Talk:The Lady Is a Tramp

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Jazz Mid‑importance

	Jazz portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

The Beatles Low‑importance

This Apple Corps / Apple Records-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Wikipedia. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.The BeatlesWikipedia:WikiProject The BeatlesTemplate:WikiProject The BeatlesThe Beatles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

For WikiProject The Beatles

A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Articles on each Beatle tour (Category:The Beatles concert tours). See: Missing articles.
Expand : The Lost Lennon Tapes, notable radio series which has spawned many bootlegs. Apple Records See also: Adopt an article
Stubs : See: Category:The Beatles song stubs
Update : Pics/Graphics wanted: Kenwood.
Verify : Beatle wives
Other : Project: Add {{WikiProject The Beatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles assessed as stubs onto this list, also list articles needing cleanup and other work here.

This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?

Lady Gaga Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lady Gaga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lady Gaga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lady GagaWikipedia:WikiProject Lady GagaTemplate:WikiProject Lady GagaLady Gaga
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't the lyric "She gets too hungry for dinner at eight"?

The only reason I mention it here rather than change the page is because I could be mistaken, since I'm more fond of the Sinatra version... Perhaps the original had 'I' instead? hi

Eddie Parker 07:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly it. The original musical version was written in first person (and it had more verses). The article in fact links to it: [1].

The use of the word tramp is bizzare as there is no way that someone seen in the lyric as being independent, not straightjacketed by convention and a freethinker with her own mind, could possibly be called a tramp in any meaning of these words that exist in any dictionary, even those of slang and US colloquialisms. It is odd that so mnay singers - not usually the brightest of peolpe - have been happy to sing this without querying why this word is used. Only the original lyricist coudl explain but ne is dead and no one seemed to ask him in his lkifetime. My explanation would be that it is a wrord that would be shocking to a lady so has a powerful effect and, happlity rhymes beter than 'independent' or 'unconvedntional'. Roger Haywood rhaywood@isssuesmanagers.com

Meaning of "Tramp"

I'm sorry, I'm still confused, and the ½ sentence explanation didn't help much. I need a more explicit explanation. To many people, the word 'tramp' means prostitute. That seems like a really odd thing to call a lady. I know back in the day the word also (?) meant something like 'hobo.' The song still doesn't make sense to me like this. Can someone please clarify this? Maybe it's because I like to eat dinner at 8pm, unlike older generations which it seems favor 5pm. I don't know. Nessie (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comments here say the character in the song isn't calling herself a tramp; rather, others call her that because they are either jealous or disapproving of her disregard for the conventions of high society. --Lph (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the day? In the UK, "tramp" has always first and foremost meant something like hobo or vagrant, and still does. The other meaning is known, but less used. I just mention this to reinforce that, even if the meaning in the US has shifted with time, it's entirely possible that when the song was written, the meaning was much clearer. – Kieran T ^(talk) 16:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might help to think of the label "tramp" as ironic. Thus a woman who "Won't dish the dirt with the rest of the girls" is called a tramp, even though a neutral observer (i.e. the audience) can see that the woman has more propriety than usual. She is called a tramp as an insult, even when the label is not fitting. The irony is part of a more general satire of aristocrats: they have expensive lives but not rich ones, large dinners but not appetites, thick manners but shallow courtesy. That aristocrats call her a tramp says as much about them as her.

As for the meaning of the word, note that the song lyrics repeatedly reference traveling ("hobohemia", "hitched and hiked"). Then again, "tramp" as "prostitute" is attested from 1922, so that meaning might also have been brought to mind by use of the word at the time the play was written; perhaps calling the woman a tramp is a way of hiding an insult (slutiness) behind an ostensible statement of fact (she travels). Similar expressions have popped up over time, e.g. to "get around" ... what did the Beach Boys mean when they said that? Yothgoboufnir (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning is clear. The word "tramp" is a synonym for slut in American English. In the 30s it was widely used in that sense (and older people still commonly used it that way into the 70s.) Over time it was generalised to mean "any woman who flouts convention", just as slut is doing now. (Actually, "slut" originally meant a "tacky, crude, lower-class woman", like "trailer trash" today, without sexual connotations, then drifted the other way. Now it's drifting back.) Anyway, the intent of the song isn't mysterious: this woman makes up her own mind about things, pleases herself whether others approve or not, refuses to follow rules she finds inane, and so polite society impugns her honour. Sinatra took it one awesome step farther: "...and that's why I like her." Laodah 19:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might be to do with the original context in the "Babes in Arms" script. To me, the lyrics would make sense if somebody had called Mitzi Green's character a "tramp" and somebody else asked why, and she sings the song. (if that could be obtained, it might even be worth putting in the article, since the words ARE a bit cryptic and people visiting the page might well be hoping to find out.) Wombat140 (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Neutral

There's this section in the article:

This song is a sophisticated and witty spoof of New York high society and its strict etiquette (the first line of the verse is significant: "I get too hungry for dinner at eight..."). It has become a classic song in the pop standards/vocal genre.

"Sophisticated and witty"? Isn't that subjective? And it being a "classic" is unsourced too. Photon man62 (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in The Lady Is a Tramp

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Lady Is a Tramp's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "jap":

From The Fame Monster: "Japanese Oricon Top 30 Albums". Oricon (in Japanese). Retrieved 2010-05-15.
From You and I (Lady Gaga song): "Lady Gaga's You and I spikes up the airplay chart". Billboard Japan (in Japanese). Prometheus Global Media. 2011-09-12. Retrieved 2011-09-18.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Single or not?

If all changes about the Bennett/Gaga version being a single are being reverted, then why does the content in fact state that it is? In the very first sentence of the section - even a date is given? Surely that is inconsistent. 333cale (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the line. There is no reliable source calling this a single. Even Gaga, who goes out of her way talking about her single releases, has never talked about it as a "release". Neither has Tony or their labels. Pure WP:CRYSTAL going on here. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also Lescharts and Hung Medien confirm that the release was indeed promotional and not a single. Case closed. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, a "standard" is sung by all sorts of people

I removed a number of random examples of people who covered this song -- it's only notable if they did something special with the song to distinguish from the 1000s of other variations. Changing the lyrics to fit the performance is not at all unique (performers do that all the time). It might be more interesting to list the number of covers listed at the iTunes store, a popular song database, or how many times it has appear in film.

For the same reason, I think the entire section about Bennett/Gaga's version should be moved: that has more to do with Bennett, Gaga, and Bennett's duet series; it has little to do with the song. (Most of the current text is about Gaga's fame, her theatricality, and so on.) I think it's interesting material, but it doesn't belong here, especially as it occupies over twice the real estate of the rest of the article. 75.37.16.239 (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely correct... you'd think the Bennett/Gaga version was the "original" from the amount of weight given to it. It shouldn't be the bulk of the article on the song. Drosboro (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bennet and Gaga

I have nothing against Tonny Bennet and Lady Gaga, but I feel the part about them in this article is much too long. This song had been recorded by many, many musicians, why give them so much space? Udi Raz (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Judging from the article, you'd think that Lady Gaga wrote the song, instead of covering it ~70 years later. Perhaps that whole section should be given it's own article, or trimmed down and put into the Lady Gaga page, and replaced here with a list of people who have previously performed the track.--86.20.224.241 (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the Bennett/Gaga section is too long. Is 11 years enough time to trim it? I'll try and hope it sticks. Sandylouise (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who CARES about Lady Gaga? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.146.233 (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go that far - she is a notable artist and thus singles by her - and by Bennett - are inherently notable. However I have to agree this article spends waaaay too much time discussing this one recording out of a 75-year history. What about Frank Sinatra's recordings? Lena Horne's? The presumed inspiration for the title of the Disney cartoon? For the record, I came here from a link at Apple Records discography in which a privately made recording Sinatra did for the Beatles is mentioned. Include the Bennett/Gaga version by all means, but don't make it the focus of the article. We certainly don't need two images with them either. Let's get a public domain image of Horne or Sinatra in there, or maybe a reproduction of the original sheet music if it doesn't violate image policy.70.72.211.35 (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well.. I can translate the German version of this article (My German's pretty good, and it's better than no information) because it does have information fitting this song. The information about Lady Gaga's rendition can then simply takes its place at the end of the article. Would that be acceptable? Haec (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heartbreakingly, there's probably been more written about the Bennett/Gaga version than the 15-20 recorded versions by Frank and Ella. The weight given does seem excessive, but tis cited, so heigh-ho :( Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd add my 2 cents: I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this. This is a classic song that has been covered many times, and I feel the article is way overweighted with the Lady Gaga and Bennet's version. I have nothing against Lady Gaga and I think they did a great job performing it. But the amount of text spent on their version is more than I'd expect even if this was an article solely on their version. I'm not a Wikipedia editor so I'll leave it up to others to work it out, but a 5 sentence paragraph would suffice. 65.189.54.112 (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Anyone can edit this page, you know... ▫ Urbane Legend ^chinwag 21:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed the section. It can probably be trimmed even more, but I felt this was a sufficient starting point (especially seeing it has been discussed for almost two years with, as far as I can see, no changes).

I removed all the extra Bennett/Gaga text but IndianBio reverted my change. By doing so, according to my understanding, IndianBio risks breaking various rules about guarding changes and starting edit wars and so on. There is no good argument for keeping all that material in. The Bennett/Gaga version just needs to be mentioned like the other versions. Of course there could be a separate article entirely about their estimable version of the song! This article could link to it! Dratman (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SONGCOVER. Just because the actual version does not expand and create a concrete article, does not mean we will remove sourced content from the Bennett/Gaga version. And dno't give me lecture on rules and guidelines when per WP:BRD you should have discussed all the changes and then proceeded. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of the lyrics?

Are the lyrics in the public domain or is their inclusion in this article a copyright violation?