Talk:Music of Superman

message: The original theme was arranged by Leon Klatzkin while an employee of David Chudnow's Mutel  music service. Leon was a musician and composer/arranger who told me that his first paying gig was playing trumpet in the orchestra that recorded the music for Karloff's Frankenstein. I personally witnessed Leon arranging music and conducting the CBS orchestra for the television show Gunsmoke. He notated music on staff paper while composing at the piano keyboard. I personally heard him play piano, trumpet, and violin - he was an excellent pianist. Whether he actually composed any music that became part of the Superman theme I can't say. He was a talented composer and certainly capable of having done it, but I think that it is sufficient to say that he created the audio montage that we all know as the Superman theme, and deserves credit for it. I think he would be astonished at the overwrought tone of much of the discourse surrounding this piece of music today.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have source for that? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Source for what? That paragraph is a summary of my personal knowledge based on years of close association with Leon Klatzkin. I didn't realize that discussion page entries required sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.42.220 (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I thought you had wanted that text in the article.   My apologies. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for that apology? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hesitate to write this, at the risk of seeming antagonistic towards a fellow fan of Princess_Tutu and Fancy_Lala, but please confine your baiting of other wikipedians to a more appropriate forum. I fear nobody will want to edit this article ever again for fear of attracting trolls.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Original Theme

message: The article states that for Superman IV "it has been confirmed that Williams himself wrote the new themes." What's the sourse for that statement and who confirmed it? -- Scott scarecroe 21:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Superman IV music

message: Anyone wanna tackle the full overhaul the page will need? Or perhaps wait until the set has gotten into our hands and we can use the book (oh the book)... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now that the box has been officially released... 

message: As producer of the Superman: The Music box set I have undertaken the task of revising the page with particular emphasis on the features films.  I've also added in a lot of information as a result of the extensive, exhaustive research that went into the book that comes with the music set.  A lot of hearsay and assumptions that have come up over the years have at last been clarified. Mxscore (talk) 07:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're running the risk of having it all reverted on the grounds of original research and self-promotion. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? He cites the book (that comes with the boxset), which has been published. That is virtually out, just not shipped to regular consumers yet. How's that original research? And there's no self promotion going on either. Conflict of interest MAYBE, but nothing I've seen in the edits have been anything but layed out factually (I'll grant I mostly skimmed it). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The self-promotion is both in his choice of username and in purposely bringing the fact up here, assuming he's not just pretending. And if it's not actually in stores, then it's not yet verifiable. The purpose of all this appears to be to drum up sales. I'm not necessarily going to revert it myself, but there's a good chance someone else will. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's available online, has been since Thursday. It just hasn't been shipped out. I don't know when people will start getting copies, but it'll be within a week. Perhaps he should have waited until then, perhaps. Actually, if Mxscore happens to be Michael Matessino (it looks that way), then he's probably the last person that would need to be reverted on the issue. He's about as expert as it gets. I know this doesn't mean anything if the info isn't verifiable...but it IS. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You many not realize it, but you're helping to build the case for reverting what he's written. I've asked an admin for advice on this point. Shameless self-promotion (which this appears to be) is strictly against the rules, and it doesn't matter how much of an "expert" he is or claims to be. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for being such a stupid moronic idiot. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to apologize for being an idiot. I never do. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if this comes off as self-promotion or a sales tactic.  It is not. The set is a limited edition and will soon be sold out, so the thinking here is just a little bit more long-term than that. This is an encyclopedia that accepts contributions to make entries both accurate and current.  I am volunteering additional factual information which resulted from the extensive research done for this project so that anyone interested in the subject will find it to be... accurate and current. It in no way infringes on the book that comes with the music set, which is far more extensive and actually details every individual piece of music in the scores.  I will be happy to discuss this with an administrator.  But reverting the page will bring it back to a state that is really obsolete and useless to anyone seeking accurate information.   I freely offer the additional factual information in the spirit in which this excellent resource was created. Mxscore (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: When is this 8-CD collection due to appear in stores, such as Barnes & Noble? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It won't be. Like a lot of limited movie score releases now a days (and everything from Film Score Monthly), it's being limited to online at its main point of sale. Some independant stores might have it, but it's not a 'normal' retail item. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thus keeping the price artificially high. I'm consulting with an admin to see what is to be done, if anything, about this info which is blatant self-promotion. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ...you're kidding right? Please tell me you actually don't believe that the set is some how not legit because you can't buy it at Borders. PLEASE tell me you aren't thinking it's somehow wrong to reference deeply researched info, gotten from primary sources, including the composers themselves, to WP just because you can't buy it offline. Please tell me this isn't what you're saying, because I DO need to assume good faith. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying it could be a scan, for all I know. He's trying to drum up orders for something that's not even available yet. This I know for sure: I won't be buying it. And his trying to push it here is likely a violation of several rules, which is why I've asked an admin to look into it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When you can find me a page on WP that says that liner notes are against the rules, then I will revert the page myself. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue isn't so much liner notes as it is self-promotion and drumming up sales for something that isn't even available yet. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Then examine only the sections added which particularly relate to WP:COI. In reviewing the Historic coverage, the edits certainly added a great deal of non-controversial fact, from rhythmic structures to dates (the musical, for example), and better crediting of artists (Like Chuck Berry). ALl of those contributions should NOT be thrown out in a mass revert, but rather the article needs reviewing to cull only what constitutes self-promotion and COI, and then only if there's a demonstrated problem.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThuranX (talk • contribs) 03:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As you noticed, I have posted an incident  to see if I can get anyone's attention on this matter. The question I have now is how many of his additions come straight from his own, not-yet-avaiable book? Not only Conflict of Interest, but until the book is released, Original Research as well. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything the red-link added has been for the express purpose of selling his own product. It's original research, it's using wikipedia to sell a product. It's got to go. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are playing a little fast and loose with your definition of "Everything". I don't see how changing "the early radio show..." to "the radio show of the early 1940's" is self-serving. Nor do I see the argument against changing "The theatrical release Superman and the Mole Men" to "The 1951 theatrical release Superman and the Mole Men". There are other statements that just make me wonder, why, if Darrell Calker is credited with writing the score is the authorship in doubt? I think your mass revert needs to be reverted and, as ThuranX already suggested, the changes need to be gone through with a fine toothed comb to determine the validity of the contribution. Padillah (talk) 16:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The source for all of it is his book. Howq about if I write a book on something and try to use it as a source? Will that fly? I don't think so. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I can certainly review the individual edits, provided their sourced from something other than this guy's book. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean to tell me the only place to site a reference to the radio show having aired in the early '40's is in his book? The only place that mentions the release date of "Superman and the Mole Men" is this guys book? I find that hard to believe. The vehemency of your stance and the terse replies make me think we might do best to step back and let everything cool down. In the meantime we can look for other references (besides this persons book) for some of the useful information that has been added. I don't want this guy pushing his book here either but I don't think the article would be well served by summarily removing everything the guy has added. And, to answer your question, yes - if you write a book and get it published it could be used as a reliable source (always assuming it is a reliable source). Padillah (talk) 16:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You all keep talking about the pure data as if it were in a vacuum. This guy is trying to use wikipedia to sell stuff. That's supposed to be against the rules. I want someone to address that issue. And so far, no one is willing to. Maybe they don't care if someone decides to convert this article into an advertisement for his "Limited edition, not available in stores!" product. Ironically, there was a guy blocked last week for being so belligerent on the opposite side of this, for arguing against using someone else's book as a source. Now I wish they hadn't blocked him. He would have been all over this guy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Lordy lordy. You've already been told to assume good faith...but seriously, the revert of TONS of info that CAN BE SOURCED FROM A RELIABLE, PUBLISHED, MEDIUM is really really pushing it. I'll leave you with this for now. Perhaps this too. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You all need to read the wikipedia rules. It doesn't matter who this guy rubs shoulders with. That doesn't give him the right to use wikipedia to sell his products. The AGF argument doesn't hold. He's made it clear from his own comments that that's what he's up to. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Afraid I'm going to have to side with Melodia Chaconne here - you've gone too far, especially with the wholesale reversion of many accurate and appropriate edits. Also, "Film Score Monthly" is a reputable source, both for information and products. If he was creating an article specifically about himself, or the product, you might have a case - but this new release is a major release as far as Superman fans are concerned, and has generated some definite interest from film and music sites. And your continual reversion is pushing you into WP:3RR territory - please stop. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not have the right to use wikipedia to sell products. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of points are getting missed. 1) You are correct, it doesn't matter who this guy is. If he's pushing his book then that influence needs to go. 2) More edits were made than simple "this can be found in my book" edits. ie. changing A leitmotif is a theme tune connected with a character or an object, in a performance such as a musical play, an opera, or a film.... to be rephrased as A leitmotif is a melody associated with a particular character or story element in any mode of drama in which music is employed, such as a musical play, opera, ballet, or film. has little to do with his book, it's a simple rephrase to a more precise wording.  Also, changing the heading from "===First appearance in Superman===" to "====Leitmotifs introduced in Superman====" is not something he introduces in his book. It's a suggestion for a better heading for that section. I think you need to read over what this guy has contributed and decide if this is worth the 3RR you are going to end up with if you keep going. I have no problem removing the excessive references to "Varese Sarabande Records" as being quite self-serving. but there is other stuff that's just fact and improvement. Padillah (talk) 19:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, Varese Sarabande isn't even an issue here either, as the new release comes from Film Score Monthly - and regardless of what Baseball Bugs thinks, it's a legitimate, notable release. The info is going to end up in the article anyway - why is this such as issue for him? TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You people are violating one rule after another in order to sell your products any way you can. This is not supposed to be amazon.com. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I REALLY think you need to step away and get some distance. I am not pushing a book! Hell, I don't even like Superman that much. I'm willing to bet that neither TheRealFennShysa nor Melodia Chaconne have books they are trying to sell. Please get a grip and stop berating everyone. If you are not talking about Varese Saraband then I'm at a complete loss. Since I can't determine what the user is allegedly pushing I can't speak to the issue. The entire article is unreferenced except for a rephrasing of the reference that you have an exception with "kinda" (you can't have too big an exception since your recourse is to phrase the reference a different way). I'm lost. Padillah (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, "Bugs", but I don't have any connection to Film Score Monthly, other than having bought some of their products in the past - a simple search on my alias will prove that. If you want to claim that I have a financial stake in this, PROVE IT. Otherwise, please back off and discuss this rationally, please. Thank you. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I feared, the salesmen have now assumed ownership of this page. This is highly offensive. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, what proof do you have that those who have taken issue with your wholesale reversions are "salesman"? You're venturing into ad hominem and WP:NPA territory. Please stop. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you keep defending this guy? Why don't you pay attention to the rules? He has no right to use wikipedia to sell his stuff, and he has no right to use his own book as a source, especially as it's one of the items he's trying to sell. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay - consider this. The product has been released. That is not debatable. The product is newsworthy and notable to film score fans. That is not debatable. Another editor called for the inclusion of this material BEFORE the editor you have a problem with showed up. That is not debatable. The infomation, now that it can be attributed to a multiple published sources, including the product itself, is going to be added into the article, as it is verifiable from reputable sources. That is not debatable. Consider this - as the article stands now, that editor did not add the information - *I DID*. I've reviewed the sources available, and I find them credible, and citable. We're not talking about a fly-by-night operation here, were talking about a major release from Film Score Monthly, with the full co-operation of several major record labels, and the original talent behind those releases. It's a legitimate, newsworthy release. Now, are you going to claim that I have a conflict of interest here? I'd love to hear that, as I can laugh all day at any erroneous conclusions like that. (BTW, that is not debatable, either.) While you *might* have a point about the appropriateness of the timing of that editors contributions, the fact remains that other editors have reviewed them, and found them acceptable. That should be the end of it. That, apparently, you find debatable. Oh well. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Conflict of interest, original research, hawking one's own products. Those are all against the rules. If you all find breaking of the rules acceptable, so be it. You own the page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And by the way, 3,000 CD's is in no way a "major" release. 3,000,000 might be. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, on that we can agree to disagree - quality, not quantity. However, I'll remind you that, once again, you seem to have a history with issues relating to assuming good faith. I don't own the article - but then again, neither do you. If you can't take people disagreeing with you, then perhaps you shouldn't have started this in the first place. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What I have a history of is standing up to people doing stuff they shouldn't be doing. When the guy comes on here and states openly that he's trying to sell stuff, any assumption of good faith is nullified. And I fully intended to add back legitimate edits made by neutral users, after removing that one guy's stuff. But no admin is willing to put the breaks on this wikipedia-as-amazon.com page, so you own it now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It's been released. People have reported getting the set yesterday. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was released AFTER the self-promoter posted his stuff here. I wonder how many of them he sold as a direct result of advertising here? Not that anyone apparently cares about that. "Consensus" now seems to be that it's perfectly OK to use wikipedia to sell your own products. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions to this page 

message: There's a mass of original research contained in this article.  Any comments about the style, tone, etc. of the different music should be sourced (and using ref tags to the specific page numbers, if possible).  I'm considering stripping the whole thing of OR and get leaving a bare-bones article but  someone should hack all the original ideas out until they are sourced. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not OR at all, it's simply uncited -- there's a difference. I'm tempted to revert all your edits (outside the header fixings) because, well, they are almost as bad as Baseball Bugs's mass revision. Removing links to score analysis? Or worse, considering The Superman II and Superman III scores were composed by Ken Thorne, adapting Williams' themes extensively. as needing a fact tag? That's NOT something that it at ALL controversal, it's a fact that all one has to do is look at the film credits (among hundreds of other places) to find. Lord. But you know what? Fuck it. It's not worth doing because people like you will just come and revert it again. This shit is one reason WP is really really starting to get annoying. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is still way too much hype in the article. FSM was linked every place it appeared. The same point is made over and over about this new FSM release. Massive hype. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which I'm sure was MUCH more likely a newbie editor mistake, than any sort of intentional hyping. But of course, you won't believe that, since it's SO FUCKING OBVIOUS that THE EVIL SELF PROMOTION GOBLINS are out to get you. *OOGA BOOGA~!* ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Civility is another wikipedia rule that you apparently don't care anything about. In any case, there is no question Thorne adapted Williams' themes, given that it actually says so in the opening credits. However, the article did/does not say that, it merely asserts it without any kind of attribution. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  FYI, you are supposed to source all materials.  This is a huge article with tons of detailed points (and some serious COI problems), and I'm particularly concerned with using a single source for the descriptions.  And yes, things like "dramatic, heroic musical scores, typically featuring the brass section to emphasize the character's heroics" is an original source; it's a thought and a view on the piece, and should be attributed to someone.  This is an encyclopedia, i.e., not a primary source of information.  There should be analysis of the pieces as described by others.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, the opinionated stuff is really chancy. The factual stuff needs sources. The one guy citing his personal reminiscences of Leon Klatzkin don't count. Superman: Serial to Cereal is a citable source, as are the liner notes for albums in which it is mentioned. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the book, we should be citing to page numbers, if possible. The more detail, the better. I'm particular concerned about the entire "leitmotifs" section.  There's a ton of "this was introduced here", "creates a lighter mood", "represents" (some of which I'm taking out now).  Again, the fact that there has been some analysis means we should be using it, not coming up with our own.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: This is absolutely astonishing and very disheartening. I am on the verge of reverting to the version of this article that was there before someone else made the suggestion that it be overhauled. For the record, I do not care if anyone buys the music.  I do not earn one penny off of sales.  I did the project and was paid a lump sum way back in 2006 and that's it.  I exhaustively researched the subject as a matter of course but I also happen to care about it and wanted anyone who came along with an interest in it to be able to find accurate and current information. Cutting out links or simplifying references - no problem.  But if there's something wrong with the overall goal of keeping an encyclopedia article up-to-date then going back to the old, now obsolete version of the article is easily accomplished and probably worthwhile in light of the grief that this has apparently caused.Mxscore (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy you came back and wasn't completely scared off by the base accusations. Some of the above does have points, in that your version of the article had some issues -- mostly: overlinking (mainly, you don't need to wikilink to the same thing twice unless it's quite a ways down in the article), cites WOULD be better with page numbers (yesterday I found the way of citing linar notes, it says they should be mentioned), and some of the format is off (and still is, because THAT part was reverted and totally reshuffled) -- discs shouldn't have their own subsections like that. I didn't want to bother doing anything with what went all down here, but as it's calmed, feel free to revert and fix the issues I mention. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your views and guidance. Note that some of things you pointed out were already present in the original article, such as disc subsections.  Someone else even added in all the material about a rerecording which has been around for 9 years!  Funny how all of of sudden that needed to be there. The editorial comments also go back to the old version. The window of opportunity to work on this has passed as I was completely focused on wrapping up business related to the music at the time (and I - perhaps foolishly - considered this to be of some importance), but now I am on to other projects. I welcome any efforts to apply correct and appropriate formatting to the piece.Mxscore (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, if you're going to be that way about it, please note that other editors saw things differently from you, and other editors found that, regardless of who inserted the information to begin with, it was relevant to the topic, it was of sufficient note, and deserved inclusion. There was no abuse of Wikipedia, no matter what you have continually tried to insinuate. Try toning down the snark and bitterness, whydoncha? TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was right and you all got it wrong, as the facts speak for themselves. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the immortal words of the Holier Than Thou Editor. Whatever. Enjoy your bitterness. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The user abused wikipedia for his personal gain, in violation of the rules, and you all enabled it. Be proud. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I have a badge? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Badges? We don't need no steenkin' badges! Or badgers, but that's another movie... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Every edit that user made was in furtherance of selling his DVD set. Using wikipedia for personal gain is against the rules. What part of this do you not understand? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, first off, it wasn't *his* DVD set - he was connected to a company that produced a *CD* set, but that's beside the point - what YOU seem to be incapable of understanding is that multiple editors evaluated what he added, saw that it was from a reputable and notable release, would have been added by others anyway, and WAS added by other editors after you wholesale deleted his contributions. You really need to get off your high-horse here - you made a mistake, and your continual attempts to denigrate those who disagree with you is really starting to wear thin. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The facts prove that I was right and that you all enabled him to get away with it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah! Nanananabooboo! THBBBBBBBBBBBBB♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That response is every bit as reasoned as your blind support for that red-linked, single-purpose-account spammer. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: In the section "Radio, cartoons, early films" three is a reference to "...a theme that began with a triad, repeated once." My question is, Was the triad played once or played twice (played once and then repeated). This is phrased very confusingly. It's either repeated or it's played once, but not both. Padillah (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Repeated once" confusion