Talk:Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas

message: These lyrics are obviously copyrighted.  Did someone get permission to quote them? 
This article can't be right - I have a Judy Collins version of the song with the "muddle through" lyrics. Can someone fact check this? Phil Sandifer 19:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know for whom the "highest bough" line was added (it is generally reported that Sinatra demanded the change, which wouldn't surprise me) but I have never EVER seen anybody suggest that that was the original lyric, as this page nonsensically suggests.  (Have you ever seen the movie 'Meet Me In St. Louis' that they wrote the song for? A "happy" Christmas song would never have made sense there.)  Since the first recorded version of the song is in the film 'Meet Me In St. Louis' with the words "muddle through somehow," I suggest we list that lyric as prior to the "highest bough" one unless somebody can cite a source to the contrary. 68.9.190.116 18:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: The lyric that has "I know that" and "ends "Have ourselves ..." is the James Taylor take on the song recorded after 9-11. It's obvious those aren't the original lyrics because that would make the title of teh song "Have ourselves a Merry Little Christmas."68.9.190.116 18:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lyrics

message: James Taylor's version is that of the "early version" lyrics, including the muddle through line, FYI. Anthony 02:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but he takes a couple of liberties like adding "I know that" which is fine, but we should be careful to to transcribe his version and post it as 100% original lyrics. 68.9.190.116 18:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Muddle through" lyrics 

message: I believe the Judy Garland version, with the "muddle through" lyrics, is a sort of a half-way house between the earlier, considerably darker "Have yourself a merry little Christmas, it may be your last" version and the later Sinatra version. The original lyrics were re-written to remove the darkest elements at the behest of Garland and studio bosses, but they retained the melancholy, but hopeful theme. By the time Sinatra got his hands on it the song had dispensed with most of the remaining melancholy, with gay yuletides and shining boughs popping up all over the place, and a cosy present tense adopted in place of the forboding ("it may be your last" earliest draft) or hopeful ("now kinda sucks, but maybe next year will be better" Judy Garland version) future tense. - Barra
I agree that the song is empty without the bit of subtle melancholy about current troubles being far away by next year. In reality, we all have little (or big) troubles on our minds and gathering together with friends at Christmas helps to take our minds off these things and gives a little hope and cheer for the future. The song has been horribly flushed out of all melancholy with it's apparent need to a describe a constant state of happiness.Ggaylmer (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dark, not so dark, a little bright, ugh, too bright! 

message: I think the final comment in the article about this sharing chord changes with 'Blue Moon'(Cmaj7-Am-Dm7-G7) is an unfair implication of plagarism.   The melodies for the two songs are completely different.   Having a common chord progression in the verses means nothing.
===Furthermore===
The common chord progression only occurs for a couple of repetitions before veering off in a different direction. This changes the character of the song substantially and makes it quite different in every way from other songs that used this progression repetitively. I feel this section should be removed. --InsultComicDog 17:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Implication of 'Blue Moon' plagarism

message: The common chord progression only occurs for a couple of repetitions before veering off in a different direction. This changes the character of the song substantially and makes it quite different in every way from other songs that used this progression repetitively. I feel this section should be removed. --InsultComicDog 17:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Furthermore

message: This song was not composed by Ralph Blane. The lyrics aren't even by Ralph Blane. Listen to Hugh Martin's interview on Terry Gross' "Fresh Air" a few years back. Ralph didn't write many of the songwriting team's famous tunes. You can read the book "The Boy Next Door," Hugh Martin's autobiography and see that Hugh wrote both music and lyrics. For copyright reasons Blane stayed on. I suppose you could keep the Martin/Blane credits, but this article deserves another section talking about how Hugh was actually the sole writer. And definitely remove Ralph Blane as the "composer" and Hugh as the lyricsist. Hugh did both.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.238.176 (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This song is not by Irving Berlin. -- Alarics (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Songwriting correction 

message: Sam Smith and Josh Groban sections are irrelevant to the overall article. The Sam Smith section especially reads as advertising; it has WAY too much content related to Sam Smith, who is just one of thousands of artists who have covered this holiday classic. The content does not belong in this article, and so I have removed it.74.215.20.249 (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how Smith's cover is deemed "promotional"; it is very much a notable cover, since it charted on multiple charts. Notable covers are relavant to the article, and Smith's cover is considered notable. Furthermore, it does not have too much content related to Smith, and therefore I'm restoring it since your claim appears to be false (I'll leave Groban's cover out for now, though). If it does appear to be promotional, then fix it, not remove it. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have become the second editor to remove the Sam Smith material. It is a FORK from the topic of the song, it is an egregious example of RECENTISM, and it is obviously self-promotional. As i found it, it also contained what amounted to the false claim that Sam Smith's version was the first to chart at Billboard. The fact that it was removed once before, in 2016, and then reinstated tells me that the page bears watching. cat yronwode, not logged in 75.101.104.17 (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a case of advertising, recentism, self-promotional or a fork. Per WP:SONGCOVER, notable cover versions should be included and have their own sections. At the time this section was started there was no Josh Groban section, so there should be a Sam Smith section since it is a notable cover version. Aspects (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Sam Smith has a mention in the "Popularity" section and that is all he needs unless his head is too big for his britches, so to speak.  I'm merging his section into the list of covers with some (not enough) reduction in content. Zaslav (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sam Smith cover has once again acquired its own sub-head. Folks, it is not that important. It is just one of many cover versions. Look over the editing history and see how many times the Sam Smith fans have tried to create a sub-head and it has been removed by other editors. This is getting ridiculous. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevent Josh Groban, Sam Smith sections removal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808063716/http://www.cbs.com/specials/christmas_shoes/band.shtml to http://www.cbs.com/specials/christmas_shoes/band.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The tune sounds much like that of the introductory theme of Johann Sebastian Bach's Brandenburg Concerto #5, BWV 1050.2, with the doubled notes rendered single and slowed to be singable. Where would this be placed, if permitted, in the article? Pbrower2a (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This would need a reliable source, and even then it hardly seems significant enough to include, unless there has been some notable controversy about it. -- Alarics (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

text: It's not by Irving Berlin. See first paragraph of the article. Alarics (talk) 08:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: JS Bach, Brandenburg Concerto #5