Talk:Great American Songbook/Archive 1

Archive 1

Original Research tag

Let me start by saying that this article is probably entirely true, BUT it is still going to need more sources and citations. Try searching on Google Scholar, because I'm sure that there have been studies on this somewhere. Also, if the sources that are cited confirm all of the information presented in the article, then there need to be more in-text citations so readers are assured that the article is of high quality. — OranL (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Who's on the list?

Antonio Carlos Jobim part of the Great American Songbook? *scratching head* Really? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

There's no official membership list, and he's clearly not one of the primary names, but he gets many Google hits in this context. But if you have expertise/deep knowledge in this subject, feel free to correct, or to break the names out into major and minor contributors. Wasted Time R 16:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

well, the expression is "the great AMERICAN songbook". There are a lot of google hits, but that's mostly because the same people who interpret the American standards also interpret Jobim. Likewise Michel Legrand. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Make a template

A template page containing something like the box at the bottom of the page should be made. That way, when people are added/removed, every page that contains the template is updated (as opposed to going through each by hand). 66.229.182.113 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive. :) see {{Great American Songbook}}  — MrDolomite | Talk 05:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Perry Como

Why is Perry Como not on the infobox list of American songbook singers? If you look at Perry Como LPs the great majority of them are "standards". --Sicamous 18:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Because nobody has added him to the infobox, that's all! Feel free to; I'm also surprised he isn't there. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Duh! I gotta wake myself up. I added him --Sicamous 04:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I see the warning is at the top again about the lack of sources referenced. Exactly what statements in the article need support from citations? From a quick skim I can't see anything in particular. I suppose that if you want to give the canon of names/songs some more backup then cite Friedwald or Alex Wilder, maybe. --ND 20:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The entire article needs to be sourced. There is no source for the title "Great American Songbook", all the songs, etc, etc... There needs to be references and citations. I'm not saying that I think the article is not accurate, I think is is. But without citations and references it is not encyclopedic. What I don't want to see happen is songs listed because someone just happens to think it qualifies as part of the songbook. I also don't want this to be original research. It is not unusual that articles get written without attribution, the tag makes that clear. -- Samuel Wantman 21:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Country Western

Add it if you want (I think something should be said about this) - Various country artists, most notable Willy Nelson (Stardust), have also sung from the GAS. Ghaller 00:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

sourcing

A "Great American Songbook" template is apparently now being placed on each of the artists involved. But "Great American Songbook" is not a very commonly used term, and there is in fact no reliable source given in this article for the term. Who uses it? How widely is it used? Let's get it cited, or change the title, as with the template there will be a lot more eyes on the page. - Nunh-huh 20:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think it's not a very commonly used term? Try typing the phrase into Google--you get 383,000 hits, including the titles of countless jazz & popsong albums. This is such an easily verifiable fact that I fail to see the need for a citation. --ND (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I created that template and I now think it's outlived it's usefulness. Anyone who sang a single song from the canon is now included, and it's vast and unweidly. Is Shelby Flint really equal to Sinatra or Fitzgerald? We should deff uase Wilder for citing the term, but as for artists, it's a NPOV minefield. Jobim, anyone? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the creator :P) that the template really is too selective/POV, in an incredibly expansive set of articles, to be useful, and should be removed from the articles on which it has been placed. But the term also needs sourcing, and a brief history of its origins and current use needs to be added to the article. - Nunh-huh 23:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The template has been nominated for deletion. It suffers from the same lack of sourcing that this article does. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The article needs to say something about the term "Great American Songbook" - when it originated and so forth. It is not simply self-explanatory.Sylvain1972 (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Kurt Weil?

Why does Kurt Weil not qualify? 173.77.106.151 (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

How about Gus Kahn as an adjunct to Isham Jones?

POV

"For its devotees, the Great American Songbook represents a level of musical and lyrical sophistication that has yet to be equaled."

Erm, you can say that about any group of fans of anything. It's POV distilled perfectly into a sentence. --Dweller (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I happen to agree with the POV, but it would be better to quote someone notable and influential on the question of the GAS's importance. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I quite deliberately added the weasel-words "nebulously-defined concept" because they exactly describe the GAS. I recently added "As Time Goes By", "Folks Who Live on the Hill" and a few other songs that nobody in his right mind would object to, but I held off on "A Fine Romance" because it's a duet - go figure. I know this is an encyclopedia, but I think it's important to keep the definition nebulous, or it would become a pointless war. (Why is 1960 the cut-off date? Well, it just IS, and should stay that way.) But given the above, sources are still desperately needed, even if they only point to nebulous statements from various nebulous "greats" (Diana Krall? Umm ... probably. Rickie Lee Jones? Ehhh...) who interpret the songs. Thoughts welcome. Stephen Foster (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have seen a book (or books) of sheet music called "The Great American Songbook". I think what the article is really missing is the origin of the phrase and who decided the cut off date of 1960? Saying "Well, it just IS" doesn't quite cut it in an encyclopedia. Steve Lowther (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"Sophistication"? What is that? It originally meant adulterated, false, and devious. According to the wikipedia entry, it is still not an entirely positive quality:

Sophistication is the quality of refinement — displaying good taste, wisdom and subtlety rather than crudeness, stupidity and vulgarity. In the perception of social class, sophistication can link with concepts such as status, privilege and superiority.

This gets to why the songs so nostalgically described here fell out of favor. I am not saying it is a good thing, but the fact is that the appeal of these songs is far from universal, as claimed in the article, unless you define universal as able to be easily switched from one musical comedy to another, as the article (absurdly) does.173.77.106.151 (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Italicized?

Should the title be italicized? Hyacinth (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Why? It's not actually the name of a songbook; it's a concept. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on Wilder's opinions?

While I certainly think that Alec Wilder's book is worth mentioning I'm not sure that his informal pecking order of GAS composers should be included in full. All of this stuff is subjective, of course, but Wilder doesn't even include Sammy Fain in his list, and it's a bit of a mystery to me how such a prolific composer of GAS standards as Harry Warren would not rate in the very highest echelon of GAS songwriters. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Jonathan Schwartz

- removed reference to Jonathan Schwartz. Some consider him an authority, others consider him an opportunist who is not a real authority on the subject. For the sake of neutrality and keeping this Wikipedia entry more legitimate, it's best to omit Mr. Schwartz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.165.42 (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated charges of "opportunism" are not enough to strip Schwartz of his strong lifelong connection to the genre and his influential boosterism of such music on modern radio. As an announcer, his functional authority is appropriate enough to serve as the source of a single poignant turn of phrase. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm an announcer so thus I've declared him an opportunist. I've also declared myself an expert on Jonathan Schwartz.

That statement I made is ridiculous - and so is your reasoning for keeping him as part of this article. He ought be omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.222.186 (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Just saying that does not make it so. The statement in the article is well-sourced, and Mr. Schwartz is clearly involved enough to offer an informed description of the genre. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

The intro paragraph should make it clear that there is no actual publication called "The Great American Songbook." I always believed that it was an actual book, published and distributed by a publishing company. It's unlikely that I was the only person with this misunderstanding, so there should be a clear statement that it is not a real book. 50.149.25.27 (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've edited it to reflect that -- see if that helps. Softlavender (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Example

I just alphabetized Jimmy McHugh's songlist. Howzabout some of the frequent editors of this page alphabetize other songwriters' lists? For coherency's sake? Tapered (talk) 08:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Fats Waller

I suppose Fats Waller wasn't important enough to appear in your songbook list. --67.150.12.234 (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The thing about Wikipedia is that when you see something missing, you add it. If someone has a problem with what you add, they fix it. Jasendorf (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

He is immensely important. But hasn't his work been considered part of the Jazz standards tradition? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Waller was important for many reasons (singer, virtuoso pianist, most visible early jazz organist, songwriter, etc.)--American popular music would not be the same without him. However, the number of compositions that he wrote that have achieved the status of standards is not large (probably fewer than a dozen). His most productive period as a song composer was during the late 1920s, when he wrote many songs for Harlem musical reviews. Many of these pieces were musical throwaways designed to showcase a particular singer, dancer or comedian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:AC20:9230:ED8B:6CD6:5B3E:F459 (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced material

There's a long section called Songwriters and songs which is nothing but a list of...songwriters and songs. This big sea of blue has been unsourced for almost four years. This is especially wrong given that it purports to be a canon of who is part of the Great American Songbook and which songs. Obviously something that subjective needs to be sourced. I tried to move the section today so that it was further down the page, but a person reverted my edit. I tried to discuss this on the person's Talk page, but twice they reverted my request for discussion. So I guess for some people talk and discussion are bad things. I'm commenting on this page, eager to hear explanations from people who are against seeing this article changed in any way. Four years, mind you. That section, because it is unsourced, could be deleted. I didn't delete it. I moved it down several inches.
Vmavanti (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Your edit removed 1,662 bytes, including several citations such as books and the New York Times [1]. On my talk page, you twice removed my response to you: [2], [3]. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You twice removed my response to you. What's the problem? I'm asking a simple question. What difference does it make how many bytes I removed? Did you read my recent edit summaries? I think they will satisfy you, but I don't know. In that first paragraph, there were three refs that that did not qualify as citations until I improved them. One wasn't even a citation. It was simply a link to a title of a dissertation. That's not enough. The others were URLs and nothing more. That's not enough. You failed to respond to my biggest cut: moving a large unsourced section further down the page. What was your objection to this? You have had three chances to respond to that. This is a large list of blue links and nothing more. Where did that information come from? It needs inline citations. How do you know someone else might not come along and delete it? At least I moved it down below more informative text. Don't you think it's better for readers to have informative text above the list? Thank you for replying. It's good that you care about the article. I would like to see it improved.
Vmavanti (talk) 11:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

On my talk page, you twice removed my response to you: [4], [5], in violation of WP:TPO. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You reverted my edit. Why? I assume you know what a proper citation is. There is a template for citations to Google books here. With your permission of course, may I please change this back to how I had it, in line with Wikipedia documentation and the standard rules of writing citations? We all learned proper documentation in school a long time ago. A URL with ref tags is not enough. Are you convinced now that I know what I'm doing? Thank you for responding.
Vmavanti (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Could you please supply diffs? I'm not sure what you are talking about. Softlavender (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Does the fact that this material is unsourced mattter to you?
Vmavanti (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I noticed you didn't answer. Is there anything I can clarify?
Vmavanti (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

If that is your only question, I would open the question to the community of editors at large as a new, neutrally worded thread on this page. Softlavender (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a thread about unsourced material. A new thread would be about the same thing. So what's the point? Why don't you just answer the questions? Where did the list of songwriters come from? If you do have a degree in English, then you know how important citations are. This is a simple example. It doesn't require much time and debate.
Vmavanti (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The section is truly awful. It's a wall of links providing pretty much zero actual useful information to the reader. Better information could be included simply with a category of GAS singers and a category of GAS songs, though then the question raises itself "says who this is part of the GAS?" I suggest deleting the entire section and replacing it with a sourced, representative list of GAS songs; I'm pretty surprised there's not a GAS song or singer category, but then we'd run into the same problem of sourcing (and it's even worse with categorization.) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 06:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Of course. It's obvious. Something doesn't make sense here. Softlavender claims to have a degree in English, years of experience in editing, and eleven years experience in Wikipedia, and yet doesn't understand this most basic point. It doesn't ring true.
Vmavanti (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Kudos to description of sectional verse

Kudos to whoever wrote the description of the sectional verse style. For a long time I realized there was usually something musically distinctive about verses; now I see a concise description of what makes it so, and why. Thank you. BMJ-pdx (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

"Great American Songbook:" Phrase is Marketing Hype

The GAS isn't a real thing. It was dreamed up, perhaps by a DJ who wanted to confirm and share in their listeners' prejudice, or perhaps by a book publisher seeking to sell books to a narrow slice of fans.

A quick look at the article doesn't reveal the origin of the phrase, nor who might credibly deem it a legitimate or necessary category.

This article is mainly just perpetuating a category created for commercial marketing. 2600:1702:39A0:3720:D49D:952D:FC29:5358 (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

With over 6 million references to it on Google, I'd say it very much is a real thing. It doesn't ultimately matter who conceived it, or why. It could have been created for commercial purposes but, equally, the phrase could have been coined by a journalist in the course of an article. Nobody knows.

What matters is that it is a phrase that is being used widely - and has been for decades. David T Tokyo (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It would be useful to at least have a section about the very concept of the Great American Songbook. What's the origin of the phrase? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The future of this article

I don't know what shape this article will take, but I do know what it will not be. It will not be another Wikipedia list where people tack on unsourced information as it pops into their heads. It will not be an open-ended list of every person in history who has ever performed a song that could be included in the Great American Songbook. It's supposed to be an article, not a list. As far as I know, there is no definitive list (canon, if that is the right word) of songs, songwriters, and singers who are part of the Great American Songbook. The first paragraph of this article explains what it is. Songbook is a flexible term for a flexible concept. Wikipedia concentrates on facts, not opinions.
Vmavanti (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree is has become a coatrack. It had a good, defensible listing of songwriters and songs back, say, five years ago [6]. Around four years ago people started steadily adding lots of other songwriters and songs. As to what to do about the now-coatrack, there are several options: (1) Return to the 2014 list and find a reliable-source citation for each songwriter that links them to the GAS. (2) Comment out all the coatrack-y songwriters until a reliable-source has been found linking them to the GAS. (3) Move the list to this talkpage, re-adding each songwriter back to the article when a reliable source has been found linking them to the GAS. (4) Leave list as is, and give a timeframe (say, one month from now), after which all uncited songwriters will be removed. (5) Limit the number of songs per songwriter (with the possible exception of the handful of canonic great GAS songwriters, who could have more songs listed). (6) Do the same, or some of the same, with the as-yet uncited singers. Softlavender (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

It was equally awful then -- just a slightly shorter massive pile of links without discussion, sourcing, clarification. What's more, the list of songs associated with each writer is also arbitrary and an unsourced cherry picking. Mind you, I don't particularly disagree with their placement on such a list; I just don't think Wikipedia is the right place for such a list, given that it's mostly of the form "this feels like it belongs on the Great American Songbook list". We sure don't need the names of the songs associated with each writer (that may or may not belong in the canon which isn't a canon); anyone can click through on the songwriters' names and find out what they wrote. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Jpgordon, the only problem with the list is that it is uncited. Please read my suggestions as to how to remedy that. It is a fact that most if not all of the songwriters and songs on the list pre-2015 (or further back) are considered to be part of the GAS. All it needs is reliable sourcing. A list, even a small one, is important and valuable to the reader and to the article, because it gives specificity to the generalizations of the body text. Softlavender (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

No. The lack of citation is bad. The selection is the primary problem, however. Says who these are Great American Songbook songs? What are the criteria for inclusion in this list? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

This subject still hasn't been addressed, and it's v. important. I'm not convinced there is a canonical list. If you try to create one, people will keep adding to it, just as they have done the past few years, and it will become like every other Wikipedia article that grows out of control, that is constantly vandalized, and that takes editors away from more productive tasks. Improving Wikipedia involves at least two approaches: Cleaning up existing articles, and trying to keep the same mistakes from being repeated. Otherwise, we are playing whack-a-mole and going in circles rather than making progress. Why not simply mention the composers without creating a list? "The songbook evolved from the work of composers..." and leave it at that. That would be a less subjective, less controversial approach.
Vmavanti (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Jpgordon, right now, 10 ALL of the songwriters are cited. It's a fairly simple matter to find citations for the others, and if they can't be found, or can't be found easily, to comment-out the currently uncited. Softlavender (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me. You can assume that people are going to follow conversations that they're in without the additional nuisance of clearing unnecessary notifications. It's still an unreadable wall of undifferentiated text. What are the criteria for inclusion on this list? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Citations from a reliable source. Softlavender (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Stating the obvious here, but we should either find and add sources, or remove unsourced content and let the article grow again organically. The current version is highly inappropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Another Believer, we are all in agreement on that. The question is, how to accomplish that. I have listed the options I can think of in my post above (second post in this thread). Please indicate which you support. Softlavender (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

This is an odd comment: "It is a fact that most if not all of the songwriters and songs on the list pre-2015 (or further back) are considered to be part of the GAS" When you say "it is a fact", where are you getting your information? How do you know that information is factual? Given your credentials, I assume you know this, but I'm going to state the obvious again. You don't write nonfiction by writing first and finding sources later. You do the research first. All content in Wikipedia comes from sources. So the question remains. Where did the information in this article come from? Will I ever get an answer to that question? And if I don't get an answer, I don't know why it's wrong to delete unsourced information.
Vmavanti (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The edit history of the article documents who added what and when. The common procedure on Wikipedia is not to blanket-delete content, even unsourced content, that has been valuable for up to 13 years, but rather to seek consensus on what to do about it and how. I have offered all of the suggestions I can think of in the second post in this thread. Softlavender (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Three people within the last 24 hours have told you this article is wrong and needs to be changed immediately. The last person used the words "highly inappropriate", and he was probably being polite. Your assertion that this article has had content "that has been valuable for up to 13 years" is wrong. I work on articles that few people see. Or have seen. That's the reason the articles go unchanged. Not because they're good. Because people don't know about them. That content is not valuable. I don't know where your understanding of the rules comes from. Three people within the past 24 hours have explained to you what the rules are. Now what's the problem? Why the evasiveness? Are you connected in some way to one of those foundations you linked to under external links? One of those Songbook foundations? If so, that is a conflict of interest. Is this a cause you are fighting for? That, too, doesn't go over well on Wikipedia.
Vmavanti (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Vmavanti that is completely out of line, and stop it. I'd suggest that it might be best if you move on to other subjects if you're going to be like that. Cool down and back off. The fact that you personally don't understand this subject well is of limited interest, to be frank. Your method of doing things is is your method, it is not the method. See the difference? We do not necessarily want to make the destruction of information that is prima facie true a priority, even if it not currently ref'd. If it's not possible to ref it that's different. Is it? Maybe you could spend energy finding refs instead of accusing people of perfidy on insufficient grounds, just saying. Herostratus (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You are out of line. You are blaming the wrong person here. Take your own advice. You cool down and back off. Everyone here knows which user is making this difficult. I would like to know why that is. Discussion means honesty, candor, answering questions, following the rules. And neutrality. Let's not forget that v. important one. That's not my method. That's the process of Wikipedia. Discussion to reach consensus. That is the method. Who says I don't understand the subject? I never said that. I ask obvious questions when necessary, to establish a foundation, to make sure everyone is on the same page. EddieHugh and I have done most of the hard work on the jazz articles. Our informed opinions ought to carry some weight. Don't lecture me on "finding refs". You don't need to question my work ethic. It's v. likely that next to EddieHugh, I have done more for Wikiproject Jazz in the past three years than anyone. I have had to confront, and have sometimes overcome, some of the most immature, moronic, self-serving obstacles and private agendas. I ask questions. Not everyone likes that. Not everyone likes change and progress. But everyone has to defend their edits and their actions. Evasiveness invites speculation and suspicion. The way to avoid them is through honesty, candor, and plain speaking—avoiding use of the terms perfidy and prima facie. I took Latin in school, too. So what? I have letters after my name, too. So what. Let's keep the main thing the main thing. Improving Wikipedia for readers, all readers, not serving our own interests. People who truly are neutral have no reason to avoid being forthcoming.
Vmavanti (talk)

We are all in agreement that the unsourced songwriters and singers need to be cited. I have provided options as to how to achieve that and how to deal with the uncited material in the second post in this thread. Softlavender (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• An outside opinion from someone who came over from a pointer posted on Talk:Tin Pan Alley. It would be a shame to have this article deleted because of the quantity of unsourced content, as it's a perfectly valid and interesting subject. My suggestion would be to strip the article down to only sourced information, and to move all the unsourced information to this talk page. Then, as various editors find sources for that information, they move it to the article with the source. A sub-page of the talk page could be used if folks want to keep the main talk page uncluttered, or possible a page in draftspace could be used. The idea is simply to carefully and methodically rebuild the article from its stripped down version. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

No one has proposed deletion. I tried to delete unsourced information, as you said, but my edits were repeatedly reverted. My attempts to make progress with the reverter through discussion have been unsuccessful.
Vmavanti (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Anyone worried about losing the list permanently can copy and paste the whole article into a word processing document on their computer. Second, nothing on Wikipedia is really deleted permanently. As long as the article exists, the edit history exists. It's also likely that "deleted" articles can be accessed.
Vmavanti (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Currently all of the songwriters are cited. As mentioned below; I've commented-out a few songwriters. Softlavender (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC); edited 07:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• Suggestion: I suggest that all of the songwriters we retain (and cite) generally have from 5 to 10 (Wikipedia-article) songs listed here. If they have less than 5 listed here, they are probably not central to the GAS (except for Jones/Kahn, who wrote "It Had to Be You"), so that's a way to cut down the list; if they have more than 10 already listed, I suggest possibly trimming so as not to overwhelm the article. Softlavender (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

  I have gone ahead and commented out five of those. Softlavender (talk) 06:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Suggestion 2: I suggest that the songwriters we retain be bolded again, as the section is much easier to read that way; see [7] and [8], for example. Softlavender (talk) 06:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the best course is to create a new list article and put the composers and their songs there. Presenting them in that list article in a table would allow extra info to be included to inform the reader (year of composition/first recording/first performance/show it comes from etc). A sortable table would be even better: the reader could look chronologically/by composer/by song title. A bare list by composer, as in the current article, forces the reader to know who the composer is. On sourcing: masses of sources aren't needed for a composer or song. Right now, none of the compositions is sourced, so none should be there (basic Wikipedia policy). And the sourcing needs to be done properly: I see Take the "A" Train listed under Ellington, who didn't write it. Someone was probably listing it from memory/assumptions... hence the need for every item to be explicitly sourced. EddieHugh (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Or, as jpgordon and Vmavanti suggest/imply, don't attempt a list of compositions; mention just the composers and throw in a few compositions where called for in the main text. Presumably there are hundreds of compositions proposed and no definition... a recipe for a mess. EddieHugh (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd be content with something like

Harold Arlen: Over the Rainbow

George Gershwin and Ira Gershwin: Someone to Watch Over Me

and so on. One song as an example (perhaps the first one mentioned in the songwriters' articles). That reduces the visual clutter (which is the most daunting part of this to the reader) and invites them to click on links (which is the whole point of links). Then we don't have to worry about which songs are in the non-existent "canon". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The problem I see with that is lots of people will come along and think, 'Harold Arlen... Over the Rainbow... he wrote more than that... I'll put in some more', and soon the article will be back to where it is now. EddieHugh (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

And I'll come over and delete the additions, assuming we have consensus for such an approach. They can put that stuff in Harold Arlen if they want. We can also make it clear in text or comments that it's a list of songwriters + one representative song. This kinda reminds me of stores where there's so much stuff on the shelves you can't find anything you actually want. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I suppose you could add <!--in line comments, like this--> to the effect of "don't add more, go to talk and get consensus first". Herostratus (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• I oppose only one song per songwriter. The songs are the Songbook -- not the songwriters. I suggest a cut-off of from 5 to 10 songs per songwriter (I personally suggest something like cut-off of 5 for the lesser songwriters; cut-off of 10 for the icons). Those editors familiar with the Songbook are capable of making the cut; or we could require each song to have a reliable citation affirming it is considered part of the Songbook -- that is easy enough to do, as well. Softlavender (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

EddieHugh and I have talked about this kind of thing before. I have discussed song pages with others. In my work for Wikiproject Jazz, I have noticed that song pages attract a lot of vandalism, which is a waste of an editor's valuable time. We have one person to thank for 200 of these articles, but that's a different subject. Let's not make things worse. Let's try to avoid writing an article that will attract vandalism. Some people out there know a lot of songs. If you make a list of songs that claims "This is the official list of Great American Songbook songs", people will argue with it. Some will add a song, some will subtract a song. What's the criteria? What's the standard? Where does the canon come from? I don't know. People look to encyclopedias for some kind of factual certainty. But you can't give that here. This isn't like measuring the distance from the Earth to the Sun. When someone says "familiar with the Songbook", I'm not sure what that means. I'm familiar with it, but I don't know every song. I know that "Someone to Watch Over Me" is in and "Hey Jude" is out. But you can probably come up with an example I would have trouble deciding. You run into the same problem with jazz standards. That's why I dislike these lists. They pretend to be definitive and wind up reflecting someone's biases. So to be "fair" Wikipedia includes everyone's biases. But that's wrong, too, and a messy waste of time. The subjectivity attracts vandalism. The subjectivity calls into question the existence of the list. If there is no list, there is no vandalism. One other thing that bothers me is we're using our own judgment when we're supposed to be using sources. What does Michael Feinstein say about this? What does the Great American Songbook Foundation say about this? My opinion doesn't matter. Your opinion doesn't matter. It's the sources that matter because that's where the information comes from. If there is too much disagreement among sources, then we have to talk about what that means.
Vmavanti (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The criterion could be a citation from a reliable source. This article has not experienced vandalism, so that's not an issue, especially if all entries are cited. The primary consideration should always be the reader, and this about the Songbook would be remiss if it did not include a good sampling of songs, since songs are the Songbook; the songwriters are not the Songbook. There is no official list of songs; that is made clear several times throughout this article, but there are songs which are invariably considered part of it, and listing only one per composer would not give the reader and adequate overview of the subject. What would be subjective would be to somehow select and list only one song by Berlin, Porter, Gershwin, Kern, Rodgers. Softlavender (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Vmavanti I hear you, but I think that any source that provided their definitive list would conflict with other sources providing their definitive list, at the margins anyway. Herostratus (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I get that it's frustrating because it is unclear. It's like Capital ship. I know the Iowa was a capital ship. What about the Alaska? Maybe. There's a lot of other ships that are "maybe". As that article says "There is usually no formal criterion for the classification, but it is a useful concept...". And Great American Songbook, ditto. FWIW the examples in that article are mostly the arguable margins: "Some consider X to be in, some don't". Other than that few examples are given. Having thought it over, a paragraph containing a dozen or so examples would be sufficent. The most famous examples and most clearly agreed-on (obviously a bit subjective) would best serve as the sort of example to make a reader go "Oh, like *that* song. Now I get it!" or "Oh, that songwriter, now I get it!". Which is kind of the purpose of examples.

The huge number of examples is not generally helpful readers trying to get a general handle on the subject -- heart the term and want to understand what it means, and so on. But some non-zero number of readers will be helped by an extensive list -- maybe more than you think. Readers have different needs. Somebody's writing a essay, somebody's writing a school paper, somebody's settling a bet, somebody's setting up a playlist for grandma's birthday, someone's just browsing, someone's getting ready to make a detailed dive into the subject beyond the Wikipedia... all these are legit reasons to read an encylopedia article.

In addition, people like to add to these lists and fuss around with them. Lists like these are maybe the kind that draw people in to make their first edit, and that is a very good thing, even if only 1% go on to make other and useful edits. This matters IMO.

I'd break it out into a separate article, titled "List of Great American Songbook songs", possibly in an actual sortable list format (writer, year, etc.) with a column for notes. Include a paragraph here with some famous in incontrovertible examples, and then point to that list. Herostratus (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I only just recently came across this page - brought here from a link on the Jerome Kern page. My 2p is that I think a) the subject is valid b) but the page is heavy on the music and light on the words ('twas ever thus) and 3) it goes into far, far too much detail. The first line of the first section after the lead states that "There is no consensus on which songs are in the "Great American Songbook"- something the article then attempts to rectify by pulling together a colossal list of writers and songs which inevitably still has, and will always have, holes in it. I would personally leave it at the definition, by all means beefing that up so that readers can get the clearest idea of what is meant by the GAS - and scrub everything that comes afterwards. A separate page listing GAS albums by well known singers would help understanding of the subject although I suspect that might end up being bloated as well. David T Tokyo (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

(←) Some good cleanup has occurred, but the unreadable, unusable wall of text is still there. I do think if someone wants to create a list article -- List of songs considered to be part of the Great American Songboook -- it might be appropriate, and this could become an article about the GAS rather than an attempt to catalog it. As I ask elsewhere, where did the term arise? What characterizes a GAS song? What's the difference between a GAS song and the songs in List of jazz standards other than perhaps the instrumental standards and national origin? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Unless Wikipedia's core policy of NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH is a joke, this article should be axed

This month we celebrate the fifth anniversary of the {{Original research}} tag on this article. In those five years, the article has grown by almost 50% (from 19,401 bytes when OranL added that well-deserved tag in November 2009 to 28,089 bytes at this moment in November 2014), and it has two fewer cited references (down from five to three).

The original research in this article is growing rampantly, unchecked, and the OR tag is being flagrantly ignored. There might just as well be a huge flashing neon banner at the top of the article inviting editors to add all of their personal favorite songs, songwriters and singers. This is a very elaborate fan page; it is NOT an encyclopedia article.

Quoting from Wikipedia:Core content policies:

Wikipedia's content is governed by three principal core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Editors should familiarize themselves with all three, jointly interpreted:

1. Neutral point of view – All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias.
2. Verifiability – Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source.
3. No original research – Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

Unless the third of those core content policies is a joke, somebody with the authority to make it stick (like an administrator or someone even higher in the hierarchy here) needs to cut out about 99.99% of this article's content, because practically NONE of it is supported by reliable sources. Whether the unsupported content is true or not IS IRRELEVANT, unless Wikipedia's core content policy is a joke.

Five years is plenty of time to add a whole slew of reliable sources, but no one has bothered to do that. Instead, almost ten thousand more bytes of 100% pure original research have been added. It's way past time to do one of two things:

1. Prune out of this article every word that is not supported by a reliable external source, or
2. Remove No Original Research as one of Wikipedia's Core Content Policies.

--74.65.25.24 (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll raise a glass to the fifth anniversary of that tag! The problem remains that it is a very nebulous term, but citations exist, and I shall endeavour to find them. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason or cause to axe the article, but I would agree that people are loading it up with their favorite songwriters. I wouldn't object to reverting the list of songwriters and songs back to what it was a year or two or more ago. It was pretty stable and reliable for a while -- even though each entry wasn't cited it was fairly defensible. I do agree that it's now overgrown, and that defeats the purpose. Perhaps we should just call the list "Major songwriters and songs", and trim the lesser, little-known songwriters. I think that would be the easiest solution. Softlavender (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I remember reading this article and thinking to myself the whole time, "but what **IS** the great american songbook?" That's a terrible feeling to have when reading an article that is supposed to answer that question. It seems like the article is about something that doesn't actually exist, except as a category of music, and yet it is presented to the reader as a list that people have compiled and agree upon, which does not seem to be the case. — OranL (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree. Should "This Land Is Your Land" be in the list? (I would hope so, but currently, it isn't listed here, and it wasn't "created for Broadway theatre, musical theatre, and Hollywood musical film".) How about the "Alice's Restaurant Massacree"? How about "Sweet Home Alabama" or "Born in the U.S.A."? Who decides what's part of the "Great American Songbook" and what isn't? Is there really a well-understood concept of a "Great American Songbook"? Is there also a "Great British Songbook" and a "Great Ethiopian Songbook"? Is this whole notion some fiction created by Michael Feinstein and the other founders and promoters of the Great American Songbook Foundation? If so, can we just merge this content into that article? —BarrelProof (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It really does refer to songs that are now considered traditional pop music that pre-dated rock and roll. This is common parlance, so to speak, if you asked any musicologist. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Michael Feinstein did not create the GAS, nor did he invent the term. It's a well-known construct/category that dates back to the 1960s or before, and includes the best of the great standards from the 1920s to the 1950s that were created for Broadway musicals and Hollywood musical films. It's really that simple. And no, "This Land Is Your Land", "Alice's Restaurant Massacree", "Sweet Home Alabama", and "Born in the U.S.A." are not part of it. And no, there is no "Great British Songbook" etc. because theatrical and film musicals did not flourish as significantly in Britain or have a golden age until Andrew Lloyd Webber, etc.; whereas American theater and film musicals definitely did have a golden age, particularly from European immigrants and their offspring and the Tin Pan Alley culture that nurtured them, from the 1920s to the 1950s. Softlavender (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you both for the education, and for the improvements to the article. The article really does need some improvement to clarify all this, and that looks like a good start. —BarrelProof (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It's my guess that the term is related to the "Music of Your Life" radio programing format that emerged in the 1970s and died, along with most of its listeners, in the 1990s (replaced at the time to some extent by the "Classic Rock" programing format.) Point is to capture a particular "demographic" for ratings and advertising sales.

So really, the term a marketing concept rather than anything legit. Badiacrushed (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not correct at all. Softlavender (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll second that. Of course it is a real thing. Apparently some editors aren't to up on it, and that's fine, we can't know everything. That doesn't have much to do with the subject tho. I don't know anything about Vanna–Volga pricing, but others do, and I accept that it is a real thing; I'm not like "I don't know what this is, therefore this article is nonsense and should go".

It's a term with a vague definition and unclear margins. This is true of many or most human terms tho. Potter Stewart said of pornography "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it". This does not mean that the term "pornography" is a meaningless sound cluster which conveys no information. It's true of all music genres -- what, precisely, defines a blues song, a rock song, or whatever? Can't say. "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture" said Martin Mull, and there's something to that. However, we don't give up; we are not going to delete all our music articles, we are going to try to help people make sense of a complicated world. "Great American songbook" is a useful term that conveys information, which is why is it widely used, notwithstanding that not everyone is familiar with it and what it means. Herostratus (talk) 06:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

There have been plenty of radio announcers, such as the very much renowned Jonathan Schwartz, speaking of "the American songbook." It is obvious when looking at the songs frequently sung by the notable singers, such as Fitzgerald and Sinatra, that there was a common songbook that singers were working from.Dogru144 (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Paucity of material from latter 1950s, 1960s; absence of Burt Bacharach

What are the parameters for the ending years of this list? There were some pop songs in the 1960s that were widely covered, and they do not appear here. And how is is possible that Burt Bacharach and his material do not appear here? He was the most distinguished pop song composer of the 1960s. For that matter, where are Jimmy Webb and Van Dyke Parks?Dogru144 (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Bias towards MOR?

The Great American Songbook here slants towards the MOR genre of pop. Are the following of a different category?: Carole King, Brian Wilson, Addrisi Brothers, Simon and Garfunkle, Laura Nyro, Stevie Wonder.Dogru144 (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

"Revival"

@Herostratus: I don't think "revival" is the right term; it implies that there was some sort of die-off, but there wasn't -- pop singers have been doing their own GAS albums for decades now, overlapping the "original" singers mentioned in your edit summary -- who weren't the original singers for many of their songs either; you have to go to Broadway, Hollywood, and Vaudeville for a lot of the older originals. However, a section on this newer tradition, of non-Jazz non-Broadway singers making GAS albums, is worth more discussion, and there are a lot of good examples. Now, can we do something non-OR here about this? I'm doing some research, maybe I can come up with something... --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: OK. Thanks for engaging. So... IMO different important pop musical genres have their time. They're associated with a particular demographic phalanx. After that, they're no longer putting songs at the top of the charts. This changes what a performance of that genre means. The same thing has happened to dixieland and swing and doo-wop and rockabilly etc.. Of course these are still performed. Madrigals are still performed. But they're not current. So, yes there was some sort of die-off for the Songbook, in the sense of devolving from the hip new thing burning up to the charts to more of a nostalgia thing. If you're a songbook afficianado, this may seem unfortunate, but it's no good denying it.

All of the albums listed are by artists departing quite a ways from their usual genre, which is late-20th-century pop and rock and country. That's what makes it different. If Tony Bennett puts out an album of standards tomorrow, he's not reviving anything. It's just Tony Bennett doing his thing. Bob Dylan or James Taylor singing "Stardust" is different. It just is. There's a generation between when Great American Songbook songs were coming out and dominating the charts, and Sentimental Journey in 1970. The reviews of Sentimental Journey were just very different than they would have been if the album'd been released twenty years earlier. It's a different phenomena.

I suppose it's original research to say that, but since it's both true and notable there shouldn't be any paucity of sources.

Here is Slate (magazine) with

Kisses on the Bottom is McCartney’s 16th solo album, and the first to be composed almost entirely of songs written by others. By choosing material from the great American songbook, McCartney joins a group of 1960s and ‘70s pop singers who have discovered just how rewarding—musically, critically and commercially—this particular sentimental journey can be... In interviews and press releases, these artists invariably describe having “grown up” with this music; often they hint at an innocent youth spent in some prelapsarian Tin Pan Eden, where they learned these songs at their daddy’s knee... The queen of songbook revivalism, Linda Ronstadt, deserves enormous credit for convincing her manager and record label to let her record What’s New... The albums... went a long way toward sparking a new interest in jazz and swing among listeners who’d previously thought of these songs as someone else’s (i.e, their parents’, or grandparents’)... One of the earliest examples of the songbook revival genre, Harry Nilsson’s A Little Touch of Schmilsson in the Night...

There's the actual word "revival" in there a couple times. If there's a better name for the phenomena -- "tribute" or whatever -- and sources use that more, fine. But it is a phenomena. Here is a piece in "udiscovermusic.com" which I'm not sure they're a worthwhile source but it seems like an OK opinion piece:

The stunning revival of The Great American Songbook came in the 21st Century, but the seeds were sown in the 70s, a time when the singer-songwriter was beginning to hold sway. Credit should be given to Ringo Starr, who was the first “modern” musician to try to breathe new life into the classics. The revitalised trend began with The Beatles’ drummer’s 1970 album, Sentimental Journey, which featured songs by Porter and Carmichael that had been favourites of his mother’s. This was followed by... Willie Nelson’s landmark 1978 album, Stardust, which did much to inspire Dylan’s later records.

Hereis an Atlantic piece on a book called The B-Side: The Death of Tin Pan Alley and the Rebirth of the Great American Song which (at the end part I guess) goes into Starr and Nilsson and Ronstadt. He uses "rebirth" (at least in the title) rather than "revival"... the actual word doesn't much matter.

It's a difficult subject, because (like most everything) there's not necessarily hard and fast boundaries. Where does Diana Krall fit in? Is she a revivalist, or just a continuer? Better to leave stuff on the margin like that out. So... writing a section of several paragraphs... that would eminently doable, but a bit of work. That's why I just put in a list. I don't want to overburden the article. It's just a kind of coda to the Great American Songbook. It seems fairly self evident that it's true. But it could be worked on and improved, yes.

FWIW and IMO it would be better to have a short section "Here are the most notable singers who sang this stuff" -- Sinatra and Ella Fitzgerald and so forth. Herostratus (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jpgordon:@EddieHugh: Wow, thank you for the reffing work EddieHugh. Great teamwork, and I know digging up refs is gruntwork. Appreciated. Taking the various cogent comments into account, I made these changes -- subject, of course, to y'alls approval.

• Moved Ringo Starr's album more into the spotlight. After all it was the first, and got a lot more attention than most anybody else would have doing the same thing.
• Indicated that Starr's it was received with (some) shock and disdain, giving many examples, and giving the operative quotes from each one. This makes for a long ref, but it allows the reader to get the gist of the point without taking a half hour to dig in to the refs and search thru much other material to find the quotes.
• Per your excellent point, EddieHugh, regarding the danger of a coatrack list, I moved most of the examples in a separate Note, which is a lot less likely to be edited I think, especially by drive-by editors. Anyway that material isn't needed in the main body, it clogs it up: our point is just "hey a lot of people started doing this", and the individual instances just act basically as a ref for that.
• Shortened the section title to just "Revivals" Herostratus (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of revival or rebirth, look at Bob Dylan's direction starting in 2015.Dogru144 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Stevie Wonder, Astrud Gilberto?

Stevie Wonder also interpreted the Songbook ("Hello, Young Lovers", "God Bless The Child," and "At Last" among others), as did Astrud Gilberto ("Day by Day," "Fly Me To The Moon"). Just wanted to see them included in the list of interpreters. 75.106.72.221 (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Once you get to listing popular singers who have dipped their toe in the songbook to add some variety to their concert repertoire, you are talking about a very very long list of singers. Marvin Gaye actually wanted to be a soul Frank Sinatra in his early Motown years; many 1960s singers did a few songbook numbers in their nightclub sets. I don't personally think adding each and every contemporary singer who has sung a few standards is adding much to the article (which currently lists Morrissey and Pat Benatar as practitioners). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:AC20:9230:ED8B:6CD6:5B3E:F459 (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Astrud Gilberto has not been a composer. And she is not an American.Dogru144 (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Great American Songbook

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Songbook

Why has the list of all the Great American Songbook songs been removed from this page?

And in such an incompetent way that the letter links above the list don't even work!

I'm just a user of Wikipedia and I am horrified by the gutting of this page, making it basically useless as a resource.

Can someone please bring back the 250 names of the Songbook songs instead of the biased list of just a few that now sit on this page! 124.197.17.131 (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The article is crap, but removing everything is not the way to fix it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 13:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)