Talk:Deal with the Devil/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pact with the Devil to Deal with the Devil

I posted User:Lowellian: You've created quite a few double redirects. I see you haven't begun cleaning up after your move. Would you like some help?--Wetman 04:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I created no double redirects. A double redirect is defined as (per Wikipedia:Double redirects) "a redirect that points to another redirect." I made sure none did; see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Deal_with_the_Devil&limit=500&from=0. There are a lot of links to redirects, but a link to a redirect is not the same as a redirect to a redirect. Wikipedia policy only says to avoid double redirects; it doesn't say to prohibit links to redirects, because unlike double redirects, links to redirects do not actually result in any sort of failure of redirection when clicked upon. The MediaWiki software handles them just fine. That said, if you want to change the links to redirects to avoid the redirect entirely, feel free to do so, and best of luck with the project. Happy editing. :) —Lowellian (reply) 07:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes; please help. I didn't do any redirects and don't know when this happened; I discovered the navigation error by accident. I don't yet know how to correct this problem. Can you solve this? Thanks. Woodlandpath 19:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: I realize now that you were talking about the Talk page, not the article page itself. I have fixed this now. —Lowellian (reply) 20:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Tab/Navigation links not working

If you navigate from Deal with the Devil to the Discussion Page, you are taken to the Talk:Deal with the Devil (album), which belongs to a different page. There seems to be no talk page for Deal with the Devil.

If you then navigate to the "Article" tab (or use browser back arrow), you are taken to the page for the album. You can't navigate back to the original Deal with the Devil page (perhaps due to name changes?).

Can someone please fix? Thanks,Woodlandpath 01:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed this. —Lowellian (reply) 20:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both! Woodlandpath 20:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Tyrian Baal

Is it relevant that the Tyrian Baal (Melqart) was the deity to which contracts were sworn? (The Melqart article describes the construction of new temples as the Phoenicians needed one for oaths at each trading post) Since apparently the Phoenicians were the first to use contracts, you might say that if money is the root of all evil, the contract was Baal's own special invention. Unless something has been glossed over here, which seems overwhelmingly likely. Wnt (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Musicians Section bothersome

Robert Johnson never made the claim to have sold his soul, rather, folks assumed he had on account of how much better he had gotten seemingly overnight. It was Tommy Johnson, who actually made this claim. This information is corroborated here on WP. Also, the whole section is terrible. Somebody less lazy than I fix it. I have to sleep now. Potatoes9000 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Black Button

I'm no wikieditor so I wouldn't know how to do this correctly, but there's a popular short film on YouTube (one of six finalists for a Best Short Film of 2007 Award on YT) about a Deal with the Devil, very relevant. The link to it is here, I don't know if someone wants to add it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrKnhOJ-R80

- Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.98.18 (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Goethe's Faust

Goethe's seminal work is relegated to the position of a bulletpoint while an episode of the Simpsons is written about in detail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.0.201 (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It does seem unfair, however many more people that use the internet are more likely to have seen that episode rather than have read Faust. 58.175.169.47 (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not a good argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.88.78 (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Franz Liszt accused of being possessed by the devil

I believe I heard this years ago on Adventures in Good Music by Karl Haas about Franz Liszt being accused of being possessed (no deals made or souls being traded) by the devil in the news papers because he played so well. During Liszt's time to be accused of this was not considered bad because the devil was thought to be a master musician as to tempt people. It was a compliment back then though today it would not be a compliment. So if anyone can find examples of this it would be an interesting addition to the article.Septagram (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible program?

• Friday, 10/20/2006

LISZT THE VIRTUOSO Franz Liszt, the greatest pianist of his time, wrote for his own brilliant performances. His influence is the subject of today's Adventure.http://web.archive.org/web/20060812105659/http://www.wclv.com/skin/blurb.php?sectionId=180&contentId=39065 Septagram (talk) 01:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Vivaldi

Yes, we all know that Paganini's legend involves a supposed pact with the devil. But at the time it was a tongue in cheek thing that nobody took particularly seriously.

Antonio Vivaldi, on the other hand, was a virtuoso violinist who was accused (by his rivals) of benefiting from some sort of diabolical favor. The fact that he was a priest who lost his voice and couldn't say mass added evidence to these claims. In the end, Vivaldi was shunned by society. He had to sell his violin and he died penniless and scorned.

Any Vivaldi experts know enough about this to add his story to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.149.116 (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(Yes I'm Serious) -> Charlie Daniels' The Devil Went Down to Georgia?

Thoughts on adding a reference to a stronly followed folk song about a Faustian Bargain? Charlie Daniels' The Devil Went Down to Georgia sings the tale of the devil challenging "Johnny" to a duel of violins promising a golden violin if he plays better than the devil himself... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.138.104.250 (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Bob Dylan doesn't belong

While Bob Dylan did indeed claim in a 60 Minutes interview to have made a bargain with the "chief commander" et cetera, it's pretty clear in context that he's referring to God and not the Devil: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/02/60minutes/main658799.shtml. Should we just go ahead and delete his section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgorgon (talk • contribs) 12:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Dorian Gray not a Devil's Pact

The article incorrectly lists The Picture of Dorian Gray as a work about a pact with the Devil. In the work, Dorian Gray does indeed remain young and fresh while the portrait grows old and twisted, reflecting both Dorian's proper physical state and state of corruption, but the portrait was not created out of a knowing pact with a supernatural force. Instead, the magic was imparted to the portrait by the inspiration and talent (and perhaps love?) of Dorian's friend the painter, unbeknownst to either Dorian or the creator. It's only later that Dorian realizes the importance of the painting and begins to abuse the power and falls into a life of corruption and wanton cruelty.

The work is intended to be a condemnation of the human nature, and human nature alone. The portrait removes all consequences of misdeeds from Dorian, thus freeing him from considerations of those misdeeds and allowing him to act as he would naturally and instinctively, which in this case is cruelly and selfishly. Only at the end, when the consequences of his actions are revealed to him by a viewing of his portrait must he face all of the consequences of his misdeeds. He cannot stand to bear witness to his own nature and stabs the painting, thus ending the magic with yet another reversal - the knife wound appearing in his chest instead of the painting's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.7.185 (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What was going to happen if Dorian painting wasn't destroyed Naxion (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Tommy Johnson not Robert

Robert Palmer (the journalist/writer, not the musician) perpetrated the lie that it was Robert Johnson who claimed to have sold his soul to the Devil. Actually the claim was made by Tommy Johnson, and this is well-known. Robert Johnson played and popularized recordings of his song Crossroads and this was misunderstood by potentially well-meaning fans, some of whom even made movies about the story, but Palmer actually tarnished his own reputation through his publishing and blues scholars are aware of this error.

-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)