Talk:Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered

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

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

Title given is the "Also Known As" (Wrong) title and genre classification is questionable.

The actual title of the song is "Bewitched", one word, by itself. It is NOT "Bewitched, Bothered" etc. Richard Rodgers states and emphatically makes this point in his own autobiography. Having been composed as part of the Pal Joey score it is also listed as such in the list of the show's musical numbers (in the score) AND is indexed as such by ASCAP. (ASCAP does give the elaborated ("evolved") title as "Also Known As" however.) While some might consider this nitpicking, if Wikipedia has a goal of being an encyclopedia that can be relied upon for accurate factual detail then we need to stick with simple facts and not popular conception and or how the facts have been twisted or subverted by artists, record companies and even the song's own music publisher whose only collective interest in the song historically has been to make a buck for the parties involved. In other words, an article being "just good enough" for mass consumption by what is largely an already ill-informed populace is not good enough for a publication (online or otherwise) that desires and or attempts to state factual detail about a given item or subject. The ramifications are obvious especially if the publication (in this case Wikipedia) has expectations of being quoted subsequently as a reputable source of factual information.

I also feel the song should also be primarily categorized as a popular standard and not a jazz standard. (Note that I said primarily. I did not say that the song is not a jazz standard.) It most definitely is a standard song (32 bars long) and has high regard among many jazz artists of significance thereby giving it "jazz standard" if not "torch song" status in the world of jazz. But it should be emphasized that the song did not begin its life in the community of jazz musicians, but has been merely adopted by it, like so many other standard popular songs. Like hundreds of standard songs written in that era, this one began life in the popular dramatic theatre and was popularized by popular musicians as well as singers of its time throughout the entire realm of the entertainment business. All one needs to do is make a brief review of a list of the many popular artists who have performed and recorded this song down through the ages since its entry into public consciousness and an attempt to categorize many of them as dedicated jazz artists would be making a dubious proposition at best. There was at one time not very long ago such a thing known as popular music that is far different from what the current conception of what popular music is. Therefore there is no requirement that music has to be popular NOW (in a current contemporary sense of the term "popular music") in order for it to be properly classified primarily as "popular music".

I realize this last point applies to many popular songs and certainly not just this one. It's like the old joke "How many female singers does it take to properly interpret "My Funny Valentine""; the answer being, "well, aparently all of them". Ironically revealing (and favors "popular" as a classification by artists and audiences alike; jazz as a qualifying context being unnecessary or outright irrelevant, IMHO). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bblegacy (talk • contribs) 14:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the time you needed to write this you just as well have written at least one of your points for the article itself: DIY, you know. I don't have the rogers memoirs at hand, if you have, then you're the man to prove your own arguments. MenkinAlRire 14:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who can't spell Richard Rodgers's last name correctly should not be complaining about another's posting. BMJ-pdx (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Rod Stewart & Cher as the sample cover? Aggggh! --ND 18:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's silly, too, but you're welcome to delete it and/or change it to something else. Softlavender 12:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the whole section should be deleted. There's nothing special about it, other than there being a fan who's a Wikipedia contributor. BMJ-pdx (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of mentioning the film, for crying out loud? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.17.50 (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you mean Pal Joey (film), I agree. A lot more people have seen the film than have seen the original musical. BMJ-pdx (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyric switch

Something needs to reflect the fact that in most subsequent cover versions (as far as I know) the lyrics are changed to make the song a genuine romantic or torch song, rather than having the sarcasm or sexual charge of the original. (Also, in every version I've heard, it was performed without the original Broadway-style "oom-pah" accompaniment.) Lbark 04:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholheartedly. The original lyrics present a celebration of feminine sexuality that has been shameless bowdlerized in most covers to remove the sexual overtones. Frederica von Stade's cover, because it is true the original's celebration of sexuality, surely is among the finest renditions of the song. Eric Alan Isaacson (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, however the wording as you've put it on the article page counts as original research unless you can cite a reliable source backing those opinions - are you able to provide that? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

https://rodgersandhammerstein.com/song/pal-joey/bewitched-bothered-and-bewildered/ has the show lyrics. (Sorry, but I'm buried right now and can't fold that ref into the article.) BMJ-pdx (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chart Versions

The Music VF website lists two more charting versions (in addition to the six we already have):

Mindy Carson, charted 06/03/1950, peak position 20
David Rose and His Orchestra, charted 06/17/1950, peak position 26

Joel Whitburn's Pop Memories book lists another two (in addition to the six we already have):

Leo Reisman & His Orchestra with vocals by Anita Boyer, charted 6/7/1941, peak position 25, Victor 27344 (1 week charted, his last charting song of many)
Roy Ross & His Orchestra, charted 6/10/1950, peak position 28, Coral 60182 (1 week charted, his only charting song)

I'm not sure if we want 10 charted versions listed, and the four above are only in one source, so... --LowRise (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the genre of this song?

is it really bewitched, bothered and bewildered considered show tune? Kuyalanz (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]