Talk:Edelweiss (song)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Edit Australia to Austria.

You were thinking of the other song. "Waltzing Matilda" is definitely Australian. -Aranel ("Sarah") 04:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How many cover versions?[edit]

Is anyone here who knows how many cover versions exist of this song? I am knowing so far: Ray Conniff, Vince Hill, and Theodore Bikel. --Melly42 18:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

National anthem?[edit]

Ok I am sure many people think this English song with its English rhymes is really Austrian. But I've never seen it mistaken for the National Anthem before! Where's the source for that? Pcb21 Pete 23:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps these people also think that they speak English in Austria too. Perhaps they don't realise that Austria is a different country to Australia. But, yeah, a reference would be nice. Jimp 02:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
An article on how cinematic memory can overtake historical memory gives the Reagan example: It's also mentioned in a New York Times article: Could still be urban legend, but supposedly, the NYT researches its articles, the the other article is quasi-academic. (talk)kamaila —Preceding comment was added at 07:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

National Flower[edit]

There appears to be a contradiction between this page, and The Sound of Music on this page in the Trivia section,it states that the flower is the National flower, however on the other page is states that it is NOT the national flower....obviously one of these is wrong. Does anyone know which of these is the correct one, and which is incorrect?

The edelweiss article says it is the national flower of Austria and Switzerland. I changed the Sound of Music article accordingly. This article is right, there is not contradiction. May I remove the notice? --queso man 19:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to say, to my knowledge there is no such thing as a national flower of Austria. After all it would not be the Edelweiß, as fewer than one in a hundred (if not a thousand) Austrians would ever have seen one growing. --Gakuro 17:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The edelweiss is the unofficial national flower of Switzerland.

The other Edelweiss[edit]

This nasty neo-Nazi website indicates that there was another song called Edelweiss - you can play it there an as mp3. The article should mention this. Adam 14:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It was sung by German mountain troops during WWII. The song is about a mountaineer picking an edelweiss for his beloved girl. See eg here for an English translation. Dagonet 17:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Reorganisation pertaining to the modified lyrics[edit]

Currently the article is organised thus.

  1. American church use
    1. Legal debate
  2. Lyrics
    1. Original Edelweiss lyrics
    2. Modified (Benediction) lyrics
  3. See also
  4. External links

I'm about to reorganise it like this ...

  1. Lyrics
  2. American church use
    1. Modified (Benediction) lyrics
    2. Legal debate
  3. See also
  4. External links

... with section one containing only the original Edelweiss lyrics. I think that this would put things into a better perepective. The modified version need not be treated as if on a par with the original version. The new organisation will put the modified version in the context where it belongs. Jimp 02:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Also - when writing about relative time implication of "Recent (legal) debate", there really has to be an absolute time stamp on tehre too. WHEN was this recent? Yesterday? Last year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miekec (talkcontribs) 19:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Just listened to a Chinese (Cantonese) version of this music in a 1967 Hong Kong film called 閃電煞星 (Lightning Killer) . I'm curious as to why there is so much fuss around the use of alternative lyrics, since there is such an old precedent. Ktorn (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Natasha Richardson[edit]

Acting legend Vanessa Redgrave sang an emotional rendition of Edelweiss, the song she sang at her daughter's first wedding - as Natasha Richardson died on Wednesday, according to British reports. [1] [2]-- (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

parent company?[edit]

I do not know anything about the music world, and I am equally ignorant about the appropriateness of my question for the talk page. When reading the article, the first question that popped to my mind is "which is the Parent company holding the rights to the song?" It is mentioned in a short note about legal disputes and I found it mighty curious that no name was provided. Is the company anonymous or are there any other considerations? Why are we not given this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


Where's the original lyrics gone?--Zoris Trömm (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The lyrics are probably still under copyright, so they can't be used here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems like a bad idea to have altered lyrics without the original lyrics. If the originals are still copyrighted then the modified ones should be taken out as well. zorkerz (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Except the modified lyrics are from a traditional hymn and not copyrighted.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, but that reply doesn't really respond to the question; ie. why include the rewritten lyrics when the original lyrics won't be featured? (Plus, how could they be from a 'traditional hymn' if the lyrics were only altered in the 70s?) Quoting the hymnal lyrics is not only unnecessary but adds inappropriate weight to what merely is, after all, the attempt of regional, sectarian groups to co-opt a Broadway song. Obviously the focus of the article should be on the original work, and, as the article currently stands, disproportionate space is being given to this low-priority controversy about various churches violating copyright laws. Unless someone can produce a valid argument as to why these altered lyrics are essential to the main article, they should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Upon reviewing the article more thoroughly, further faults leap into relief. The entire Legal Problems section is written in an unacademic, petulant tone: 'Despite the popularity of this practice, the estates of Rodgers and Hammerstein have not authorized the use of the lyrics of this benediction with the melody of the song, and hold that this practice is illegal. Rodgers stated that "he would take legal action against any group" using the "Edelweiss" melody with altered words,[7] and the current rightsholders will not grant permission for these requests, which are "inconsistent with the creators' intentions"'
What is this nonsense? First of all, no one is 'holding that this practice is illegal'; it is illegal, unless permission is given by the heirs of the songwriters. And they are not obligated to grant permission, no matter how popular the revision (which hasn't been established anyhow). The whole tone of this section is actually rather offensive; it sounds as though certain Protestant Christians begrudge Jewish songwriters and their heirs the rights to a melody that was never even intended for religious purposes. I was going to wait a few weeks to make alterations to this article, but the way it's currently worded is flat out inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

How is this a Harry Connick Jr. song?[edit]

Someone tagged this as a Harry Connick Jr. Song. What claim could he have to it? It was written and established well before he was born. Covering a song doesn't give you any claim of responsibility for it. I'm removing the tag pre-emptively, if someone can think of a good reason, you can put it back. Caidence (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)