragon's name, but every time I see arguments "for" it being a drug song, it's always the most ludicrous stretchs of lyrics-bending I've ever seen (see the above "see he lives by the SEA which rhymes with C which is the first letter of Cannabis which is marijuana" argument). Regardless of drug references or no, though, you still make it sound like you care more about whether a 1960s song has drug references than what its more obvious (and intentional) allegory was. :\ In any case, the accusations of it being rumored to have drug references are covered just fine in the article now. I hope no one decides to overdo it with unsourceable material in the future. Runa27 07:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correct name of song

Is the song actually called "Puff, the Magic Dragon"?

The record label just says "Puff". 220.157.83.11 10:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Despite what the label says, it is popularly known as "Puff, the Magic Dragon." And if you look here, you'll see that the song is labelled as "Puff, the Magic Dragon" on their album. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star-Spangled Banner as a drug song??

Did Peter Yarrow ever explain how "it's easier to interpret The Star-Spangled Banner as a drug song than Puff, the Magic Dragon," as mentioned in this article? The external reference confirms that Yarrow made the assertion, but does not elaborate on his reasoning! Mtford 03:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see that too. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I recall him talking about it once, long ago. All I remember is where he brought up the first line "Oh say can you SEE", which rhymes with "C", which stands for Cannibis or Cocaine or whatever. Wahkeenah 12:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I do see what you're saying with the second paragraph of that part. The tonality of it is more opinion based, so a simple or more thorough rewrite is needed.Dguenther - DGun (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is it a children's song?

Currently the article avoids discussing whether or not the song is intended for children - though it is included in the category "children's songs" at the bottom of the page.

The Urban Legends Reference Page link quotes Leonard Lipton saying, "It would be insidious to propagandize about drugs in a song for little kids," and Peter Yarrow saying, "What kind of a meanspirited SOB would write a children's song with a covert drug message?". However, I can't help feeling that it's equally ridiculous to write a song for "little kids" about the loss of childhood innocence! How is an "innocent" child supposed to interpret the song?

These are personal opinions, not encyclopedic facts - but if a discussion of this matter exists elsewhere, it should perhaps be cited. Mtford 03:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Peter, Paul & Mary have denied that the song has anything to do with drugs. To paraphrase them, "if we wanted to write a song about drugs, we wouldn't lie about it." Since it was released in the drug-laden '60s, it's easy to understand why people thought it had covert drug messages, but they weren't inserted intentionally. That is just how people interpreted it. All this information is in the article. If it really were meant to be a drug anthem, I would have put that information in the article. It is just an urban legend. It is not about smoking dope, it is about a dragon and a boy who grows up. Actually, it looks like you understand this already. :-)
I don't think Peter, Paul & Mary intended it to be a children's song; it was just a song. Because of the story it conveys and it's rhythm, it became popular with children and for parents to sing to children. So it became a children's song, just by circumstance.
How are children supposed to interpret a song about innocence lost? I have no idea. I loved the song as a kid (it was my favorite), but the message of childhood lost was totally beyond me as a child, but that didn't stop me from liking it. Like I said, they released it as a song. It wasn't specifically intended for children, but even if it were, how is it insidious to include a message they can't yet totally comprehend? It wasn't like they were encouraging them to investigate porn or anything. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Children's TV special and book

Perhaps it wasn't originally a children's song, but it did inspire a 1978 television special aimed at children, and Peter Yarrow wrote a book that appears to be based on the television special. Since these projects seem to be "officially" related to the song, perhaps they should be mentioned in this article. B7T (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] South East Asia version

I've removed the lyrics to this poem from the article as they are almost certainly copyrighted, and posting them here breaches that copyright. Even when lyrics are not copyrighted, we very, very rarely include them in the article but link to a copy on Wikisource.

See also the "Copyright infringement" section further up this page. Thryduulf 09:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism=

Reverted page to older version. Vandalized version included refs to "Micheal Jackson II" and "Austen Gilbert" and a gun shooting. ~ChadHart

Restored text of Southeast Asia version of lyrics. There is no copyright infringement and its deletion occurred as a result of one person's vandalism. If the text is removed again I will restore it and notify wiki Admins of the vandalism.

03:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Raryel

  • You have picked the wrong day to mess with me, Raryel. I come home after the funeral of a loved one to see that I, a respected editor of more than two years standing, being accused of 'vandalism.' How dare you? Really, how dare you? I withhold the true extent of my dissapointment and disgust, out of some whisper of professionalism. Your disgusting little ditty does not exist anywhere on the internet other than on Wikipedia mirrors and one site 1, so it is non-notable. Even if it were on thousands of sites, on the ONE non-Wikipedia mirror, it is listed as being copyrighted, © 2003-2007 by Jno Pauraig, someone who specialises in taking tender songs like Johnny Cash's I walk the line and turning them into anti-Vietnam ones... great. Incidentally, it says on that site 'all content on this site is the exclusive property of this website.' Get that? Exclusive property? So you're adding copyrighted songs, of spurious notability, to otherwise decent articles, and you're calling me a vandal? Oy vey zmir!
--It's-is-not-a-genitive 13:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I concur that the lyrics should not be included in this article. We generally do not include the full text of original material, lyrics or otherwise, even if it is the public domain. — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, Frecklefoot. Noted. 19:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Raryel
If the lyrics are public domain or licensed under the GFDL (and notable enough - I make no claim either way here) then we would put a copy of the lyrics on Wikisource and add a prominent link to it in the article. See The Charge of the Light Brigade (poem) for an example. I am not active at Wikisource, so I can't give any indication of what their inclusion criteria are, beyond not accepting copyrighted material.
Also remember that copyright exists on everything that is not explicitly released under another license or into the public domain, unless the copyright has expired (determining when this is can get very complicated), see the copyright article and Wikipedia:Copyrights project page. Wikipedia does not allow the inclusion of fair use text beyond short quotes, and then only for the purpose of including them in an encyclopaedic article about either the quote or about the work the quotes are taken from.
If the SE Asia version is notable, and the claims of notability can be cited, (again I make no judgement at this point whether it is or it isn't) then we should include a paragraph or possibly two about it in the article, as long as we don't include the full lyrics as explained above. Thryduulf 22:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The SE Asia version was not penned by the copyright claimant of the website. I was aware of the poem ten years ago. It's pretty clear to anyone who reads it that it was penned by someone in the US military who interacted with or depended on the AC-47 (military DC-3) gunships. The poem, while certainly not what Peter, Paul and Mary intended, was intended as inspiration for the troops. I have read somewhere than a US Air Force major may have penned it, but I can't find the authorship citation. If I do find it, I'll post it to your talk page if you like and you can look at it. Then I'll write a shrt historical paragraph about it and add it to the Puff article.

You do good work on wikipedia. 05:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Raryel

[edit] New Children's Book Adds Info

I recently bought the book, Puff the Magic Dragon, by Peter Yarrow and Lenny Lipton (published by Sterling of New York and London, copyright 2007). A few things are written in the book that are of interest to this article. First, the name of Puff's home is written as Honalee. Also, in a note from the authors at the end, Lipton relates that he was unaware of Hawaii's Hanalei when he made up the name of the place. Finally, both of the authors clearly refer to this as a children's song. Austineze 14:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The FOXNews reference

Weird, but it never says it was videotaped, and after a couple of minutes Googling I can't find another page that doesn't reference the FOXNews article. Wrong Google search, maybe? But I think we should have another, independent reference. Oh wait... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/06/politics/main591734.shtml. But it only references the marijuana once, and very briefly.

But...it doesn't look to me like John Kerry actually intended this movement to look as if he was smoking pot. Just an accidental movement, at the wrong time.

It'd be nice to have a link to the actual video, if it's at all possible? Also, did anyone ever question John on his gesture? If so, is there a reference on the net?

Not defending the song at all, just noting that it says "he did this" without a counter-argument, which looks fishy. 121.245.0.247 (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)