Jump to content

Talk:Lord of the Dance (hymn)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use of lyrics

[edit]

I am not entirely sure of my ground here, but it seems to me that a quotation from a larger work in this context qualifies as "fair use" under US copyright law. Wiki policy is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use This explains: "The first factor questions whether the use under consideration helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, or whether it aims to only "supersede the objects" of the original for reasons of, say, personal profit. In order to justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new." In this case the advancement of knowledge is achieved by the comparison of Carter's lyrics with the quote from the traditional carol "Tomorrow shall be my dancing day". It would not be possible to achieve the comparison without something to compare it with. Tyrenius 13:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a more compelling case for fair use if there were a direct comparison of the lyrics to the lyrics of "Tomorrow shall be my dancing day", which are not quoted here. Also, my understanding of fair use is that only a small proportion of the text can be repeated; quoting one of the five verses and the refrain may be too much. I think if you pick one or two lines and compare those directly with lines from "Tomorrow shall be my dancing day", that would fall under fair use. --Angr 14:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have made an observation on the comparison and added more from the original. I hope this meets the criteria. Tyrenius 02:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At present, the article gives not a single line of the hymn. Isn't this overly correct? A full stanza would definitely be too much, but a few lines could be useful to describe the content of the hymn, for example the first line of the first and third verse (these are significant points in the story told) and the second line of the chorus because this contains the title.

It is quite odd that the article does contain a very long quote of a comment by Sidney Carter, as if there is not as much copyright on that explanation as there is on the song text itself. Bever (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More on use of lyrics

[edit]

I don't feel that there is any legal issue in quoting one verse in direct comparison to another work, also quoted. This, IMO, is definitely fair use.

However, the entire lyrics are also quoted. This is probably a copyright violation...

Sidefall 14:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Reverted to a recent copy WITHOUT the full lyrics, and what is shown I believe to be "fair use". Clearly this would've been a better decision the entire time? Thepinksuicidallemming 03:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious paragraph removed

[edit]

I removed the following paragraph:

As with many religious-themed folk songs, there is debate as to whether the song was originally composed with Christian themes, or if it was adapted from an older, pagan tune. This second viewpoint has been expressed in the Hellblazer story Lord of the Dance by Garth Ennis, in which the eponymous character claims that the song is an ancient Yule tune and provides what are believed by many to be the original lyrics, such as substituting 'and I danced through the nights of revelry and mirth' for 'and Bethlehem's where I had my birth'.

I don't think there is genuine debate about this. The *tune* originated with "Simple Gifts", which has totally different words. The lyrics, having been written in 1963, don't have their origins lost in the mists of time. Carter could have been inspired by another text with pagan origins, but there should be documentation of this beyond a comic book.

It is of course true that a lot of Christian traditions and symbolism do have pagan origins. But if there is an interesting story about the origins of these lyrics they need to be documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Foskey (talk • contribs) 17:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The removed text seems to be something between hearsay and a hoax! Definitely deserved to go unless there's verification from an authoritative source Sidefall (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query

[edit]

I'm sure I once read something saying that Sydney Carter composed Lord of the Dance as a protest song against the dull formality of church services. Can anyone find a source? Sidefall (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irish? Celtic? Stepdance?

[edit]

Why is this song (and I don't mean the Michael Flatley-Riverdance shenanigan) so frequently seen as Irish or Celtic?

And was the Michael Flatley show alluding to this song? Maikel (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irish/Celtic: Is the song (presumably you mean the tune) frequently seen as Irish/Celtic? If so, that may be because it is usually performed in an acoustic folk style (rather than by robed choir and traditional organ), itself reflecting its folk history. And in recent years calling things "Celtic" has become a trendy bandwagon to jump aboard in some church circles here in the UK. (In a sermon in Durham Cathedral a couple of years ago John L. Bell referred to such bandwaggoning as "Celtic kitsch"..."). By all means let's discuss this here on the Talk page, but we're dangerously close to WP:OR and we ought to avoid mentioning it in the article yet until we can cite reliable sources. Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And as for Flatley/Riverdance... let's not go there! Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded! And thanks for your comments. Maikel (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that people think of it as Irish or Celtic because the Dubliners performed the song on several occasions. Xcountry99 (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of the song until I got Foster & Allen's "One Day At A Time" which has it. They're Irish and the song definitely sounds Irish the way they do it. 98.16.147.229 (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A section "In popular culture" has recently been added. This seems to be entirely parody versions, with only distant relationship to the substance of the hymn itself. I propose simply deleting that section. If the information is deemed to be valid, encyclopaedic and notable enough for Wikipedia then it should probably be its own separate article: something like "Lord of the dance (parodies)" with a "See also" link from here. Comments? Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generation of False Controversy

[edit]

I am completely fucking amazed by people's continued desire to trash a perfectly good song and scribble over the Wikipedia article thereof in attempts to show that a song which is clearly not racist/prejudiced in intent or in fact has some aura of a plausible claim of being so. The reason why no organization notable enough to fit into a Wikipedia article has come out to criticize the song as anti-Semitic is that notable organizations tend to be notable for a reason and often do not like to throw away positive aspects of their notability by making claims that are clearly false to anyone who is noting what they are saying-- in other words, no one of interest has come out and made the claim because the claim is complete horse crap.

I do not understand the justification for this. I can see that Blue Moonlet's newest version is an attempt to stave-off less informed/articulate criticism, and I appreciate that.

I still think the "controversy" section is unwarranted. The first stanza of "Deutschlandlied" can be said to be controversial due to historical content. The second stanza of the same song is simply not. "Lord of the Dance" is not anti-semitic, it is not controversial, it is, for lack of a better description, a fucking narrative. If it is a narrative with a moral, the moral is most certainly not "the Jews are bad because it was Jews who killed christ," and in fact is ironically far closer in form to "people who cry 'racism' at every turn of the road are not just crying wolf, they are the wolves." Whether the story itself actually happened, or how it happened, I am inclined leave to the religious scholars, because the historians will never really know. But I will say that I think it is almost certainly clear that if Christ existed, he was a Jew. And that is not really controversial, either.

A story that relates one Jew (set of Jews) having problems with another set of Jews cannot be said to be anti-Semitic unless it somehow says something bad about everyone involved... similarly the song in question cannot be said to be discriminatory except towards a real or hypothetical group of people that would rough someone up / kill them for healing the sick on the wrong day of the week. Furthermore, as has been implied, the song does not say Jews killed Christ. It does not say the scribes and the pharisees killed Christ. It does not say anything of the kind. It implies that the scribes and the pharisees did not agree with Christ, true. That's not really the same thing. It says "the holy people" "whipped and stripped and hung [him] on high" etc, and as is mentioned in the article this has been interpreted (reasonably, I think) as a dig at "holy" people. Only if we assume that the story of "the jews killing jesus" is a historical account does this become "the jews killed jesus." Similarly, only if we assume that the song is racist in intent do the words of the song become plausibly racist. That is begging the question.

Obscure publications holding opinions that clash badly with the self-evident facts is non-encyclopedic and not noteworthy for a Wikipedia article. People projecting uninformed opinions about a song based solely on the fact that they have heard something somewhere, which begged the question, and then repeating what they have heard is not noteworthy.

I am leaving the page basically alone for now, but will be periodically checking back and will probably be blanking the section again if it is "adjusted" such that it more obviously conflicts with the relevant facts.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.92.75 (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2012

Request for Comment

[edit]

Should a "Controversy" section be included that describes allegedly "anti-semitic" implications of this hymn's lyrics? The interpretation seems strained to many, while others keep restoring mention of it. It is questionable whether the sourcing is sufficient. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(current version for reference)

Here is the sourcing issue as I see it. The Society of Friends is obviously a notable organization. The New England Yearly Meeting is the Friends' regional body for New England, and is notable enough to have its own WP page. What we are reporting here is a decision by one committee of the NEYM, and that decision was in conflict with the NEYM committee actually responsible for hymns. Is that notable? I'm not sure. The source is a statement from the aforementioned NEYM committee as printed in that committee's newsletter (not the general NEYM newsletter), followed by some dissenting opinions. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Request for Comment

[edit]

I think the question we need to answer is "what defines controversy?" When does a "negative concern" about something cross a line from being random un-targeted dialogue to being a conceivably legitimate complaint? Can a song be controversial? Yes, I believe it can. But what does controversy require with respect to application to a song? First, I would suggest that the song must be connected with a group or movement of some sort (not simply an individual), however small or little known, that holds at least one genuinely controversial outlook. Second, I would suggest that those claiming controversy address statements actually somehow made by the work.

Does the NEYM committee's concern pass these tests? The evidence would seem to suggest that it does not. "The Lord of the Dance" hymn and makers thereof, at least as far as I in my limited knowledge am personally aware, contains/possess no real "agenda," except possibly that which is stated by the author, which seems to hold little relevance to the subject at hand. While it is true that a person or group can be controversial in speech on a topic without intending to, can a song itself, one that is not clearly related to any defined ideology, be controversial? It would seem not. Perhaps more importantly, the lyrics in question apparently do not actually make any statements whatsoever on the topics (anti-Semitism and the Jewish deicide) which are being so hotly discussed by the NEYM, thus the dispute does not meet the second of my suggested criteria. I say this latter may be the clearer of the two criteria, as if we do not require it for the definition of controversy, then I can write an article on the growing of apples, and people can claim that my article is controversial because I did not explicitly state whether or not I used genetically modified apple seeds from Monsanto. In this way practically anything and everything becomes controversial by some meter, and the word rather loses it's meaning.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like the idea behind the Wikipedia "controversy" contributions is generally to sort of give an opposing view or non-obvious addendum to the more mainstream or obvious interpretation. I don't really see how the controversy section of this article is in keeping with that (what is the "opposed" or "obvious" viewpoint? that dance is a metaphor for life or reality?), so I guess I would recommend deletion. --Tingalingyou (talk)

  • Include (although the bare URL needs expansion [and probably archiving, since it's a .pdf], and I don't have time to do it now). I don't know who added the {{better source needed}} tags, but although the NEYM is a self-published source its concerns seem appropriate in an article on the hymn. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Miniapolis, would you please clarify why "its concerns seem appropriate," with reference to Wikipedia's policies? Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 09:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the RFC is over, my evaluation is that it favors removing the material in question. Miniapolis' comment sounds like WP:ILIKEIT, and s/he did not respond to my request for clarification, so I think his/her contribution must be discounted. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Nataraja claim

[edit]

I've removed the assertion that Carter drew inspiration from statues of Shiva Nataraja because I can find no evidence for this. I see lots of people making a connection between the two, and I find a few people assuming that he was so influenced, but I can find nobody who asserts this influence outright, much less Cater making any such statement. On the contrary, the quotation we do have specifically points to the Shakers and to nobody else. Mangoe (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's justification for leaving the "citation needed" there, but not deletion. This information is also elsewhere on Wikipedia, and I think we can rest-assured that it was not simply made up. Shiva IS "the lord of the dance" and the idea that this is a coincidence anyway seems highly unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.146.176 (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI I think it's all from the same source (the green print for the song). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.146.176 (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tags are not supposed to be permanent, and that one has been around for nearly two years. It's time to either supply a source or remove the information. If you think it's in Carter's book (Green Print) then please find the quote and supply a page number so that the citation can be verified.
As for the content itself, I don't find it at all incredible that it's a coincidence. Christians believe that Jesus is the Lord of all things, including dance. There is no reason to assume that a reference to Hinduism was meant, unless there is a reliable source to back up the claim. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, where "elsewhere on Wikipedia" is this claim found? In general, WP:OSE is not considered a valid argument. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understood on WP:OSE. However there are several other external links, including:
WHoops somehow this one got deleted, it's not the most significant but it was the easiest to find: http://thejesusquestion.org/2012/02/13/jesus-the-dancer-part-1-sydney-carters-lord-of-the-dance/
And those people have no particular motivation to lie about this since the statement is arguably contrary to their agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.146.176 (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In any case I have put the 2004 Sydney Carter obituary in (the same as the Sydney Carter Wikiquote page) until a more direct source can be found. Please don't delete things on Wikipedia based simply on the fact that one quotation has not mentioned the statement, that someone has added a "citation needed" tag, and that a (quick) Google search turns up nothing you personally think supports the claim. The two claims almost definitely come from the same source, which may or may not originate from the Greenprint of the song; deletion of one and not the other would be just silly and irresponsible. In response to BlueMoonlet's comment "As for the content itself, I don't find it at all incredible that it's a coincidence," rather than simply directly contradicting me, please find a source to back up your claim. I doubt you'll find any using an internet search. Several Google pages down, however, I did find a solidly Christian source that calls into the question the relevance of your claim that "Christians believe that Jesus is the Lord of all things, including dance." http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1620/lord_of_the_dance.aspx#.UsyruvQW3IU So, yeah, not relevant. You could make the same argument about the Muslim god "Allah," and not only dancing but also singing is forbidden within a masjid, and it seems unlikely they would be thus idealized in a song such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.146.176 (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relax, 149.171.146.176. The Telegraph obituary is sufficient.
I feel a need to quote the guidelines for verifiability, which state that "material whose verifiability has been challenged... must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." This is a core content policy of Wikipedia. The "citation needed" tag is just such a challenge, and 19 months is plenty of time to allow for a response to that challenge. As no one had responded with a specific citation, it was entirely appropriate for the material to be removed. On the other hand, now that you have supplied just such a specific citation, the material has been verified and should stay. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reason I did not bother to add it myself when I first saw the citation tag was that I felt a better source could probably be found. It's still a reasonably legitimate possibility I think-- quotes in obituaries can be wrong (I mean, the person is dead at that point, after all). And then I forgot about it. Sorry for the attitude, I just hate it when articles that I have contributed to get slashed up, as I'm sure you can understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.146.176 (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First use?

[edit]

This sentence seems to be either wrong or unclear and needing a citation. "The hymn was used in the UK early January 1972 for the first time in schools, and was a major success." Does this mean first used at all in schools in 1972 (nine years after it was written and manifestly untrue as I recall our vicar playing a recording of it in church before 1967 when I moved). Or else it means that it was first used in schools in 1972 which I find very dubious and would definitely need a citation. Dabbler (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Fisher's recording is great.

[edit]

https://m.youtube.com/results?q=john%20fisher%20lord%20of%20the%20dance&sm=1 Easeltine (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could sombody please check the "Controversy" section

[edit]

Given the reference 'Lithurgisches Jahrbuch 1960' that section currently esentially starts with the sentence:

John Hennig in 1960 noted an anti-judaism in the third strophe of a song written in 1963. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.199.45.136 (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's odd. Thanks for drawing attention to it. A critique of a song written three years before the song was written; how does that work? And the quoted content (is it really accurate?) sounds very poorly reasoned. It seems near impossible to verify the supposed source. The UK publisher (Stainer & Bell) are extremely alert to issues of racism, and their publications in the field of hymnody frequently challenge implicit racism; if this song really were anti-semitic, this publisher would themselves be strongly opposed. On a wide variety of fronts, the supposed "criticism" sounds implausible. I've deleted it. I would suggest that any attempt to re-instate that should require a reliable sources. Feline Hymnic (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian ideas of Christ dancing - relevant for this entry?

[edit]

Does anyone know if Sydney Carter knew the apocryphal text the Acts of John, what with its mention of Jesus dancing with his disciplines in a circle around him?

I note too that another text, called Dance of the Saviour, also has Jesus dancing - although given that this wasn't even found until the 1960s it's surely very unlikely that Carter knew of it when writing his hymn.

There's a nice piece about these texts at <ref>https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/jesus-as-lord-of-the-dance/</ref>

Note: I have deliberately deactivated this reference, because my anti-virus software identified a threat. Feline Hymnic (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone thinks there'd be any reason to mention these historical precedents to Carter's hymn. His comment that he thought the idea of Jesus dancing would be seen as heretical does chime with the status of the Acts of John. RGipps (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only mention things that have a reliable source. I've never before seen this particular association with apocryphal "Acts of John" and (purely subjectively form a lifetime in church music in the UK) it just doesn't feel right, at least at first sight. But, there are ancient carols such as "Tomorrow shall be my dancing day", and some sort of resonance there feels more plausible, if you can find a reliable source. Feline Hymnic (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Reception

[edit]

I recently added this sentence to the article: "However, Sydney Carter also criticised holier-than-thou religious attitudes through his other work, including song lyrics such as "The Vicar is a Beatnik" about social conservatives in the Church of England."

In addition to The Vicar is a Beatnik which parodies holier-than-thou attitudes in the Church of England, Sydney Carter also wrote the following lyrics amongst others:

When I Needed a Neighbour, "And the creed and the colour And the name won't matter".

George Fox, "A light that is shining in the Turk and the Jew, A light that is shining, friend, in me and in you."

Friday Morning, "It was on a Friday morning that they took me from my cell And I saw they had a carpenter to crucify as well. You can blame it on to Pilate, you can blame it on the Jews, You can blame it on the Devil, it's God I accuse. It's God they ought to crucify, instead of you and me, I said to the carpenter a-hanging on the tree."

This doesn't, of course, mean that people can't interpret these lyrics according to their own choices but those later interpretations shouldn't be projected back onto Sydney Carter who explained clearly and repeatedly what he intended (in interviews in addition to his songwriting).146.198.87.202 (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lord_of_the_Dance_(hymn)&oldid=1217014276"