Talk:Tom Sawyer (song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

comment[edit]

Merge to Moving Pictures (album)? Philwelch 20:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lyrics question[edit]

One website says "as his skies are wide", but another website says "as his eyes are wide". I hear "eyes". Which one is it?

Hi. I just looked at the CD insert for the remaster (Core Music Publishing (SOCAN)) and it says: "...Maybe as his eyes are wide." The second site you visited had it right--great argument for second opinions!CPRdave 21:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it says both. First time says, "eyes are wide", second time around it says, "skies are wide."--216.101.11.66 19:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "growling" sound from the intro from an Oberheim? I would have sworn it was a patch from the Taurus pedal synthesizer, which is mentioned in the credits. Actually, I don't own neither an Oberheim nor a Taurus (poor "rittre" me!), but I have a Yamaha CS2X, and an almost identical patch is listed as "Taurus".

"I don't own either an Oberheim", not "neither". (Sorry, I'm a grammar stickler)Thhhh (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game Inclusion[edit]

Maybe add something about the song being included in the Harmonix video game Rock Band?

No trivia. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is notable lots of other wiki pages of songs in rock band have that fact noted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.86.165.151 (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many pages have trivia that needs be removed. Thank you for your insight. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think that a songs inclusion on an important video game is trivia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainster31 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. How is the song's use in various parts of pop culture important to the song. From the WP: handling trivia page: "Some trivia is actually important to none of the subjects it connects. The mention of Beelzebub as an enemy in Devil May Cry is of little importance to the topic of Beelzebub, a devil whose name is mentioned in a great variety of context. Similarly, that Beelzebub is the name of an enemy in Devil May Cry (a featured article) is not important enough for mention in the article on the video game (in fact, neither that article nor any of its subarticles mentions specific ordinary enemies.)" I really think this falls under this category. Please demonstrate its notability before re-adding. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we're talking about a song's use in pop culture, then there should be a section labeled as such. Check nearly every song that is in the game Rock Band, their wiki always mentions its inclusion in the game (either in the triva, usages in popular culture or the intro, descriptive section.) Even the wiki for the other Rush song that is in the game, "Working Man," mentions its inclusion. It might not be trivia, but something more important. There should be an appearances in popular culture section that mentions that it is featured in Rock Band, on top of it being in parts of episodes of Futurama and Family Guy. Truthfully, the article is lacking without this section, so it should either be added, or the 50-60 or so wiki's which mention its inclusion should have that section removed. See for yourself- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_in_Rock_Band#Main_setlist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conbus (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you that such info is included on similar pages. And I think, as I'm sure does Wisdom89, that yes, the 50-60 or so pages which mention such inclusions need to have these sections removed, as they are trivial and nn. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lately, there's been a slew of IPs who keep reinserting the random line about Tom Sawyer being featured in rock band. I know, it's true, it's factual and kinda neat, but really it's just kinda thrown in there. I'd like to keep the WP:TRIVIA in this article to a minimum. So, just for future reference, I will most likely revert (not revert war) the addition of this information and direct any user to this discussion page for commentary. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Song Sample?[edit]

On the Rush page, there is an audio clip of Tom Sawyer. Shouldn't that just be moved to this page. It would make more sense to have the clip on the song's page instead of the band's page. Thhhh (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted and has been added. Nice suggestion. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geddy Lee[edit]

If Geddy is the bassist and singer, how did he play synth as stated in the article? Or did someone else play and who? frogTape (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was, and still is him. His rig consisted of various keyboards, foot pedals, a mic and of course his bass. When not playing the keys, he'd play bass and hit food pedals with his feed. When not playing his bass, he'd rely on his left hand to hit bass notes while fingering keyboards with his right. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

—Preceding comment added by EarthBoundX5 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not clutter the article with miscellaneous lists of trivial information. They are to be avoided per WP:TRIVIA. They also violate WP:DIRECTORY and WP:LIST. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you moving this section to the talk page so that we may discuss this issue. I invite all editors who monitor this page to offer their opinions on whether the above content should be included in the article. I see the cultural significance that the list is trying to prove, but, it really should be done in prose format, and definitely read less like miscellany. If it can't be, then I'd venture to say that it really doesn't belong. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appearences in other media and general information about the song is not cluttering. Maybe certain people decides that this information is useless and ecides to ignore it, but you have to be more objectiva that to just erase a whole piece of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.174.216.199 (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances in other media are useless. It does clutter the page with information of questionable notability, and opens the floodgates for more useless facts. Please remember, WP is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the anon user wishes to read further about this, see what wikipedia is not. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's relevant enough to be a part of the article.Killhammer (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that? Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it shows the songs impact on pop culture.Killhammer (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By itself, I'd say it's simply miscellany. Listing various appearances/covers just sets the precedence for the introduction of more trivial information. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. Go and take away any other listings in other media from all of the hundreds of other songs featured in Guitar Hero and Rock Band. Good luck. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 18:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've discussed this before. WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reasonable argument. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Songs critical of religion[edit]

Wikipedia features a category called Songs critical of religion. This category doesn't require the song to target a specific religion and can refer to irrational faith and ritualistic superstition. I'm sure some people are touchy over this sort of thing, but I'm curious if people would consider "Tom Sawyer" suitable for this category with the lyric "No his mind is not for rent... to any god or government..." Also consider that Rush has written songs obviously critical of religion/faith like "Roll the Bones" and that drummer and lyricist Neil Peart is an agnostic. In fact, here is Peart's quote regarding the lyrics to the "Tom Sawyer":

"Tom Sawyer was a collaboration between myself and Pye Dubois, an excellent lyricist who wrote the lyrics for Max Webster. His original lyrics were kind of a portrait of a modern day rebel, a free-spirited individualist striding through the world wide-eyed and purposeful. I added the themes of reconciling the boy and man in myself, and the difference between what people are and what others perceive them to be - namely me I guess."

He describes a "free-spirited individualist" that basically represents himself, and he quite clearly expresses distaste for "god" and "faith." Thoughts? Cale (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but I concerned about something; if you need to highlight in bold-face specific phrases from the song and then try and interpret them, it doesn't really come across as convincing. In other words, before adding said category, I'd require more concrete evidence that the song is really intended to be critical of religion. Also, it appears that this category would be for songs which were written with this main motif in mind, and not just containing some offhand lines. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a lot of songs need close observation to find precise phrasing and realize their particular message. For instance, "What You Are" by Dave Matthews Band only makes one or two direct references to faith and its pitfalls, but the entire song does back this theme, albeit in vaguer phrasing. As for the minimal concentration of "Tom Sawyer"'s criticism of religion, that's another reason why I'm unsure if it belongs in the category. It does focus on a free spirit and his individuality, attributes often associated as non-religious, so in terms of philosophy, it definitely lies on the border of agnosticism/atheism if nothing else. "Roll the Bones," on the other hand, I feel quite confident is suitable for the category. Cale (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that most of this is subjective. Others might disagree with you. For instance, I don't feel that "Roll the Bones" fits into that category at all. If we are to do this properly, we need to verify the meaning behind the lyrics straight from the horse's mouth - Peart. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Faith is cold as ice
Why are little ones born only to suffer
For the want of immunity
Or a bowl of rice?
Well, who would hold a price
On the heads of the innocent children
If there's some immortal power
To control the dice?
I think the moral is pretty obvious there, especially in conjunction with the rest of the lyrics: We don't live within the divine plan of a high power, and we live our lives taking risks and choosing our own paths. It's entirely anti-religious and pro-individualism. Cale (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it doesn't what our personal interpretation of Peart's Lyrics is. You may be right, you probably are. However, WP:V and WP:RS. We are guided by policy here. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"No, his mind is not for rent/ to any god or government" seems like an unambiguous criticism of religion to me. However, I'd imagine that Rush has better songs that demonstrate anti-religious sentiment than Tom Sawyer(like 2112).LedRush (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I feel a need to comment here. The Rush songs mentioned are OBVIOUSLY critical of religion. There is simply no way of writing an encyclopedia, if the editor isn't allowed to think for himself a tiny bit. At least it will be a much worse encyclopedia. If you take this kind of reasoning, that the editor cannot think even a little bit, to the extreme, it would be a disaster. Even if you did find citations for every sentence, in every article (which would be difficult, and time consuming, especially for "obvious" stuff), you would still have edit wars. People would say "that citation is out of context", or "that citation references a non-reliable source". How do you resolve those edit wars, if you aren't allowed to think anyway? Why don't we, instead of discussing technicalities, put more effort into the subject matter? If all editors agree that "his mind is not for rent to any god" implies a certain skepticism, aren't there better things to use our minds for, than to try and hunt down a naive music critic who has found a need to actually write down "Rush appear to be skeptic about religion, since the song Tom Sawyer contains the lines 'his mind is not for rent to any god'"? Remember, citations for everything, even obvious things, doesn't make the article truer, and is NOT a foolproof way to make the article correct! --Avl (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Tom Sawyer" in Popular Culture[edit]

Perhaps the following could be the base of a new section:

"Tom Sawyer" in popular culture[edit]

As one of Rush's most recognizable and popular songs, "Tom Sawyer" has become a part of pop culture. The song has been featured in several movies, such as Rob Zombie's reimagining of Halloween and Adam Sandler's The Waterboy and TV shows, like Futurama. "Tom Sawyer" has also been covered by Sebastian Bach, Mindless Self Indulgence, Disarray, Run for Cover and a few classical musicians and Barenaked Ladies played a small part of the song in "Grade 9". The song was played live on The Colbert Report and is included in the popular rhythm-based video game Rock Band.


I can cite any of these facts, but didn't want to go through the trouble until the language was agreed on, seeing as there was some related discussion on this topic before.
In my opinion, this information is notable as if reflects on the importance of the song in popular culture. Because of this layout and for this reason, it is not merely trivia or a collection of facts, but an essential part of knowing the impact and scope of the song and also assists in an examination into how society views the song.
Finally, I would delete the reference to the Colbert Report in the opening and just beef up the mention of it here...it feels out of place in the opening to me (like a randomly placed fact). Any thoughts?LedRush (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other than fixing my typos, any ideas at all?LedRush (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to say that since the airing of the Colbert Report and it's obvious culture significance, we should put your ideas into the article. I like the prose too. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find it objectionable; you guys might have put it in already, but I would suggest removing Disarray from the list of bands that have covered it, since it is redlinked, and I would say that makes it nn. This is just in the interest of having a via media between no pop culture, and and a cluttered list of trivia. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm a little averse to have redlinks within the article, it is sourced. On the negative side, I'm not entirely sure how notable the entry is given the fact that we have yet to create an article on the band. For now I'm going to remove it for cleanliness and wikification purposes. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, with the source I'm not dead-set against its inclusion, but at the same time, I don't think that it does, or should, aim to be an exhaustive list of covers. To that end, the more restrictive our standards for inclusion, the better. Carl.bunderson (talk)


If we want to be comprehensive on the use in popular culture Tom Sawyer was covered on Deadsy's "Commencement" album released in 2002. It is also sampled by Fort Minor for the beat for "All Night" on the We Major mixtape.Whitoflaven (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are not trying to be comprehensive; rather, the standard for inclusion is that the covering band is notable, i.e., blue-linked. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, no need to enumerate every band/group/artist that ever covered the song, or made reference to it. Incidentally, Deadsy is a notable band. I had included it days ago, but it was removed, probably because there was no source. I think a tracklisting from a retailer would suffice if it has appeared on a released album. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, I don't think we necessarily need a source for each band; as long as they're notable that's fine. I doubt people are going to add notable bands that have not actually covered the song, since it is so easily verifiable. So if I was the one to remove it, sorry about that. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It should be noted that South Park had a scene where the boys are posing as "Lil' Rush". They play the song, and Cartman begins singing the wrong lyrics (describing Huckleberry Finn, another book by Mark Twain, rather than Tom Sawyer). Rush has used this scene from South Park as an intro to playing Tom Sawyer. You can see an instance of this at the following Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh_9NY56Sxw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.144.71 (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Growl in Tom Sawyer[edit]

I see it got removed because it was "unsourced."

I don't know how to source material but I can tell you that the growl was NOT made on the taurus pedals. Geddy Lee used the Minimoog during the 7/8 part (He now uses a Little Phatty-I own one and it sounds almost exactly identical).

The Oberheim OB-X sound is used to create the "growl."

I have played an Oberheim before and here's how you create the sound.

1. Select the preset voice #1. 2. Turn the "resonance" dial about 3/4 full. 3. Turn the "decay" dial about 2/3 to the right.

There you have it!

If you try playing that on a moog or the taurus pedals, it'll sound "thin" because they're monophonic (plays one note at a time) The Oberheim has 8 voice polyphony. Geddy Lee plays 'E' on octaves to create the notes.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt your personal knowledge on the subject, in fact, I flat out believe you. However, two things: 1.)Is it really relevant to be included in the article and 2.)Anything that is likely to be challenged/ is unsourced may be removed. What you are describing is plainly original research. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that stuff out, I'll stop posting "synth info" in rush song pages.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that was the point...if you found a reference and blended the new language into the article nicely, it'll probably survive.LedRush (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, LedRush is correct. If you could find a source for it, by all means, put it in. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Take a look at this video link to youtube. Notice during the 7/8 part Geddy's playing his Minimoog? And right below it, is the Oberheim OB-X used to create the growl! Not too shabby for a guy who spends his days putting synth info in classic rock band pages! LOL!--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, youtube is not considered a reliable source. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on guys! An exact description of the settings of the instrument, and of the instrument type, is a much BETTER reference than, let's say, a synth magazine review, or even a research paper. The whole point of references is that they are verifiable. Getting one of those synths, and trying those settings, seems like something that is rather straightforward. Sure, it may be expensive. But so are lots of other references - for instance references to rare, old books. What "needs citation" really is about, is that references should be verifiable (or perhaps falsifiable is a better word). If someone said "I saw geddy play synth X at conert Y", that is non-verifiable, not usable as citation. A step-by-step description on how to produce the sound is verifiable. Another example: If someone claims to quote a rare book, and some other wikipedian later gets hold of the book, and notices it doesn't say what is claimed, that reference would be rightfully removed. Even though "original research" has happened. It's the exact same with these synth-settings. If some other wikipedian doubts the information, he/she can get such a synth, and try the settings, and then rightfully remove the information. I'm worried that "No original research", and "needs citation" arguments are being wrongfully used as instruments of power in wikipedia. Like this latest trend of removing obvious statements with the motivation "original research". Just my 2 cents. --Avl (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disarray[edit]

Why delete the reference to Disarray? They have one of the most popular covers for Tom Sawyer...LedRush (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion above? Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Ending Live[edit]

Is it worth mentioning the alternate ending they've been playing when performing live? The ending has a segment out of Cygnus X-1, am I right? Gpia7r (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it is, provided you can source it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On this same note, why is the Rock Band version of Tom Sawyer longer than the version in Moving Pictures? The Rock Band is supposedly from Moving Pictures, and has a fuller ending, that is more similar to the one they play live. I notice the radio and the CD versions always fade out early, is there a place to find the "fuller" version? 216.136.4.136 (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They spliced the riff section right before the solo and placed it at the end. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Spirit of Radio" not breakthrough song[edit]

Removed the statement "...as the follow-up to their breakthrough hit "The Spirit of Radio." from the article. It was most definitely not their breakthrough, although it is their highest charting single at #8 in the US.

Based on record sales, arguably, "Hemispheres" was the album with which they first cracked into the big time. However, some would plumb for 2112. Either way, it was not "Spirit of Radio" which put them on the map.

PainMan (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number 1 Song To Play Arcade Games To, by Nintendo Power[edit]

Alright, so I see there was a big argument over this song and trivia. I am not sure why, and I'm not here to stir up any bad memories. But, I would like to point out that many of Tom Sawyer's appearances in popular media stem from that ranking. Off the top of my head, both Futurama and Chuck's appearance was based on video games, and based on Nintendo Power's award to it. So, it would seem to be important to at least include this notion in the the trivia for the song. But it's Wikipedia and I know what kind of editor wars can occur, so I'm just gonna throw this one out there and hope someone bites, instead of biting my head off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.67.27 (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archer episode not relevant[edit]

In the cited episode of Archer, Krieger is attempting to learn the drum solo from YYZ. Any Rush fan worth his salt knows that "the drum solo from rush" is a non sequitur. This tidbit has nothing to do with this song and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.213.128.251 (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales[edit]

Is it relevant that Jimmy Wales chose this song as one of his eight on Desert Island Disks http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05vstzl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.97.26 (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits[edit]

I would like Tom Sawyer's inclusion in the Ready Player One trailer as well as some other notable uses of the song in popular media (e.g. Futurama) to be added to the article. The "other uses" section should be brought back as this song is often used in popular media as a reference to 80's nostalgia or Rush nostalgia.

I would also like to add that Geddy Lee used a Fender Jazz Bass on this song instead of his usual Rickenbacker. This fact is very notable because it signifies Geddy Lee's abandonment of Rickenbackers in a large majority of Rush's later work (transitioning to Fenders and Wals).— Preceding unsigned comment added by SomePersona (talk • contribs) July 24, 2017 (UTC)

An indiscriminate list of a song's uses in popular culture is not encyclopedic. Imagine how long (and pointless) a similar list would be at "Happy Birthday". (Please see WP:IPC and WP:NOT.)
If there is some significance to Lee's choice of guitars on this song, you will need to find independent reliable sources discussing that significance. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Happy Birthday" is not known for being feautured in other films. Tom Sawyer, as well as some other songs (e.g. Bohemian Rhapsody in Suicide Squad trailer and Wayne's World, The Seeker in the Batman v Superman trailer as well as other media), are less known than Happy Birthday, and therefore, the songs I have placed in parentheses have articles containing this information. Even the Shake It Off (Taylor Swift song) article tells you that the song was used in the Norm of the North trailer.

Synonyms for "encyclopedic" include "complete," "thorough," and "in-depth." Not including this section in the article would go against all of those. Including an IPC section in the Happy Birthday article would not make sense as Happy Birthday is a commonly used song; Tom Sawyer is not, and when it is used in popular culture, it is usually directed towards 80's nostalgia or the watching Rush fan, topics that are much more specific than someone's birthday.

WP:IPC specifically justifies IPC sections and says that they must contain "bona fide cultural references." There are bona fire cultural references to Tom Sawyer, so therefore, I believe this section should be included.

As for Geddy's Fenders, I can find sources for those, which I will later add to this talk page.

Thanks for the feedback. SomePersona (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SomePersona: Agree with SummerPhDv2.0 this is all MOS:POPCULT in particular Unfortunately, these sections are frequently just lists of appearances and mentions, many of them unencyclopedically trivial - FlightTime (open channel) 15:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Encyclopedic" does not mean everything.
A song being used in a movie is not a "cultural reference" to the song, it is a use of the song. "Happy Birthday" has been used in thousands of movies and TV shows. We shouldn't list all of them, nor should we indiscriminately pick and choose which to list based on our opinions of what it might be referring to or who it might be directed to.
A rule of thumb I have found to be useful is coverage: If independent reliable sources about the song discuss (not mention) its use, you might have something worth including.
Take, for example, Richard Nixon. He is referred to in countless films, album titles, rock songs, operas, skit comedy shows, talk show monologues, disembodied-heads-in-jars shows, knock knock jokes and riddles. A complete list would be exceptionally long and completely pointless. Richard Nixon doesn't list any of them.
Gerald Ford, OTOH, discusses a skit on SNL, but not his disembodied head. The difference is telling: Those SNL skits are discussed by CBS, MSNBC, The Independent, the New York Times and other articles writing about Ford's failed re-election run.
While I'm reluctant to say that what another article does is a reasonable guideline for what to do in another article (what makes us think the other article is right?), the Nixon/Ford difference is fairly sharp. Additionally, you point to "Bohemian Rhapsody" in Wayne's World. Note the sourcing there. In addition to the film's use earning the song an MTV award, bringing the song back to the charts and being otherwise cited, one of the sources is Queen's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction, which -- in line with WP:IPC -- discusses the song's impact on pop culture, rather than merely mentioning it: "Over the years, Queen songs have become pop culture touchstones. "Bohemian Rhapsody" was used for a pivotal scene during Wayne's World, which helped the song re-enter the U.S. singles charts and peak at No. 2 in 1992..." Rush's induction has nothing similar for "Tom Sawyer".
"When properly written, such sections can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias. They should be verifiable and should contain facts of genuine interest to the reader. Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article, provided that the content is properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines, such as neutral point of view, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not. When poorly written or poorly maintained, however, these sections can devolve into indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft. They should be carefully maintained, as they may attract trivial entries, especially if they are in list format." WP:IPC
You are proposing an indiscriminate list of uses in pop culture. Yes, it was in the film. However, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia"(WP:Indiscriminate), rather than a sourced discussion of the song's impact. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, listing every use of the song is silly, so why don't I instead propose adding a legacy section to the article, stating that the song has been played live on every Rush tour since its release, mention a few people that have covered it (e.g. Foo Fighters, Imagine Dragons), and discuss its cultural impact with only a few examples (probably very notable references that cater to 80's nostalgia; I would probably mention its use in Futurama and its use in a Comic-Con trailer for Ready Player One, a film with a plot that includes lots of cultural nostalgia, and that's it). I think it is at least important to include this song's impact considering that it's probably Rush's most famous song. SomePersona (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original research is a likely problem here. Do you have reliable sources discussing the song's legacy/cultural impact? - SummerPhDv2.0 18:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would simply say Tom Sawyer has been featured in many films such as Halloween, TV shows such as Family Guy and Futurama, and trailers such as the Ready Player One trailer. It is not a long and pointless list and gets to the point that Tom Sawyer is featured in a lot of media. I have now also found two biographies of Rush that talk about the cultural impact of Tom Sawyer, so I can use both of those as sources.

SomePersona (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the first part is the same indiscriminate list, rewritten. "Happy Birthday" has been featured in many films such as Logan, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Batman Begins, Leon: The Professional, Full Metal Jacket, Furious 7, The Grand Budapest Hotel, District 9, Blow, The Road Warrior, Notting Hill, Wall Street. Milk, Clear and Present Danger... It's featured in a lot of media. So are "God Bless America", "Amazing Grace", "Traveling Riverside Blues", "Come on Eileen" and a bunch of other songs. The point is synthesis.
If you have something in other sources, a cite and quotes would be helpful. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Experiencing Rush: A Listener's Companion" by Durrell Bowman, a public music historian and musicologist, specifically dedicates an entire three paragraphs (pages 57 to 58) to discussing Tom Sawyer's cultural impact. SomePersona (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Rush and Philosophy: Heart and Mind United" by Jim Berti and Durrell Bowman dedicates a section of the book (page 35) to tribute versions of The Spirit of Radio and Tom Sawyer. SomePersona (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Rush - Updated Edition: The Unofficial Illustrated History" by Martin Popoff has a paragraph (page 71) discussing the song's cultural impact. SomePersona (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Rush: The Illustrated History," an earlier edition that I have on my iPad (so I can't give the page numbers) discusses multiple cultural references to Tom Sawyer. SomePersona (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let us look at some of the trailers from Comic-Con just released to the public 1-2 days ago and the songs they used to see if the trailers' uses of the songs are featured on Wikipedia.

The Thor: Ragnarok trailer uses a song called "In the Face of Evil" by Magic Sword. The song does not have an article, but the band does, and in the history section of that article, it is noted that In the Face of Evil was used in the Thor: Ragnarok trailer.

The Star Trek: Discovery trailer uses the song "I'd Love to Change the World" by Ten Years After. Inside the article is a long list of cover versions of the song, including the cover used for the trailer (it does not the say the artist).

The Walking Dead trailer uses the song "Prisoner's Song" by Dropkick Murphys. In the main section of the article for Signed and Sealed in Blood, the album that this song is from, it mentions the song's use in the trailer.

The Stranger Things trailer uses "Thriller" by Michael Jackson. The Thriller article has a section dedicated to the song's appearances in other media, including its mere use in a trailer for Stranger Things.

Let's finish with the Ready Player One trailer. It uses two songs: "Pure Imagination" from Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory and "Tom Sawyer" by Rush. The first song is merely suggested through orchestra, and the second song is used much more thoroughly in the final, action-packed section of the trailer. Now let's take a look at both of those articles. The article for Pure Imagination not only includes this use in the trailer, but the section dedicated to noting its uses in popular culture (titled "Adaptations") is the longest section in the article.

And in the Tom Sawyer article, not only will you not find its use in the trailer; you will find none of its uses in popular culture at all.

Remember that these trailers have only been out for a few days, and already, their use of songs has been documented on Wikipedia.

If including Tom Sawyer's use in a trailer is still incorrect, then all of the songs I have listed above should have their articles cleared for mere uses in trailers (and the IPC content that is in some of the song's articles should be removed).

SomePersona (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, there are millions of other articles on Wikipedia. A few of them are nearly perfect, standing as shining examples of all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Some are such irredeemable disasters that we should probably delete them and start over. Most are somewhere in between.
Yes, if you pick an article at random, particularly one popping back into the public's attention, you'll find some recent additions that perhaps shouldn't be there. You might, for example, find trivial mentions of a recent film's advertisement using a song that few people will remember (and fewer still care about) in 10 short years. Copying what other articles do makes the project more consistent, not better. Do any of those articles have typos, unsourced claims about living people or internally conflicting facts? If so, should we work to do the same thing here?
Maybe we should clean up a few of the problems, rather than copying them. I'd assume you would agree that there is no point in including random cover versions by non-notable bands, right? How about barely coherent sentence fragments? We certainly don't want to mimic "Song intro of movie Our Brand Is Crisis (2015)".[2] In fact, we don't want to include entire sections that conflict with our style guides.[3] We shouldn't include our own interpretation of the song,[4], use blogs[5] and internet forums[6] as sources, skip obvious sources for important facts,[7][8] make basic grammatical errors,[9] or guess about hundreds of critics based on a sample of two.[10]
Instead of incorporating the mistakes of other articles in this one, we should base our editing on Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and style guide.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no objective reason for including the specific examples you selected. If there is a reason to include a complete list (such as in a list of the mayors of a town), we do so. In no case should we build an indiscriminate list of examples we've selected based on our own opinions.
We should be weary of the possibility that we are including recent material strictly because it is currently getting attention.
If a random selection of uses makes sense here (it doesn't), it would be equally relevant in other articles (such as "Happy Birthday"). If there is something meaningful in the song's use in various films, independent reliable sources will discuss that.
Yes, the song is in a trailer for a film. Ten years from now, the trivial nature of that will be very obvious. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tom Sawyer (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Synth part before guitar solo[edit]

I read recently that the six-note synth lick that precedes the guitar solo, then becoming the bass line under the solo and finally being doubled by the guitar at the end of the solo started out as something Geddy would absentmindedly play during sound checks. I've not a found a source for this online. Is that in a book or something? A radio interview? Daniel Case (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


well, where did you read it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.147.19.1 (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelic addition?[edit]

Does anyone else here get psychedelic vibes from this song? It certainly sounded like psychedelic music to me, so I was surprised when I first looked this up on Wikipedia and didn't see psychedelic rock listed as a genre. Moreover, I just watched the music video, and (especially in the beginning and the end) it felt pretty trippy. Who here thinks we should add psychedelic rock? 2601:C7:C201:C640:9DBD:9DB7:4081:BC78 (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Sawyer_(song)&oldid=1210734694"