Language desk
< October 17	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language 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.

October 18

TV commercial for drug Anoro featuring Fleetwood Mac's song "Go Your Own Way"

This question is about a TV commercial for the drug Anoro, featuring Fleetwood Mac's song "Go Your Own Way". The video is here: Anoro: Go Your Own Way. In this commercial, they sing the phrase "go your own way" three times. These occur once at the 0:07 time mark; once at the 0:14 time mark; and once at the 0:55 time mark. The first two occurrences sound similar; however, the last occurrence (at the 0:55 time mark) has a very different sound to it. I'd like to know what would be a good adjective to describe that third version of the phrase being sung. The only words I can think of are "guttural" or "earthy", but those seem insufficient and not quite right. If the director of the commercial were directing the singer, how would he tell them to sing that third occurrence? What words might he use? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase mimics the original song; the chorus actually does that; however you'll note the third line has a different melody and singer than the first two. In the original song, the chorus has Lindsay Buckingham singing the last line with that melody; where as I believe first few lines are sung by the band in parts, with Stevie Nicks carrying the melody for those two lines. So the effect is caused by a different vocalist (as in the original). The melody in the last part descends rather than climbs within the structure of the song, so I might call it counterpoint? I'm not sure there is any other specific effect other than the vocalist mimicing the peculiarities of Lindsay Buckingham's singing style. --Jayron 32 15:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Thanks. You are saying that -- in the drug commercial -- there are two different singers? One singer is performing the first two occurrences of "go your own way"; and a completely different singer is performing the third occurrence? 32.209.55.38 (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the first two occurrences are a female singer (it sounds heavily Auto-Tuned as well), with harmonies behind her, while the third occurrence is a male singer singing without harmonies. The arrangement is almost identical to the original, with the same basic vocal parts. The third singer even takes on the quirks of Lindsey Buckingham's voice. If you listen to the original, you can hear the similarities. --Jayron 32 11:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did not even recognize that the first singer was a female and the second, male. I guess that I just assumed it was all the same person, singing differently (as directed by the director). Hence, my original question. Yes, I did listen to the original song; many versions of it, in fact. Thanks. It's a great song. I am a little surprised that Fleetwood Mac -- I assume that they "own" the song? -- would allow one of their greatest songs to be used in such a base manner (in a drug commercial). Seems odd. I assume they are all millionaires. And I assume they are not getting all that much money from this TV commercial. But, maybe I am wrong? It just seems like a very popular (and very wealthy) artist would have a bit more "integrity" than to want to see their art work "debased" in this way. No? 32.209.55.38 (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The song would be "owned" not by Fleetwood Mac (who would only own specific performances of the song). Instead, songs are owned by a publishing company or group of such companies. A publishing company has only one purpose: to own copyrights and collect revenue for using them. MOST songwriters have their own publishing companies, and many bands that write collaboratively have a publishing company that handles the music end. If you have a band that writes their own songs, you can think of them as two overlapping ompanies: the band as a performing company and a publisher as a publishing company. In the case of "Go Your Own Way", it was published by Gentoo Music Inc. and Now Sounds Music are the music publishing companies. Gentoo is the Publishing company for Fleetwood Mac, while Now Sounds Music was the publisher for Lindsey Buckingham. (see Here for Buckingham's publishing company]. The rights to record a new version of a song have to be granted by the publishing company. Since the writer themselves is often the decision maker for said publishing company, they still get final say. But it doesn't always work that way; bands and writers (often not knowing better) often signed away publishing royalties, and some people (like Allen Klein/ABKCO) make their money by buying up publishing companies and then acquiring copyright on songs to collect royalties. To make it simple, the rights to use the song would have to be granted by Gentoo Inc. and Now Sounds Music. The granting of rights to use songs is negotiated by entertainment lawyers under the advise of their clients, the songwriters and their publishing company. This is usually handled by large clearinghouses such as Broadcast Music, Inc. or American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, which handles all of the dirty work, though the owner of the copyright has the right of refusal. --Jayron 32 18:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Thanks. Did not realize how complicated it was. But, it does make sense. Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are you sure that the second singer is male? I just listened to the song again. Seems like a female singer to me, at the 0:55 time mark. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly a guy to me. Or a guy's voice, anyway. Maybe try again with headphones, if you hadn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: Thanks. That's odd. I really hear a female voice. Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a vocal portamento is steadily changing the frequency of sung notes. That term doesn't indicate whether the frequency is increasing or decreasing, but the written music would show the notes, and the wavy line drawn between them indicates a steady blend rather than sharp change in frequency. StuRat (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ad just popped up on my TV, and I think it's a cover - and that whoever they commissioned to do the song altered it to fit the ad. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any doubt that it's a cover version? Certainly, that is not Fleetwood Mac singing in the drug commercial. Correct? 32.209.55.38 (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try answering the question being asked? The OP never doubted it was a cover. --Viennese Waltz 06:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try not to be what you normally are. I've heard the ad and there's nothing special about the final "go your own way" except that it ends a sentence instead of leading into the next bit of music. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that there was anything "special" about the third occurrence of "go your own way". But, clearly, it is sung "differently" than the first two occurrences. Do you agree or disagree with that? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's sung differently in that it ends the song with a full-stop / period rather than doing a fade-out like the Mac version does.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

US Dollar Currency

Searching for a reliable record (starting from the beginning of time till to date) displaying 'ups' and 'downs' and 'stable' position of the currency please. 119.30.35.177 (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This brief article has a nice graph and links to another article with more detailed information. It's not the highest quality source, so caveat lector, but it's a start for you. --Jayron 32 15:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a chart against inflation. Against gold, the price was fixed at 35 dollars an ounce for many years. Against sterling, for a long time the cent was worth a halfpenny. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 March 27#What's worth a pound? 82.14.24.95 (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier discussion actually mentions the cent used to be worth 1/200 £, that is 1.2d, which is much more than a halfpenny. --77.138.205.35 (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There must be an error in there - before World War II the dollar was worth about five shillings, so four dollars to the pound, and 400 cents (making a cent slightly more than a half-penny). Until decimalisation, "dollar" was fairly common British slang for five shillings. Wymspen (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also (sort of) in New Zealand. "Half a dollar" was a slang term for 2 shillings and sixpence. Akld guy (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article 77.138 links to explains that "a halfpenny ... was a unit of currency that equalled half of a penny or 1/480th of a pound sterling." As a decimal that's 0.0020833... of a pound. Post - decimalisation the halfpenny was indeed worth 1/200 of a pound, i.e. 1.2 old pence, which is 0.005 in decimal. You will note that the ratio 0.005/0.0020833... is 2.4 to one. This is because the penny (and therefore the halfpenny) increased in value by that amount although it could no longer be spent (unless it was part of the Maundy money) and nobody spends Maundy money because its silver content far outweighs its face value. Re ColinFine's comment, I still have my copy of the San Serriffe supplement from 1 April 1977. I will have to look at it, but from what he says it appears to be a mixture of Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish as well. This fits in with AnonMoose's Papiamento theory. 82.14.24.95 (talk) 11:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

77.138 wrote 1.2d - thereby clearly indicating that he meant pre-decimal - since decimalisation the abbreviation has always been "p" Wymspen (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also From $5 to $1.22: the 200-year journey of the pound against the dollar which says: "For most of the 1800s until the start of the First World War, every £1 was worth just under $5. The Napoleonic wars, which weakened the pound, was one exceptional period; as was the US Civil War, which saw the pound temporarily spiking up to $10... Governments however still viewed fixed exchange rates as desirable, and so in 1940 the pound was pegged to the dollar at a fixed rate of $4.03. This deal became part of the Bretton Woods agreement that was signed in 1944, which governed financial relations between 44 countries for much of the mid 20th century". Alansplodge (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Akld guy: In Britain the coin worth two shillings and sixpence (the "half crown") was also colloquially known as "half a dollar". The sixpence was a "tanner", the shilling was a "bob", and the two shilling piece (or "florin") was "two bob". Australia decimalised on 14 February 1966 (the day that I took up my first salaried position) and in 1971 Australians were still calling their twenty cent coins "two bob" (they were identical to the two shilling pieces they replaced). 2A00:23C0:7903:B901:542E:486E:9136:263F (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner was never used in NZ, but "bob" was used in place of shilling and "quid" was used in place of pound. NZ changed to decimal currency on 10 July 1967. Akld guy (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]