Talk:Lullaby

Lilith

I believe that the origins of the word are affiliated with Lilith. This would make a good addition if true. -- Kizor 00:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

seems unlikely lullaby from "lull" which may have low germanic orgins but is unattested.Zeimusu | (Talk page)

I think it is quite impossible that lullaby could derive from Lilith. What happened to the Oxford English Dictionary for English etymologies? There it comes from "Lulla-" (a soothing prefix) and "by" (as in "bye-bye!"), and the earliest examples are flexible in their use of these parts. Hebrew words are quite rare as imports to English, and Lilith was hardly the chief demonic fear in England! I recommend a more accurate etymology! Davidtf (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Lilleth etymology removed Zeimusu | Talk page 08:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to turn this into a discussion board, but there appears to be credibility in the original poster's statement that "lullaby" was derived, in part, to origins of Lillith. I recently saw this on the History Channel. One of Lillith's legends calls he a succubus and a killer of small children. There was a word that expressed "lulla" prefix, as derived from Lillith losely and of course "-by" as in bye. The term was used in conjunction with some charms placed above the cradles of babies as a "Lillith-Begone" or Lullaby. 146.235.66.52 (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Berceuse

Merge from Berceuse The word Berceuse means "Lullaby", although in English it generally refers to the more classical lullabies with known authors. However Under the general rule - use common names in titles- These pages should be merged, and that is what I've done. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 08:41, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the move and merge. Both berceuse and lullaby are the common names; the words and usage are distinct.

The usage of lullaby is more general, and this form is found in the music of many cultures; a berceuse is more specifically an instrumental form, most often for piano, of European music of the 19th century (with a few later examples). Every music reference I own has them as separate entries and makes the distinction clear. Even the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica has them as separate entries. Also if you merge them together, berceuse will not show up in the category; you want someone browsing the categories to see, for example, all the forms used in 19th century piano writing all together. Antandrus (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Could an article on the lullaby be comprehensive without inclusion of berceuse? At the time of merging the two articles were both rather short. If you can establish clearly the distiction (especially with reference to the Brahms Lullaby), and expand the articles I'd be happy to help with a demerge. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 00:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

A berceuse is really a subtype of lullaby: a specific variant, adapted to instruments (usually the piano) and unique to European music of the 19th and 20th centuries (and derivatives thereof). I think the lullaby article could reference that, and have a "see also" section. This is basically how it is done in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (both the 20 volume 1980 edition and the online 2002-present site), the Oxford Companion to Music, the Harvard Dictionary of music, and the 1911 EB (I don't have a subscription to the current EB so I can't check there). Thanks! Antandrus (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You've convinced me on the principal - that the articles may be demerged. However I still think that both articles would need work. Berceuse was rather short and Lullaby is more a collection of anecdotes and lyrics. Can you extend them, especially Berceuse? In their current state a merged article (with redirect) is fairly friendly to readers and search engines, and so may encourage development.

Also, Thaalattu is a distict subtype of Lullaby, unique to Tamil music. This should also be extended and demerged do you know anything about this form? Zeimusu | (Talk page) 13:29, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

What it said about Eminem's adaptation reminded me of the South Park movie where the mother sings something like, "If that bird doesn't sing....mother's going to bury it in the backyard." That was after she had buried a lot of people that her son's goldfish (from an evil, parallell dimension...) had killed. Just wanted to mention it. :) 84.202.202.2 01:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Irish (Celtic)

an old favorite...

ords and music J.R. Shannon

Over in Killarney Many years ago, Me Mither sang a song to me In tones so sweet and low. Just a simple little ditty, In her good ould Irish way, And l'd give the world if she could sing That song to me this day.

"Too-ra-loo-ra-loo-ral, Too-ra-loo-ra-li, Too-ra-loo-ra-loo-ral, hush now, don't you cry! Too-ra-loo-ra-loo-ral, Too-ra-loo-ra-li, Too-ra-loo-ra-loo-ral, that's an Irish lullaby." Oft in dreams I wander To that cot again, I feel her arms a-huggin' me As when she held me then. And I hear her voice a -hummin' To me as in days of yore, When she used to rock me fast asleep Outside the cabin door.

Schulte123 (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Lullaby (music) → Lullaby — to revert recent undiscussed move. This is clearly the primary use of Lullaby. Over 250 links meant for here now point to a dab page. — Station1 (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support. Clearly the primary topic. Jafeluv (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose

The disambig should remain just plain "Lullaby", I can understand changing the title to something different such as "Lullaby (genre)" but it has to have an extra ( ) after "Lullaby", I was told (and correct me if I'm wrong) a disambiguation page should never have the word "disambiguation" in it's title.

I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The advice that a disambiguation page should never have the word "disambiguation" in it's title is completely erroneous. There are numerous disambiguation pages so titled. Please read WP:Disambiguation and WP:MOSDAB for current practices regarding disambiguation pages. In particular, see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. older ≠ wiser 14:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A disambiguation can (and a lot of them do) end with "(disambiguation)". It's stated in the disambiguation guideline. So the proper name for the disambiguation page on "Lullaby" is either ¹⁾ Lullaby (disambiguation) if the term has a primary topic (like here), or ²⁾ Lullaby, if there's no primary topic. Jafeluv (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the confusion was caused by this (actually very good) piece of advice: "In no case should a disambiguation page include "(disambiguation)" in the title and have the term being disambiguated redirect to the disambiguation page." This is correct; if "Lullaby", for example, redirects to a disambiguation page, the disambiguation page should not be titled "Lullaby (disambiguation)", but simply use the title "Lullaby" by itself. However, if "Lullaby" does not redirect to the disambiguation page, the disambiguation page should be called "Lullaby (disambiguation)" and the most common use (aka primary topic) of the word should have the title "Lullaby". I hope this helps. Jafeluv (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I've reverted this undiscussed move as there does appear to be a primary topic and the move left quite a lot of mistaken links in its wake. If there is an objection to this being the primary topic, please propose the move. older ≠ wiser 14:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Mexico

That lullaby from Mexico was listed under de "central - South America" section. But I moved it to the "North America" section since Mexico is part of North America and not central/south. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.50.186.226 (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Argentina

Somehow, Argentina ended in North America, when it actually belongs to South America, i've moved it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.68.106.121 (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Where is Mozart's lullaby?

Did I miss anything here? I found that in the whole article the famous "Mozart's lullaby" ("Sleep little one, go to sleep...") is not mentioned even once! Why is it so? Trikita (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean "Schlafe, mein Prinzchen, schlaf ein"? That's not by Mozart but by Bernhard Flies or by Friedrich Fleischmann; and it is indeed listed in the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup: Multiple issues

Additional citations

Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The reference in the first paragraph doesn't seem to satisfy the requirement of reliable sources. The list of Czech, Danish and Dutch lullabies are unsourced (and unhelpful in an English encyclopedia). However, once the example farm has been reduced, most of the citation deficiencies will probably disappear. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

External links

Why and where does this article contain external links that may not follow Wikipedia's guidelines and in what way may they not do so? What should be done about it? Hyacinth (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Do we really need external links for "Traditional music from County of Nice (France)", a generic link to RowyNet's collection of free scores, a YouTube clip of an Afghani lullaby. a dead link to "Lullaby Sonnets", a vaguely related poem, an article about an obscure Russian cartoon designer with the video clip removed, a link to two commercial sites selling toys, tunes, CDs? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Example farm

Why and where does this article contain excessive examples? What should be done about it? Hyacinth (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The lists of Indian, Sria Lankan, Indonesian, French, German and other languages without a link to a single article about a lullaby are singularly unhelpful. Examples in non-latin scripts are unnecessary. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

International lullabies section

Why do we need an International section? International as opposed to what? US lullabies? English language lullabies? It is not clear what should be included under that section and what should be elsewhere. I'd suggest the section be renamed Lullabies by country'. What do you think? Head-it-behind (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose "international" here means "non-English". I previously culled that section heavily (here and here), and naming it "Lullabies by country" might invite further dubious additions. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

But it specifically includes English lullabies? Head-it-behind (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

One solution might be to delete the International heading completely and promote its sub headings. Head-it-behind (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That seems indeed a sensible solution. Among other things, the native-language terms for Czech and Danish lullabies might also be removed on that occasion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

removed from the heading? Or from the entire text? Sorry, I don't quite get you. Head-it-behind (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not clear. I meant that the bracketed words "Ukolébavky" and "vuggeviser" should be removed from the section headings. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I thought so. Just wasn't certain. I've done that. Are we happy? Head-it-behind (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Please simplify

I doubt if any new mothers looking for some information on lullabies will have time to look up "pitch tonalities", etc. Perhaps someone could make this a little more user-friendly for the general reader who may not have studied the sociology of music, or tonal perception. Infant-directed", "infant-mother dyads", and "increasing altriciality" reads like someone's college term paper. Plain English please. Perhaps the more anthropological sections would be better served under some aspect of the History of Music. Mannanan51 (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lullaby. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004070706/http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandssongs/about/songs/lullabiesdandlings/index.asp to http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandssongs/about/songs/lullabiesdandlings/index.asp

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) 00:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)