Talk:The Washington Post (march)

message: I'm not sure whether we even need to mention its use in films. As one of the most popular and recognizable marches of all time, I am sure it must have been used in hundreds of films.  It would be an obvious choice for a "generic" march, any situation in which a hometown band is marching down a small-town street and the director wants a march that is familiar, appropriate to the situation, and yet carries no particular meaning. "The Stars and Stripes Forever" signals patriotism, "Colonel Bogie" would make everyone think of a very different movie, "The Yellow Rose of Texas" would make people think of the words to the song, "Seventy-Six Trombones" is associated with The Music Man... but "The Washington Post" is just a good, lively, all-purpose, stirring, familiar American march. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In films

message: The image in this article has the wrong key signature; the song is in the key os G major, which has one sharp, not two. Georgia guy 22:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Late reply, but this is right. The image shows incorrect notation in other ways too. Impressive number of mistakes for such a short excerpt. 192.91.173.36 (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Key signature

message: I'm removing 
:The tendency of writers to call it The Washington Post March arose in order to prevent confusion with the newspaper for which it was named.
There's no source citation, and I don't think this is anything more than a plausible speculation.
Actually, I'm not even sure it's correct.
1) I'm not sure there's any such "tendency." It took me a while to sort out the story because a random sampling of recording labels, album liners, random references in written material included "Washington Post," "The Washington Post," and "The Washington Post March" with no form of the title clearly predominating.
2) In the second place, many of Sousa's other marches show a similar variation in way in which the title is rendered (e.g. "The Liberty Bell"). 
3) In the third place, CD label and booklet listings tend to follow a pattern in which, if the title of one piece is presented using the word "march" then the title of most of the others will be, and conversely. If the label says "The Washington Post March" it will probably say "The Thunderer March" and "The Picadore March" and so forth; if it just says "The Liberty Bell" and "The Invincible Eagle" it will probably just say "The Washington Post."
4) And, finally, other pieces of music show similar variations, e.g. "Blue Danube," "The Blue Danube," "The Blue Danube Waltz," "On the Beautiful Blue Danube," etc. 
In other words, I don't think this is anything peculiar to this particular march. 
I'll gladly stand corrected if someone finds a source citation. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plausible but unsourced speculation

message: I'm moving this very-interesting-if-true assertion here:
Anyone who can provide a reference to one of the "many" who have argued this should reinsert it in the article, referencing and quoting the source. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The march made the newspaper famous?

message: I'm moving the entire list here, because I don't think the use of the music is important or significant in any of them.
In all but two, I don't see any significance whatsoever in the choice of the music beyond its being familiar march music.  Why couldn't Jan just as well have practiced her cheerleading to The Thunderer? Why couldn't the marines just as well have played Semper Fidelis as they marched into the Moroccan sultan's castle?
The exceptions are 1) the "Tigers" action figures commercial, in which the words are said to have been specifically set to the march music; but I doubt that this commercial is an important piece of popular culture; and 2) its use in the Sousa biopic Stars and Stripes Forever, but it hardly seems surprising or important that the film used familiar Sousa marches. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: In popular culture

message: This article states: "The composition is now in the public domain in the U.S., as its copyright has expired. However, almost all sound recordings of the march are under copyright. Sound recordings fixed on or after February 15, 1972 are protected by federal copyright law, with certain very narrow exceptions. Recordings fixed before that date are under state copyright laws, many of which have no fixed duration, and federal law will not preempt state law for those recordings until 2067.[2] The sound file accompanying this article, however, is in the public domain in the U.S. because as a recording by the United States Marine Band, it is a work of the United States government not subject to copyright." What does this have to do with the history or story of this musical piece? If one was a lawyer perhaps, it may be of some interest, but to someone seeking knowledge of the subject of the article, it is pretty useless. At best, it belongs in a footnote - it really should just go away. Jmdeur (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: There be lawyers here

message: The Title section of this article seems to contain original synthesis. It claims that the "correct" name of the piece is "The Washington Post," and cites sources for the evidence used in the argument, but does not cite sources for the conclusion drawn from that evidence. Wikipedia editors should not be drawing their own conclusions from the presented facts. Unless a reliable source can be provided for this analysis, it should be considered original synthesis and should be removed. —Bkell (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: After digging into the article's history a bit, I see that most of this section comes from an edit made by Dpbsmith on 20 September 2004, shortly following a discussion on this talk page. Since the claim about the "correct name" of the march seems to be based on various Wikipedia editors' interpretations of the title on the printed sheet music, this is pretty clearly original synthesis. I have removed the section. If anyone can provide a reliable source for this claim, it can be reinstated. —Bkell (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original synthesis in Title section 

message: Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional citations

message: “March enthusiasts have argued that the trio sections' mellow and moving phrases are among Sousa's most musical. Six sudden eighth notes move the melody along. Its unusually calm break strain is a simple adaptation of the trio melody. It then moves on to the first trio repeat, where §the low brass begins an even more mellow countermelody.”
While I happen to agree with all of this, who are these mysterious “march enthusiasts”, and in what venue to they argue? Surely a sourcing footnote would be here in order. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peidgSY8A50 Subjective judgment] 

message: "The composition is in the public domain in the US, as its copyright has expired, due to Sousa having been dead for more than 70 years and it having been published before the early 1920s."
Is this paragraph necessary, or desirable? If there's a desire to retain it, what would be the argument? I mean, why this piece and not every other piece that's presently out of copyright? I'm not going to inordinately concern myself with this, but if nobody says anything and I think of it later, I might delete this sentence. Bret Sterling (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete paragraph?