Entertainment desk
< November 14	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 15

Lyrics starting with the word "starting"

Here's a random question: Can anyone think of a reasonably well-known song whose very first line begins with the word "starting"? Thanks! Fbv65e del — t — c // 05:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mel and Tim, "Starting All Over Again".

Natalie Imbruglia, "Starting Today". --Viennese Waltz 05:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Lennon, "Starting Over" --TammyMoet (talk) 10:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that starts with "Our life, together..." Britmax (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes sorry. Must remember not to post until the meds have worn off. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR's rule book

Well as some NASCAR fans may know, NASCAR's rulebook isn't published. Here are two questions about it:

1. Why? What is the rationale for not publishing their rulebook? Keeping secret the contents of a sport's rulebook seems highly unusual to me. I'm unaware of any other major sports which keep the contents of their rulebooks secret. Even Formula One's rules are available online (I think). Sure much of NASCAR's rules are already known anyway, but not publishing their rulebook seems to be a strange practice. In fact, publishing rulebooks is essential for most sports in order to play or participate in them. Where would association football be now if the Laws of the Game were never published?

2. Is this practice unique to NASCAR? Is NASCAR the only major example of a sport which does not disclose the contents of its rulebook to the public? I think FIA has F1's rules on their website, and most sports leagues have their rules on websites, so is the practice of non-disclosure unique to NASCAR?

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, it's not quite as simple as saying the rulebook 'isn't published': The rules are made available to competitors and the media, but not made easily available to the public. The argument seems to be that the media can digest the rules and 'translate' them for the punters. Whilst the Sporting and Technical Regulations for F1 are technically available, they're certainly not in a form accessible to the layman - fans rely on the media to interpret them. NASCAR apparently just don't see the need to go to the bother of publishing their rulebook in its original form. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike many sports, most of the NASCAR rulebook is technical data about what is, and isn't, allowed to be done in the process of setting up a car for racing. The kind of really basic racing rules (stuff like rules regarding how to pass, yellow flag rules, rules for driving on pit road) take up an insignificant portion of the rulebook, and that stuff is what the public cares about. Things like the exact measurements of the arc of the fender over the wheels or the allowable fuel/air ratios inside of engines are not things that affect how a fan would view a race: those rules apply to things that happen off the track and aren't really all that important. The NFL, for example, has two sets of rules, both of which are published, but only one really matters to fans. The NFL Rulebook governs on-field action, and thus fans can consult it to understand how the game is playeD. The Constitution and Bylaws of the National Football League governs all sorts of things such as player contract negotiations, broadcast rules, how injured players are dealt with regarding roster eligibility, etc. Stuff that has nothing to do with the on-field operation of a game. The NASCAR rulebook would look a lot more like the latter than the former. When you watch a race, do you have a protractor handy to measure the spoiler angle as you watch the cars zoom around the track? Do you need to to understand the race? NASCAR does publish enough of the rules for people to watch the race: this FAQ certainly explains many questions fans may have about how a race is run, and how the scoring and points work. --Jayron32 14:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a very condescending attitute towards the fans? Who are they (and you) to say that I as a fan can only care about passing, yellow flags and pit stop procedures? If they take away several races' worth of points from all Hendrick cars for infringements related to rear wheel camber angles and suspension fittings, why can't I see the rule so I understand how the infringement was serious enough to e.g. impact Johnson's chances for a championship? I agree that many fans don't care, but that doesn't explain that they keep the rules away from the fans that do care. And regaring "fans rely on the media to interpret them": I'd rather spend days reading technical gibberish than treat Darrel Waltrip or his amigos' explanation of anything as complete and accurate. IMO, they treat the viewers like children./Coffeeshivers (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that it's intentionally condescending so much as it's just that NASCAR probably didn't consider it important, or that there isn't much demand for it. Not everyone who does, or doesn't choose, to do something is specifically trying to piss you off. --Jayron32 05:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bands and groups with no founding members left

Fleetwood Mac has only has had Mick Fleetwood from day one (excluding that "fake" Mac). The Guess Who have Jim Kale and Garry Peterson. The Doobie Brothers have had many different front men and a bunch of new sidemen. Are there any major groups or bands that have had 100% turnover, rather than just the frontmen or guitartist. A complete full overhaul? You may choose to interpret "major" however you want, but I am thinking English language pop or rock acts, though any others could be interesting too. Mingmingla (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes come close, only bassist Chris Squire has never left the band. Likewise Otis Williams is the only Temptation left. Though it doesn't exist anymore, the band The Velvet Underground had 100% turnover by the time the last album Squeeze was released, no original members of the band participated in its recording. There's also the technicality of The New Yardbirds which had zero members that were in the original lineup of The Yardbirds and only one member that was in The Yardbirds for any significant time. --Jayron32 00:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some more near misses: The Byrds only had one member last the entire life of the band, Roger McGuinn. Poco's sole founding member Rusty Young is still touring with the group. Guitarist Neal Schon is the only continuous member of Journey, though founding bassist Ross Valory is back with them again. Lynyrd Skynyrd's sole original member is guitarist Gary Rossington. Ian Paice is the only continuous member of Deep Purple. Tony Iommi is the only continuous member of Black Sabbath--Jayron32 00:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One perfect hit: Blood, Sweat & Tears is apparently still touring under that name, but no one that was a founding member is still in the band, indeed the turnover in that band has been astounding. It's a Ship of Theseus-level of turnover, there have been several eras in which at any one point, there's been no one in the band that had existed in its previous incarnation. --Jayron32 00:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. I should have known this one. Thanks! Keep 'em coming (assuming there are more). Funny you mention Ship of Theseus, too. That's what made me think of this in the first place. Mingmingla (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To come at this from the punk and punk-related genres with which I'm somewhat familiar... Dr. Feelgood have had a complete lineup change from the original. The Vibrators and the Angelic Upstarts have had periods where none of the original members were in the band, though they currently do at present. The current line-up of The 4-Skins is completely different to the previous one that split in the early 1980s, though the singer from the very first lineup of the band is fronting it. Sham 69, for a couple of years had none of the original members after the singer left/was fired (depending on who you listen to) - though the guitarist had been in the band *almost* from the start.

Also, and this is non-English language, but what about Menudo for a band with 100% turnover - several times over? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of them, but forget to mention them as an example of what I wanted. Thanks. Mingmingla (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving away from pop music, I suppose any long-established orchestra (e.g. the London Symphony Orchestra, founded 1904) would qualify. A less obvious example is the Allegri String Quartet. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the other extreme, the Amadeus Quartet had the same 4 members for its entire 40-year existence. When the first member died, the remaining members felt he was irreplaceable, so they chose to cease to exist. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Was it done with a wakizashi or did they string themselves up? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What, no mention of the Drifters? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Vienna Boys Choir HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that's beyond the scope of the OP's question. Large groups such as choirs and orchestras that have been around for a century or more are not going to have any original members. But this does seem related to another question floating around the ref desks somewhere, about the philosophical question, at what point does someone or something cease to be what it was, even though it has the same name? Like the one about the "original" George Washington hatchet whose head and handle have been replaced over the years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the Ship of Theseus, already mentioned above by Jayron. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was about to alter my comments, when I saw that. The other thing I was going to say is that large groups typically don't have well-known individuas, beyond maybe the directors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "bands with none of the original members" suggests that this question is much debated and suggests The Pipettes and Fairport Convention for starters.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although not of the same standard, and to describe them as a "band" is stretching it a bit, but the Sugababes has an entirely different line-up from their original one... gazhiley 10:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would The Wailers Band count? Though I suppose that it could be debatable whether they could be considered a direct continuation of Bob Marley & The Wailers (previously just 'The Wailers') or not... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mills Brothers could be another example. They revived the group using mostl descendants of the original group. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thin Lizzy was an example until a couple of years ago, when founder member Brian Downey rejoined after a protracted absence. He is now the only original member. --TrogWoolley (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Napalm Death have been going since 1981. Both founder members had left by 1987. --Michig (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGM (band). Underoath. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance (band). —Tamfang (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]