Talk:Tom Lehrer

The whole article is really really terrible, and absolutely shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia. It has been written by someone or more who have very little knowledge of Lehrer, his background, impact, or influence. It contains very little of the basics - e.g. background, upbringing, influences etc. It's the pits, the worst article I've so far read on Wikipedia. Come on now, Lehrer has enough genuine admirers with knowledge and appreciation. For Heaven's sake clear up this mess. Best Wishes. Fairlight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.50 (talk) 19:45, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Reviews on An Evening Wasted

The reviews are printed on the sleeve notes of "An Evening Wasted..."

Are they real, or false documents? -- Tarquin, Thursday, July 11, 2002

According to Lehrer in an interview (reference?), they are indeed real. 85.165.35.82 12:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I found the first one in The New York Times archives - February 9, 1959. Paul 15:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Russian lyrics on Lobachevsky

Heard the "Lobachevsky" song for the first time. Obviously wanted to know what the comments attributed to Pravda and Izvestiya were. Being Russian myself I was able to decipher one and part of the other and did an internet search to fill in the rest. Here is what it says:

Pravda: "There lived a king once and with him lived a flea". -- according to some pages where it was found, this is a line from Goethe's "Faust".

Izvestiya: "I am going where the Tzar himself goes on foot" -- This is a Russian saying meaning "to the outhouse".

-- EugeneKatz, Saturday, December 21, 2002 The transcription of "Lobachevsky" in the songbook says "insert nonsense phrase here, in Russian if the audience doesn't speak it, or it Russian doubletalk if it does". -- Tarquin

The 'Pravda' comment has a Russian connection in that the composer Mussorgsky set a Russian translation of the Goethe text as his famous 'Song of the Flea' (1879).

---Pfistermeister, Jan 20, 2006

On a similar theme, the music of his Mozart parody (in "Clementine") begins with the theme of the aria "La Chi Darem La Mano" from Don Giovanni, speeded up - AG, Stockport, UK.

Santa Cruz

Did he teach at Santa Cruz? Is he still teaching? Bovlb 02:32, 2004 Apr 29 (UTC)

I was actually just looking that up, as I'm headed to to UCSC next year. On this 2003-2004 Catalog[1], he's listed as a fellow at Cowell College. His departments are American Studies and Mathematics. I hope I'll have a chance to hear him speak.

Andy M. 01:43, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Lawsuit?

Does anyone have any verifiable information concerning what I recall was a libel lawsuit by the widow of Werner von Braun (unt I'm learning Chinese, says Werner von Braun...), which led to the stoppage of sales of Lehrer's records? Punchi 03:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lehrer himself has stated in an interview that he has never been sued by the Von Brauns (I don't know whether you consider him to be a credible source, of course; I do). Sixtus 16:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, you can't libel a dead person. It's conceivable that Von Braun himself, during his lifetime, could have brought a suit, but certainly his widow couldn't have. Hayford Peirce 23:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Was he ever THREATENED with legal action (eg, if he continued to perform the song)? - AG, Stockport, UK.

PhD?

I don't think Lehrer actually received a PhD from Harvard. I believe he was in the program for many, many years, but never completed his dissertation.

More to the point: What was his research, published, aborted, or otherwise?

According to the interview in Rhino's 3-CD-box, he couldn't be bothered. 85.165.35.82 12:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

He jointly authored at least two mathematics papers, which I have put into the article - AG, Stockport, UK.

The hell you say?

Am I the only one who finds the following paragraph just... fuh?

Fans of rapper Eminem have also noted some similarities in Eminem's style to that of Lehrer. The style comparison is best evidenced on Eminem's South Park parody "The Kids" with its piano backing, clever use of syntax and off-beat rhyming, and even references to torturing small animals similar to that of Lehrer's notorious "Poisoning Pigeons In The Park". One can also draw a parallel to the singer/songwriter Mary Prankster, whose oeuvre includes a feminist reading of Hamlet ("Green Eggs and Hamlet"); a satire of a pastoral idyll ("Blue Skies over Dundalk"), reminiscent of "Poisoning Pigeons"; "Student Loan", which echoes Lehrer's "Bright College Days"; and "Tempest", whose style recalls Lehrer's love of rhyming series (e.g., "Poisoning Pigeons" and "When You are Old and Gray").

I mean, I like Mary Prankster as much as any sane person should, which is to say lots, but... what the hell? 69.250.43.75 05:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks weird to me too, but since I know nothing about Eminem -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Promptly deleted.

Why was this deleted? If the song by Eminem exists, and indeed has piano and off-beat rhyming, which I am unsure having not heard the song, then some of the paragraph is relevant. If the song does not exist or does not have any of the things mentioned then, by all means, the deletion was necessary. Tainted Deity 18:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's original research, isn't it? 81.151.151.61 21:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Discography

I've edited out the Discography entry for That Was That Was The Week That Was. Although some songs appear on the album that Tom Lehrer had written for the show, Lehrer himself does not perform on the album. Since we don't include, for example, albums containing someone else's rendition of a Beatles song in the Beatles discography, I felt it was misleading to include TW4 here.

But But - these songs were written to be performed on the show, not for Lehrer to sing! So this album is the Lehrer-authorized original version and should be mentioned. 85.165.35.82 12:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

-- Heath 128.173.105.144 00:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I got the discography here ... you are correct, it does NOT belong in the discography. However, it may still be of some interest to his fans ... it should probably be mentioned somewhere -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Jello Shots?

He INVENTED Jello shots? That seems unbelievable... DoorFrame 15:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Quote from Tom Lehrer the man, his myth and his music -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

During the 50's he worked at the Los Alamos scientific laboratory in New Mexico. Despite the fact that many of his songs had been quite critical of the work being done there, he was still able to get security clearance (Joseph Mc Carthy missed this one). In 1955 he joined the army, His reason for joining goes as follows "I figured I'd better do it while there was a hiatus between wars." While in the army he worked for the National Security Agency where he developed vodka Jell-O (my source for this is the Boston Globe January 1, 1984, I am not making it up). This was done as a way to circumvent a restriction on alcoholic beverages on base (Jell-O is not a beverage).

Is there anything to verify that besides his own claim? It seems likely that other people may have invented the concept of mixing alcohol with Jello in addition to Tom Lehrer (not that I don't LOVE the idea of it being just him, by himself, inventing it like a mad scientist in a liquor-filled laboratory). DoorFrame 22:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be the article should be phrased something like "...in the army...where he claimed to have invented...". This is verifiable (if he did indeed claim it). Notinasnaid 13:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This claim is also mentioned in the "Too many facts about Tom Lehrer" liner notes from the Remains of Tom Lehrer boxed set. Stapler 9 42 April 1st, 2006

Page 11 of the libretto from _The Remains of Tom Lehrer_ tells you all about the orange Jello with vodka. =Chica= 10:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Satire can't be taken seriously. This guy sings satire of course you don't take what he says as fact. But the fact that he claims to do XY & Z should not be disputed. (I have the box set but i can't find it so i cant verity the previous statement but i have no reason to believe it is not true)--E-Bod 00:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Kant Song

Is the song found at the following pages: http://www.auburn.edu/academic/liberal_arts/philosophy/kant.htm and http://www.auburn.edu/academic/liberal_arts/philosophy/kantsong.mp3 composed by Tom Lehrer? Is there any direct Tom Lehrer connection? Eptin 04:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Erm, it says directly "Translation by Roderick T. Long" and "Music and vocals by Paul L. Fine". Furthermore, it's not really Lehrer's style, and it's not like Lehrer is the only person on the planet to have ever composed witty songs on academic themes. --Saforrest 05:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Dead?

is Lehrer still alive, becausemy friend keeps insisting he's dead, but the evidence I've seen seems to say other wise

He is alive and well, living peacefully in Cambridge, MA Lgrinberg 02:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Err... last I heard he was living in Aptos, CA (a small, very rich, very aged town near to U.C. Santa Cruz, where he still lectures...) 68.96.255.13 01:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You're both right. Steelbeard1 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How can they both be right? - Katami 16:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Wahkeenah 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As are you 129.67.116.37 12:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Birth day

I noticed a recent change to his birthday but coulden't imageine an error like that for so long. The change actualy is correct his birday is 9 April 1928 [2]. I am wondering how a mistake like that could be make. It's been there for so long i can't find where the initial change was made. I should be more trusting of IP edits.--E-Bod 01:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Influence on Zappa?

I'm no expert on either Tom Lehrer or Frank Zappa, but could safely call myself a lifelong fan of both. I can find no evidence that Lehrer was a direct influence on Zappa (though I would grant that Lehrer helped pave the way for public acceptance of the kind of offbeat music that Zappa later created). This must be understood in light of the fact that Zappa's music and writings are rife with reverent and irreverent references to his sources and colleagues.

On Zappa's first LP, "Freak Out," credited to the Mothers of Invention and released on the Verve label in 1966, the liner notes include a list of over 100 names under the heading "These People Have Contributed Materially in Many Ways to Make Our Music What it is. Please Do Not Hold it Against them." The list includes everyone from Elvis Presley to Karlheinz Stockhausen, but Lehrer's name does not appear.

In Zappa's "The Real Frank Zappa Book" (Poseidon Press, 1989), there is a brief section titled "Does Humor Belong in Music?" Again, Lehrer's name does not appear. Rather, the section ends with the comment "I owe this part of my musical existence to Spike Jones."

Lastly, in Ben Watson's 621-page book "Frank Zappa: The Negative Dialectics of Poodle Play" (St. Martin's Press, 1995) -- which may fall just short of being a full-fledged scholarly work but nonetheless appears to have been exhaustively researched -- there is no mention of Lehrer in the index.

In that case, I'll take out the line. "Clearly" is not particularly NPOV, and it's unsourced. moink 02:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to correct myself somewhat. I just saw Barry Miles' new "Zappa: A Biography" (Grove Press, 2004) in a bookstore. Lehrer is, in fact, listed in the index. To paraphrase the book -- I don't have it in front of me -- it says that Zappa satirized the Left in the tradition of Mort Sahl, Tom Lehrer, and Woody Allen. But it doesn't explicitly state that any of these three figures were direct influences on Zappa.

It's fair to say that Zappa heard Lehrer at some point in his life. He was a musical omnivore, so it's about as done a deal as you can hope for. That said, I don't really hear a Lehrer influence when I listen to Zappa, so if there was one it was very slight.

The Physical Revue

I notice that this gets a mention, but no elaboration. Perhaps it should be elaborated on a little more (maybe a sentence or two), since it's how he got his start? One good article about it is here. --Aquillion 17:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Atheist?

it says hes Atheist. but wheres the source

I've read elsewhere he is, and I remember in the book that comes with the "Remains of Tom Lehrer" CD set it mentions that his family are ethically Jewish but not religious. But Category:Atheists is probably best kept for people who are widely renowned for being atheists, like Richard Dawkins - otherwise, being an atheist just isn't special, and there's no way the category could be complete. So I'll remove Tom Lehrer from the category. Robin Johnson 11:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

being not religious doesnt mean hes atheist

Quite, although I think I've read elsewhere that he is an atheist. That's not a good enough source to put it in the article, of course, and even if it was, I don't think it would make him the kind of outspoken noted-for-being-an-atheist atheist that the category is for. Robin Johnson 12:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In the interview liner notes of the 3-CD set, he says he does not prefer one religion to another and speaks disparagingly of the idea of religion. He does not make any more concrete statement, though.P.L.A.R. 19:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Alternative lyrics?

A friend of a friend whose family once hosted him at a fundraiser (in the US) says that on their home piano he played "Silent E" and other "letter" songs with much sharper lyrics than the "official" ones. Any info anyone? - AG, Stockport, UK.

Lobachevsky song

I am sure The University of Michigan Historical Mathematics Collection does not violate copyright: see here. If they have it on their web page there should be no problem with links to it. Mhym 00:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken. If you check the file's ID3 information, you'll see it's from his album Song & More Songs. Unless the University has permission to post the file, it's a copyright violation and we should not link to it. - EurekaLott 01:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

TomFoolery with new lyrics

Late 2006 in San Jose, CA. a small group produced TomFoolery, with altered lyrics with Mr. Lehrer's blessing (and possibly help). Who's Next ended with San Francisco(!) getting the bomb, The Elements now has an added verse with the new elements, and the Hunting Song was revised: the current American Vice President is the hunter.

The refrain is now "Two game wardens, seven lawyers, and a cow", and Air Force two doesn't have enough room to carry the haul.

JOATMON 09:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"We Will All Go Together when We Go"

To the best of my knowledge, this song was not written for TW3 -- it dates from at least a decade earlier. Someone should confirm this, and remove it if necessary.

I've added "So Long, Mom" to the list of TW3 songs, as it's one of the very best -- and I'll never forget Steve Allen performing it. Allen's naturally ebullient, somewhat over-the-top delivery was more appropriate than Lehrer's sarcastic/sour style.

WilliamSommerwerck 13:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not for TW3 originally, although it's possible it was sung on that show at one time. "We Will All Go Together" was one of Lehrer's songs from his second album, in the mid-1950s. "So Long, Mom" was from TW3 (i.e. on the TWTYTW album), along with other nuke-related songs, including "MLF Lullaby", "Wernher Von Braun" and "Who's Next?" Wahkeenah 03:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Send the Marines

If "has currency" versus "dated" is just a personal judgment of the song (the author's or anyone else's) that veers into music criticism, which is simply not encyclopedic. If the comment is that this song is still played while others are not, that's fine but it needs a source. If the comment is that people think the cold war songs are outdated, whereas people still connect with send in the marines, that's an encyclopedic thing to say, but again, it needs sourcing. Otherwise it does sound POV. I mean, Tom Lehrer is all about POV, he's a POV singer, but we're trying to describe things neutrally here. Wikidemo 01:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You can justify an argument that such a statement, without citation, is POV-pushing. To argue that it's "irrelevant", as the other editor did, is his own POV-push. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like original research to me, regardless of POV. Orpheus 02:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Listen to the song sometime and tell us if you still think so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As this guy did: [3] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Or this one. [4] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Or this one. [5] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, listening to the song and saying if I think it's true or not is the definition of original research. Have a browse through WP:V and WP:RS. Orpheus 04:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not original research, as my cited links above demonstrate. You can argue that it's POV-pushing, but you can't argue that it's original research on my part, as others thought of it independently and posted it on the internet. You can also argue that those aren't acceptable sources for actual citations. But you can't argue it's original research. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can't find reliable sources to cite for this, that is the very Wikipedia definition of original research, c.f. WP:OR. As explained on that policy page, "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." Your links are not "publications" of the kind we consider. Furthermore, "the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article". Since you have not done so, you certainly have not demonstrated what you claim. --Horoball 07:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you don't agree with them, they are not "reliable" in your eyes. However, I did not write that stuff, someone else did, and anyone can see those comments. So it may be POV-pushing (as is the argument to exclude it), but it is not "original research" on my part. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't even bother reading them, so I don't know if I agree or not. But comments in Amazon reviews, for example, are not a reliable source, according to WP:RS. In most circumstances (such as this one) blogs are not either. You should learn the definitions of "reliable source", "verifiability", and "original research" in the Wikipedia sense because that is integral to the functioning of Wikipedia. Seemingly, you are unable to read these policy pages since you persist in your ignorance, but you are mistaken about what "original research" is. Someone else can write something, you can link to it, and it can still be original research. Understand? If not, please see the relevant policy page. --Horoball 11:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The challenge of "verifiability" (which, FYI, means "to make true", contradicting the theory that "it's not about truth") is the usual "gotcha" through which editors exclude anything they don't agree with. An example I ran into is about the kind of music that's played at ballparks. The pedants argued I couldn't use blogs because "they are not verifiable". However, if that's the only source, and many different blogs say the same stuff independently about many different ballparks, then obviously it's factual, unless you buy into some broad conspiracy theory to deceive the public about music played at ballparks. Similary, a number of independent writers have noted that "Send the Marines" is just as applicable now as it was in 1965. But since you don't want that fact stated, you hide behind the "verifiable sources" argument. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think these comments show some issues you have with official Wikipedia policy. Rather than argue these points here, you would do better to argue them on the relevant policy talk pages. Here, editors are expected to understand and follow these core, non-negotiable policies. And there is no need to label people that explain policy to you as "hiding behind" something and attributing rather laughable secret agendas to editors such as myself. --Horoball 11:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I stand by everything I said. Over and out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, gosh, and I usually agree with you, Baseball Bugs, and I promise I'm only stalking you in a good way (I was on your talk page with my goofy misunderstanding about the famous loss of copyright on the bugs bunny film). I believe that the song is indeed still relevant today as a good natured but serious jab at American militarism, and yes, it does resonate with people today more than many of his cold war or other current events songs....though some like his elements of the periodic table song are always popular. However, this is a loaded issue with POV on both sides. For all we know the people who want the statement removed have a pro-military intervention point of view. I think the song is corny and overdone, and the only interesting thing about it is that it could have been sung yesterday. However, the reasons for why we make our arguments aren't really important. It's the correctness of the argument. I agree that your own analysis listening to the song is original research. It may be good and truthful original research, but we just can't do that here or else everybody is going to start using this site for music criticism. Next will be that Britney Spears can't sing, or is too fat. Where will it end? And also, those blogs aren't good sources, particularly not about something that people might disagree with. In fact, even if you could establish that many people think the song is relevant, that's inherently a judgment call. Relevance to today's political situation isn't the kind of judgment we make on Wikipedia, sourced or not. We don't call songs good, bad, offensive, annoying, etc. We can only say that people find them that way. So again, if you can find a source that people think it's relevant you can report here that people think it's relevant. But you can't say that it is relevant. That's my opinion anyway. I'll see if I can find a source for it. Wikidemo 22:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed trivia section title

And deleted triva tag.... Albion moonlight (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Tom Lehrer Day!

As you may have noticed Tom Lehrer turns 80 on April 9 '08. A perfectly structureless group of people on YouTube has decided to declare that as Tom Lehrer day, this year. Rejoice! Excuses for abusing WP Talk for this, but it's a quick spreading vector. -The preceding signed comment was added by Nazgjunk (talk • contrib) 17:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation as to why Lehrer gave up touring

The material "When asked about his reasons for abandoning his musical career, he cited a simple lack of interest, a distaste for touring, and boredom with performing the same songs repeatedly" is from the CD box set's accompanying book, as I've now added. I am rather rusty at editing, having last done much prior to reflists et al, and wasn't sure how to get it to do a citation that pointed to something inside the article. I'll endeavour to bring into my office my copy of the CD box set and accompanying book, and put in a fuller discography citation if I can figure out how to do the internal links properly (help would be appreciated! thanks...).

Allens (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Speed

In the film Speed, Dennis Hopper says "Be prepared. That's the boy scout's marching song," quoting Tom Lehrer.