Talk:It Came Upon the Midnight Clear

Isn't it normally the FOURTH stanza that's missed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.41.50 (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nope, it's the third stanza, just like it says in the article ("Yet with the woes of sin and strife..."). Thanks. Piercetheorganist 19:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I did refer here, Pierce. And i think that since at least two of us are aware of the fourth being skipped on occasion (we did just last week in my church, and sang the third), that my simple addition was appropriate. Theologically, it seems more likely that the fourth would be dropped, if only one were to be, but i was really just trying to be encyclopædic. Cheers, Lindsay (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, please don't start in with that self-pity crap ("I was just trying to...", preceded by "And I think that because I experienced XYZ, ABC is okay"). If you're actually, truly trying to be encyclopedic, then please act as such. Nothing is less encyclopedic than emotionality and reactance. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And so far as your question with regards to which stanza is skipped in modern times -- this cannot be based off of what you (or me, or anyone else) did in their church last Sunday. We'd have to send out a survey to everyone on the face of the earth. Rather, this must be based on published editions. I gathered up the current and first previous hymnals from each of the major Christian denominations -- Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopal/Anglican, Presbyterian, and Congrenationalist -- and looked at what verses were included vs. excluded. And it was based off of that bit of encyclopedic knowledge that I made the correct assertion in the article. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"Mistake in Carol"

As a random passer-by, I of course have very little right to criticise -- but seriously, is it sensible to designate one version of the tune as "correct", and another that differs by one note as not so? I should think that for a Christmas carol, as with customs and with language the "correct" version, if anything, is simply the one that's most used. I'd suggest deleting the entire "Mistake in Carol" section, or at the very least renaming it "Original version of carol", etc. 141.70.93.180 (talk) 18:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, anything enough people do becomes correct. "Correct" isn't defined as "what's most widely done". The tune "Carol", as named/created/intended by its author, is one certain way -- one way, and only one way. And any other way is incorrect if what you're going for is the actual thing. If you take one of Bach's works, and change a note in it, it's no longer Bach's work. It's no longer correct, as it's no longer the original. No matter how many times it gets copied, and how many performers perform it that way, it will never become correct because it will never be Bach's work. So it's important, when giving information about a piece of music, to give the most correct/accurate information available -- which would, at least in my opinion, be the un-altered un-edited original. That's what I would call encyclopedic knowledge done to a high standard of quality. If anything, the widely-copied mistake shouldn't be included in the article at all; however, since it's so widely-known, and since it falls under the general heading of "encyclopedic knowledge", it's worth mentioning in the interest of completeness/full disclosure. But that still doesn't mean that the original is anything other than "correct". If you copy something, and don't copy it exactly, then you don't have a "correct copy". EOS. Pierce Phillips (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, yes, there is some truth to that; in fact, as a writer, i agree with it. But i also find that the way a similar fact is phrased in the Silent Night article is better: The version of the melody that is generally sung today differs slightly (particularly in the final strain) from Gruber's original. That way judgement isn't being passed. Either way, there could probably afford to be some harmonisation of style. Cheers, Lindsay (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

When you reverted my previous changes, you may not have realised that in addition to the stanza omission you reverted, i had also changed the language in the "Mistake" paragraph, in order to make it NPOV. I have changedd it back again, as calling the changed note a mistake is obviously judgemental and less within the scope of this project than simply noting the variation. As for the other, i completely missed that you had referenced the omitted stanza; my bad. Cheers, Lindsay (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Title - "A" VS "The"

I have two separate tracks of this song in iTunes (Josh Groban and Sixpence None The Richer). Both songs are called "It Came Upon A Midnight Clear"

Which title is the correct one?

Yeah dude, PowerUserPCDude was here (yeah) (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on It Came Upon the Midnight Clear. 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/20120421065208/http://www.discogs.com/ to http://www.discogs.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is the Sullivan version listed first?

I don't understand. The original tune for this song was "Carol" by Richard Storrs Willis, not "Noel" by Arthur Sullivan. Willis was personally selected in 1850 by Edmund Sears to write the music for the lyrics he had written. Sullivan's version didn't come until 24 years later, from thousands of kilometers away. This article makes it look like Sullivan's version takes precedent. When I read the article, if I hadn't known any better, at first glance I would have thought "Noel" was the more noteworthy tune related to this song. The reality is, both versions are popular. If Sullivan's version was by far the most popular, then it would make sense to put it first. But that is not the case. Therefore, the tune that was written first, specifically at the lyricist's request, should go first.

If you do a youtube search for "It Came Upon the Midnight Clear", 3 of the first 4 versions come up with **Willis's** version, not Sullivan's, and I am not using an American IP address for those searches. I'm using an Australian IP.

And another point: The tune listing in the infobox on the right has it correct; it lists the tune "Carol" first, then the "Noel" tune underneath. But everything else in the article has it backwards.

It makes no sense for the article list and talk about the "Sullivan" version first. YouarelovedSOmuch (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Update: I fixed it myself. After seeing these talk page sections were mostly 10 years old, I realized that the best thing to do would be for me just to fix it myself and make it right. YouarelovedSOmuch (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)