Talk:The Song of the Volga Boatmen

message: Dubinushka redirects here, but there needs to be a stub instead. While "Dubinushka" can refer to "The Song of the Volga Boatmen"
it is also the name of a notable revolutionary song lacking an English name. I don't have the knowledge of Russian or Wikipedia editing
to do a decent job, but please see Talk:Dubinushka. 76.93.191.164 (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think so - Tsarist Russia could be a very harsh place, and certainly these burlaks had a harsh existence; one can see that from the painting, which in my opinion supports the statement well. And one can make statements about life at that time without it being pro-communist. --Snow (talk) 01:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Is there any reason that the lyrics have been removed?
74.215.69.230 (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of lyrics

message: Here's what the article says about its origins: 
"well-known traditional Russian song collected by Mily Balakirev, and published in his book of folk songs in 1866. It is a genuine shanty sung by burlaks, or barge-haulers, on the Volga River. Balakirev published it with only one verse (the first). The other two verses were added at a later date. The song was inspired by Ilya Repin's famous painting, Barge Haulers on the Volga, which depicts the suffering of the burlaks in the depth of misery".
This is non-sense.
How could a "traditional" song be inspired by a painting (a late 19th century painting, to boot)?
It is either not "traditional", i.e. it was either authored by a contemporary composer, who for some reason decided to remain anonymous, or - much more likely - the painting itself has very little to do with the song (the burlaks having been  a very familiar sight in old Russia. Indeed, the painting itself may have been inspired by the song, not vice versa. (It's easy to find out.)
Whatever the case is, an encyclopaedic article should be more careful with semantics... (This unsigned section headed "Illogical account of origins" was added by user 86.61.47.177 and credited by --Storye book (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That, and the obvious inconsistency: the song was apparently published in 1866, while the painting was finished in 1873. I'm placing a dubious tag on that statement until at least one of those claims has a reference. Neither do at the moment. TaintedMustard (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with TaintedMustard. Perhaps I should also make clear that I was only crediting the above editor for the comment and that did not necessarily imply agreement. However the information about the two dates now makes a strong case that we cannot yet associate the song with a particular event or artefact.--Storye book (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Illogical account of origins

message: I just wanted to add, that the song is not translated correctly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.4.189.112 (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then translate it correctly. 70.172.214.70 (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: "мать-река" translates to "mother-river", not "you're our pride." 74.96.157.216 (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyric Translation 

message: I have included the USSR period recording "Leonid Kharitonov & The Red Army Choir - Song of the Volga Boatmen" as better representative of a definitive rendition of a Russian folk song by widely acclaimed Leonid Kharitonov.Mister Linker (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitive recording

message: "very few use the original lyrics (i.e. its use as the introductory theme of the Soviet boxer" ·
I'm puzzled by the use of "i.e." here.  If there were only one use of the original lyrics, it would have said "only one" rather than "very few".  If "its use..." cited one example among the very few, it should have been "e.g.".
98.206.86.187 (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  Changed to "for example".  Continuous formal prose should eschew abbreviations. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage Query