Talk:Waltzing Matilda

Hi! Yeah, it's nice that someone made a midi version of the song, but the mechanical nature of the piece kind of neuters Waltzing Matilda. It really should sound like a bush bum with a banjo sitting by a campfire belting out an old ballad/almost shanty/folksong.

 Surely somebody somewhere with a loud voice, (a banjo) and a microphone attached to a laptop can belt out a rendition of this song and release it into the public domain!

Officially recognised?

officially recognised "National Song" . This sounds like a statement of fact. Is this verified anywhere? Graham Chapman — Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 25 February 2002 (UTC)

Of course it's not... but it IS one of the most widely recognised songs in the world :) btw, why can't the lyrics be quoted? Banjo Patterson wrote the darned thing, and he died almost a hundred years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karen Johnson (talk • contribs) 00:05, 17 September 2002 (UTC)

Full text

I've put the full text of Waltzing Matilda into the article. I can't see why the lyrics can't be quoted, it says right there in the article that no copyright has ever applied on it. I also fixed the "national song" - it's a folk song, and has no official status, despite its popularity. I also reworded the final words of the first paragraph, to remove ambiguity and highlight the fact that Advance Australia Fair is actually the current National Anthem. - User:Mark Ryan — Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 5 December 2002 (UTC)

What does it mean?

An explanation is needed of the meaning of "waltzing Matilda" -- Error — Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 25 June 2003 (UTC)

Essentially, it means carryng a swag or bag. I think the term's of German origin. Arno 07:48 25 June 2003 (UTC)

Talking of German origin: Walz means the medieval to 19th C costum of craftsman working their way through the world for a few years before finally settling down, after they had finished their apprenteinceship (sorry if I got it misspelt). immanently, people who were "auf der Walz" (on Waltz) where pennyless travellers. I guess there never was such a tradition in the Anglo-Saxon countries, but it was quite strong all over Central Europe. User:Jakob Stevo — Preceding undated comment added 11:25, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Who was the swagman?

I seem to remember reading years ago that Waltzing Maitlda was based on a historical event involving a swag man called, possibly, Frederick Hofstetter. Can anyone confirm this confidently enough to put it into the article? Ping 08:29 25 June 2003 (UTC)

Really? I thought that his name was Andy - "Andy sat, as he watched , as he waited till his billy boiled..."

Seriously, though, he was fictitious. Arno 08:31 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

So who was Frederick Hofstetter? Middle name Andy maybe? Ping 08:35 25 June 2003 (UTC)

Tom Waits interpretation

Don't you think it's worth mentioning that Tom Waits did an interpretation of the song which was probably the first time people outside Anglo-Saxon world (like myself) got to hear it, and which I still think is a great piece of music? User:Jakob Stevo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.199.129.118 (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

I think so. I will add it to the article. CyborgTosser 03:55, 15 June 2004 (UTC)

The Tom Waits song, 'Tom Traubert's Blues (Four Sheets To The Wind In Copenhagen)', is more of an 'inspired by' than a strict cover; it combines the chorus of WM with a lot of original material. See lyrics here' for some idea of its nature. I've clarified the entry accordingly.--Calair 00:09, 23 August 2004 (UTC)

Not such a good national anthem

Not being from an English-speaking country, I have never heard "Waltzing Matilda" performed. In fact, before reading this article I didn't even know it existed. I read the lyrics though, and although I have no idea of how it sounds when set to music, it appeared to me that it would not make such a good national anthem. I mean, I'm sure the song must be beautiful, but I really do think that "Advance Australia Fair" was indeed the better choice — how nice it is to hear a national anthem that doesn't allude to war, death or vengeance, Australians are to be commended for chosing that song! Redux 23:16, 17 August 2004 (UTC)

The original version actually did contain mention of war, along with a couple of other things not often sung today. See Advance Australia Fair for the unexpurgated version. --Calair 00:09, 23 August 2004 (UTC)

"nice it is to hear a national anthem that doesn't allude to war, death or vengeance"

Yeah it's about theft and suicide instead. Attriti0n 08:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason “Advance Australia Fair” makes a far superior national anthem is that “waltzing Matilda“, although a better song, is nothing like an anthem—that is, a HYMN,—at all. War, death, vengeance, theft, and suicide are all completely beside the point. TheScotch (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Explanation of removal

Removed the following section:

On Channel 7 on Saturday, 31 December 2005 at 11:55PM, Waltzing Matilda was sung with a slight modification of the words. Rather than saying 'once a jolly swagman camped by a billabong', the words jolly and Chinese were changed, hence 'once a Chinese swagman camped by a billabong'. The song was sung by a white Australian and intentions have not yet been understood, whether it was accidental, or to build links between China and Australia, as Australia did integrate Chinese lion-dancing in their 2005 end-of-year festival in Melbourne.

I'm not sure this is terribly significant. --Robert Merkel 05:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Richard Magoffin

An obituary of Richard Magoffin in The Times has some interesting details.[1] His books sound like decent sources for pinning this article down a little. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Matilda no more

What about Matilda no more, which is a song sung by Slim Dusty? I believe like "And the band played Waltzing Matilda", it deserves a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.1.178 (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

To be sure - why don't you include it? Slac speak up! 23:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Australia's most widely known song?

The article begins, "Waltzing Matilda" is Australia's most widely known song. Is there any evidence for that claim? I propose rewording that sentence, e.g. by inserting the word possibly. Rocksong 00:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A Waltzing Matilda reference in a Terry Pratchett work.

Is the following extract from The Last Continent by Terry Pratchett worthy of a mention under the 'Covers and derivative works' section? It can be found at the beginning of a section approximately three-fifths of the way through the book (page 248 of the Corgi paperback edition ISBN 0-552-14614-5).

"Once a moderately jolly wizard camped by a dried-up waterhole under the shade of a tree that he was completely unable to identify. And he swore as he hacked and hacked at a can of beer, saying, 'What kind of idiots put beer in tins?'"

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.246.2.148 (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics

I'm sure the lyrics on the page at the moment are wrong ("SAT by a billalong"??), but finding correct official lyrics is proving difficult. The National Library of Australia site http://www.nla.gov.au/epubs/waltzingmatilda/2-Vers-Changing_character.html provides a lyrics download [2], but then the ANU site has the modern lyrics here http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/WM/WMText.html , and even these two differ in at least six places:

• 1. NLA has "shoved that jumbuck", ANU has "stuffed that jumbuck" (I think NLA is right);
• 2. NLA has "down came the troopers", ANU has "up rode the troopers" (I think NLA is right);
• 3. NLA has "whose that jumbuck", ANU has "Where's that jolly jumbuck" (I think ANU is right);
• 4. NLA has "you've got in the tuckerbag", ANU has "you've got in your tuckerbag" (I think ANU is right);
• 5. NLA has "sprang into the billabong", ANU has "sprang into that billabong" (not sure);
• 6. NLA has "you'll never catch me alive", ANU has "you'll never take me alive" (I think NLA is right).

Anyway, if anyone can find an authoritative source of the lyrics, it'd be helpful. Rocksong 11:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have discovered like many folk songs the variations of lyrics seem to be mutliplying. I haven't tried to change the lyrics as written here, becaseu all I could do is teh very POV act of changing them to the way I sing the song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just nigel (talk • contribs) 00:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Instead of trying to put down definitive original lyrics and getting it wrong, perhaps the article can reflect the uncertainty - I think User:Rocksong's post, edited and tightened a bit, would be an excellent addition to the article. - DavidWBrooks 19:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

So where do the "original Banjo Patterson" lyrics come from, does anyone know? - DavidWBrooks 15:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree that the article could reflect uncertainty until certainty is established. I tend to agree with user Rocksong, except perhaps on the first and third points. The third point because, on the face of it, it doesn't seem to make sense to say "Where is the jumbuck in your tuckerbag?" (seems to be answering one's own question) — although the "jolly" part does sound familiar, and I notice the article has a mixture of both....

Secondly, what's with the spelling of 'coolabah' using an 'i'??? Surely this is wrong?

DIV 128.250.204.118 00:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just updated the "versions" section with information from "Singer of the Bush", which includes a facsimile of what is purported to be the original manuscript. Can anybody find something earlier? Groogle 04:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Coolibah or Coolabah?

As IP address above mentions, the correct spelling is "coolabah". But it seems that Banjo Patterson didn't know that. The manuscript to which I refer isn't overly legible, but it definitely writes "coolibah". Groogle 04:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Song's Appeal

This entire section was added by User:Just nigel on 15-Nov. Though I'd agree with some of it, this section should cite a source, or be considered Wikipedia:Original Research and removed. Rocksong 04:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually came here to point out what he wrote is accurate and needs no source. You can't really find a source to support the claim that Australian's like the historical terms and that nobody else knows what the hell these mean. Just take our word for it ? Attriti0n 09:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The term "Waltzing Matilda"

I thought that "Waltzing Matilda" could mean "go travelling" or "be hung", and in several lines of the song it was referring to hanging (the sentence for stealing sheep), which is why the song is sung with a sad air. http://www.mamalisa.com/?p=53&t=es&c=19 Sad mouse 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was that it related to carrying the swag (which is the subtitle of the poem, in fact). And I don't see anything particularly sad about the melody, which isn't the original anyway. Groogle 04:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill Bryson in "Down Under" is of the opinion that 'Matilda' means 'bedroll' and 'waltzing' means 'waltzing', as in the dance, and concludes that it makes no sense. But I don't think it takes a lot of imagination to think of various activities which could be described as 'bedroll dancing'. Gives the song a hugely different meaning though. Dyakson (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

and a meaning that I suggest would be anachronistic, especially given the meanings more carefully considered research has determined. --Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle ^talk 02:16, 24 November 2007

It sounds almost good enough to be plausible. Sippawitz (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

regarding the german heritage of the term waltzing matilda: it is true what is written in the wikipedia article that waltzing describes the wandering of journeymen (see the link to auf der walz in the article). however, regarding the term matilda: in rotwelsh, the language spoken by wandergesellen as journeyman are called in german, "mathilda" means earth or land deriving from hebr./jiddish country = medine (see http://www.derbay.org/words/geography.html) so the rotwelsch term "waltzing mathilda" means nothing but wandering the earth. the vagabond 'language' rotwelsh thereby is a mixture of german with jiddisch and other languages. it doesn't have an own grammar but follows there german grammar. vocabulary however is exchanged to encrypt the content. i hope that helps... best, claudius (http://claudiusschulze.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.20.246.227 (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What are apparently the earliest reported uses of "Matilda" meaning swag & bluey (1889( and "waltzing matilda' (1890) were reported by Stephen Goranson to the American Dialect Society list here http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1101B&L=ADS-L&T=0&F=&S=&P=10540Coralapus (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Coralapus

I think that the term Waltzing Matilda simply refers to the action of swinging the swag onto your back, an action that is inherently waltz-like. The same action is required when swinging a heavy rucksack upon your back. To go Waltzing Matilda then simply means that you are ready to start your journey. User: Ian the Aussie 7 March 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.98.177 (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

"German soldiers commonly referred to their greatcoats as a 'matilda'" - is there any evidence of this? As a German civilian of today and an avid reader, I have never met the word 'matilda' for any kind of coat. Mbshu (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree and I have the paragraph removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Swagman = Hobo?

As an Australian I find the term "hobo" and it's connotations offensive. I believe that the term "swagman" is better defined as an itinerant and vagrant. Also, by using the term "hobo" analogically, one assumes an American only reader. With due respect to the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.66.32 (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I've removed it. Rocksong 23:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

When growing up in Australia I was taught that Waltzing Mathilda at the time was slang for hanging and that the swagman avoided "Waltzing Mathilda" by drowning himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.180.192.10 (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I heard that Waltzing Matilda meant hanging because when someone is hanged they kick their legs like they are dancing.Chuangzu (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

America the Book

Waltzing Matilda is mentioned (and made fun of) in the Austrailia section of America the Book. Do you think it's worth mentioning in the article? --Fez2005 06:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It could be included as a reference by non-Australian cultures, included with the Terry Pratchett quote above.Sippawitz (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Folk Song?

Waltzing Matilda isn't a folk song, as it was written by an established poet, Banjo Patterson. I was going to put this in the article, but i'm sure it would get reverted. Anyone have an opinion on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinny McGee (talk • contribs) 04:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's sung and regarded as a song, not a poem. Not sure what distinction you are referring to here.Attriti0n 08:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

references

this article is great but it's desperately in need of references... I'm sure there are many, if there is a museum on it? — Demong _talk 02:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

This bit needs attention: "The song was falsely copyrighted by an American publisher in 1941 as an original composition. However, no copyright applies in Australia." I'd fix it myself, but don't know how. It says the song was mis-appropriated by someone, and implies the copyright was honored in the U.S., but it doesn't say who did it, or give any details other than the year.This assertion definately needs citation at the very least, and hopefully a bit more detail. Could someone who knows the topic please address this? Or remove it, if it can't be verified? --Loqi T. 19:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There's discussion of this at Roger Clarke's Waltzing Matilda page referenced in the article (http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/WM/Copyright.html). The whole story is convoluted, but Carl Fischer New York Inc. claims copyright on the most popular arrangement of the tune (Marie Cowan's 1903 Sydney arrangement) until 2011. Oddly enough, Richard Magoffin (referred to on the above site) was able to register a copyright in the U.S. on the original arrangement of the tune (by Christina Macpherson, ca. 1895) in 1987! Presumably these copyrights could not withstand serious legal challenge, but also presumably no one has felt the inclination to make such a challenge. Mahousu (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Australia now follows America and Europe with a seventy not fifty year period from death for copyright So the 70 year period is not odd or abnormal, although different from the question of whether they should have got copyright anyway! Hugo999 (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Two tunes

Before I go adding what has been taken away before (as I've been known to do from time to time!), is there any reason that the article doesn't mention the existence of two separate tunes, depending on which part of Australia you live in?

To whit: Some parts the chorus says "Waltzing Matilda, Matilda my darling," whereas elswhere it is "Waltzing Matilda, Waltzing Matilda, who'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by SwordBrother777 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The "my darling" chorus is mentioned in the "Variations" section, although it implies that the version is no longer sung. If, indeed, it is common in parts of Australia, it would be great if mentioned there. - DavidWBrooks 15:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The "matilda my darling" chorus is sung to the quite different and (IMO) much more beautiful Queensland tune. The Queensland tune is known all over Australia although less sung, presumably because it is harder to belt out. The Queensland tune was given to Australian poet and folklorist John Manifold by one ""John O'Neill of Buderim, Queensland". (The Penguin Australian Somgboook,1964 (reprint 1977), page 175 Compiled by JS Manifold)/ It'd be good to ahve more info on this version. I don't if the history if any of the Queensland tune is known. -Jeremytrewindixon not signed in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.115.111.143 (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There are definitely two widely known versions with different tunes. The better-known version's first few notes descend in pairs; the Queensland version's tune starts with four notes of the same pitch before rising an octave. This is the better-known version; this is the Queensland version. Grutness...wha? 11:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Another Olympic Version

There's an Olympic version called "Goodbye Olympians" and it was sung at the closing ceremony of Melbourne Olympics 1956, does anybody have the lyrics of Goodbye Olympians? (JethroOlympiad (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC))

Hi, Jethro.

It's 2023, but I've just been led to this page by my Search engine. I have this week found among old inherited music pages, a piece of yellowed notepaper on which my grandmother recorded an 8-line lyric which she headed 'Waltzing Matilda', but which appears to be both a parody of the Chorus of this earlier song and also the words of the elusive 'Goodbye, Olympians'. She wrote:

Blessings attend you, fortune befriend you,

All good go with you over the sea.

May the song of our fathers, "Will ye no' come back again',

Ring in your heart thro' the years yet to be.

Come to Australia, back to Australia,

Mist on the hills and the sun breaking through;

With the sliprails down and the billy boiling merrily,

With (SHOULD APPARENTLY BE 'wide') open arms will be waiting for you.

My grandmother died in the 1960s, so was alive in 1956; however, she did not have a TV set so must have heard of this song via some other means.

(Corket) Corket (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Waltzing Matilda and the 1st Marine Division

As a former Marine of the 1st Mar Div and an Australian I challenge the statement that 'Waltzing Matilda' is an official march of the Division. As a participant in many Division parades I have never, ever heard the tune played.Foofbun (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have tagged for a citation. A possible source is http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/WM/ which has been cited elsewhere in the article. Note that this is not an endorsed ANU page but a personal page of a member of staff (These community service pages are a joint offering of the Australian National University (which provides the infrastructure), and Roger Clarke (who provides the content). + Visiting Professor, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology which probably does not make him an academic on this subject).

Clarke states:

I understand that the tune (without the words) is the marching song of the U.S. 1st Marine Division. In 2003, Col Pat Garrett USMC confirmed that it was/is played every morning immediately after The Marines Hymn ('From the Halls of Montezuma . . .') following the raising of the National colo(u)rs at 0800, and at Divisional parades. Further, "The Division was raised at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina in early 1941, and became associated with Waltzing Matilda when the Marines came to Melbourne in early 1943 for rest and refit following the successful retaking of Guadalcanal, and before it returned to combat at Cape Gloucester in New Britain in the Northern Solomons in September of that year"

--Matilda ^talk 22:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Another source is http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-6492.html which seems to be acolumn from the Bucks County Courier Times by Jerry Jonas. He states - Today in the greater Philadelphia area there are dozens of former 1st Division Marines who get together at monthly dinner meetings, and travel to national reunions to swap sea-stories and join their former buddies singing "Waltzing Matilda" (the Division's theme song since training in Australia in 1942).--Matilda ^talk 22:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This source seems pretty reliable and conclusive 1ST MARINE DIVISION CELEBRATES 65 YEARS published by US Fed News Service, Including US State News in February 2006 and states Major Gen. Richard F. Natonski and Sgt. Maj. Wayne R. Bell cut the ribbon to the "Waltzing Matilda," the 1st Marine Division's official song.]]--Matilda ^talk 22:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry to be pedantic Matilda, but I sometimes wonder if something put on Wikipedia becomes a fact that is quoted. I can well believe that when the 1st Marine Division was in Melbourne (camped at the MCG, in fact I've a theory the "Battle Blaze' (shoulder insignia) of the Division was inspired by the Victorian State Flag) the tune would be a popular one amongst the WW2 Gyrenes. As an MP based on Mainside of Camp Pendleton in the mid '80's one of our functions was participating in parades and I don't recall the tune being played (I could be wrong, but I would've noticed the tune being played and discovering it was an official march). I also wonder about your comment about the tune being played at the morning colours ceremony. When I was there (again, on Mainside where all the Generals roamed) Colours and Retreat were usually played by a tape recording that you turned and faced towards the flagpole , saluting if you were in uniform. On SOME Fridays where you wore blues the Division band may have played some tunes, but I do not recall this on a regular basis. I would appreciate some active USMC source commenting on the matter. Thank you again, I don't mean to sound like a crank. Foofbun (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I am still (last two days) having trouble accessing any of the dot mil web pages. This Google search shows several Marines web sites supporting the assertion. The best I can do at this stage is view the Google cached versions. For example cached version of 1st Marine Division Band: History of Waltzing Matilda at http://www.i-mef.usmc.mil/msc/1MARDIV/band/WMHistory.htm states:

    During the Second World War, the 1st Marine Division maintained a training base in Australia preparing for the island hopping campaigns. The Marines adopted the unofficial Australian National Anthem, Waltzing Matilda, as their own. Today, Waltzing Matilda is recognized as the official song of the 1st Marine Division, and is played at ceremonies and other military functions to honor those who have served in the Division.

    Regards --Matilda ^talk 20:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Boiling Billy Reference

With reference to the original poem as listed at http://kids.niehs.nih.gov/lyrics/matilda.htm and from some topical radio broadcasts from the ABC in Victoria, Australia, I believe that the reference to the boiling billy came AFTER the poem was used as a promo for Billy Tea. The original Banjo poem did not use a boiling billy. So although the promo "jingle" version is the one everyone associates with, the original only refers to billabongs...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.1.52.44 (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The citation for the song being picked up as an advertising jingle (and altered) in 1903 refers to a John Saffran article published in 2002. There are three problems with this. First, John Saffran is a comedian and renegade and whatever he says is not authoritative in any sense of the word. Secondly, Wikipedia defines a jingle as "a memorable short tune with a lyric broadcast used in radio and television commercials". So, did the Billy Tea company broadcast their "jingle" on radio or television, in 1903? And finally, the main article itself reproduces the original 1895 version, which does include the word "billy", in direct contrast to the assertion that the word "Billy" was added in 1903. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.193.242 (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Lyrics II

As with the discussion over at the Whiskey in the Jar article, I question whether the lyrics should be reproduced in this article. The policy WP:Do not include copies of primary sources indicates that they should not be, and, since they are available at Wikisource, why reproduce them here? Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not a waltz?

Has anyone ever recast the tune to 3/4 time? After all, shouldn't "Waltzing Matilda" be a waltz? Rammer (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It has been, and (IMO) it sounds horrible. "To waltz" in this context, means to hike, so 4/4 time is more appropriate. Grutness...wha? 11:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

what series of school music books was this book in?

i graduated in 04, and i remember getting these songbooks we sang from in 3rd and 4th grade with a wide array of interesting songs, this being one of them

anyone know anything about htese? Murakumo-Elite (talk) 08:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

original score

I suppose it's meant to be in E♭ major (the flat signs are a bit off), but what's with the rhythm? If you take the note values literally it's very uneven. Is it supposed to be in 4/4 and the notation is unorthodox, or what?--87.162.10.146 (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a transcription of the Macpherson version which is more in line with the requirements of standard music notation at Waltzing Matilda the musical – Christina MacPherson. The first two lines of the chorus (starting at bar 9 to the words "Who'll come a waltzin' Matilda my darling, // Who'll come a waltzin' Matilda with me?") are meant in 3/4 time but not notated that way here. A more familiar version of the melody and score can be found at SibeliusMusic.com (requires Scorch plugin). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's not a Waltz

I've removed the statement that "Despite the title, it isn't a waltz; the song is played in ⁴
₄ time" for the following reasons:

1) It's silly. Of course it's not a waltz, it's a poem/folk song. Says so right there in the introductory sentence. The Wikipedia article it links to states quite plainly that a waltz is a dance.

2) There is nothing in the song title that would lead any sane person to believe that the poem is a waltz, so the factoid isn't true "despite the title", it is perfectly consistent with the title. The poem isn't titled "The Matilda Waltz" or something else that might conceivably lead someone to conclude that it is a waltz. Adding a claim that a poem isn't a waltz because it contains the letters "waltz" in the title is every bit as absurd as adding a disclaimer to A Dance to the Music of Time to say that it is a novel and not an actual dance or to Star Spangled Banner to point out that it is a song and not an actual banner. Nobody is their right mind would believe that the poem is a dance or even piece of music to be danced to. Which leads to...

3) It's original research. Nothing in the linked webpage mentions that it isn't a waltz. We all agree that it isn't a waltz, just as we agree that Star Spangled Banner isn't a banner. But the fact that somebody combined material from that source which tells us what the music of "Waltzing Matilda" is with other sources that tell us what a waltz isn't doesn't allow them to add in a conclusion that isn't not explicitly stated by either of the sources. This may seem like nitpickery, but it's not. If nobody in the entire world has thought to note the fact that "Star Spangled Banner" is a song and not an actual banner, that's a damn good indication that it's not a mistake that anybody has ever made.

4) Such an unlikely point of confusion certainly does not belong in an article lead, if it belongs in the article at all.

There are plenty of other reasons why this addition is absurd, but we'll start with these. Quite frankly, if someone can show any evidence that anybody in the history of the world has thought that "Waltzing Matilda" was a waltz, I'd be more open to allowing the addition. But as it stands it really is as ridiculous as clarifying that "A Dance to the Music of Time" is not a dance.Mark Marathon (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was a waltz. I'm not sure why you're freaking out about this - it's a useful bit of information that doesn't distract or dilute the rest of the article. I'll replace it lower down. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, David.

I agree with you. I believe I have heard 'W.M.' played as a waltz - not in 3:4 but in 6:8 time. A pianist could play it that way if her companions wanted to dance - and waltzing was VERY in vogue at the time the piece was first developing. On the other hand, a military band would probably prefer it in 4:4 time and would march to it as they played. A vocalist, as a third example, could probably belt out the tune really strongly if he/she applied a 2:4 beat!

- Corket Corket (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Do not revert this until you address the issues raised above. Mark Marathon (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I have addressed it: I thought it was a waltz, which is "evidence that anybody in the history of the world" thought it was a waltz. It's not ridiculous, it's legitimate, and it's in a perfectly fine location - not obtrusive, not in the lead (as you wished). As I said, it's an interesting useful piece of information, regardless of whether you like it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

While I sympathize with your desire to have the information included David, you're not addressing what I believe to be Mark's strongest concern, which is that the material is OR and consequently inappropriate for inclusion. Also, without meaning to sound callous, that one reader thought the song was a waltz doesn't make the fact that it isn't a waltz notable. A third-party source establishing that many people have mistakenly believed the song to be a waltz would be a stronger case for inclusion. Doniago (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, all right - grumble, grumble, grumble. I'll admit I can't find any reputable source that thinks it's a waltz. If I do, I'll return. I was probably reacting at least as much to editor tone as content, which is never a good idea. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem! Doniago (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I found this talk page by googling for a discussion on whether anybody thought it odd the song hadn’t been written in three/four time. But coming here all I find is what I’d describe as a petulant little rant (oops ORIGINAL RESEARCH!! I am utterly sorry at having offended!!) Look first you write the “poem” isn’t called “The Matilda Waltz” and then you write “The Star Spangled Banner” obviously isn’t a banner. By that logic, even if it WAS called “The Matilda Waltz” it still would be OR to point out it wasn’t a waltz. And a waltz is a dance not a song?? Boy, the wiki police are really restless. Roricka (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Good writers fuss over small points. God is in the details.TheScotch (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Do we really need to make an index to show that most songs that have the word "Jazz" in the title ARE jazz pieces, and that most songs with titles that have the phrases "Rock and Roll" or "Rock n Roll", or the single word "Rock" in a non-geological context, ARE rock songs? Do we need to treat it as exceptional that songs that have the phrase "One Note" in the title lean heavily on a single note? And that "Bugler's Holiday" is a piece for trumpets (imitating bugles) with other pieces accompanying? The objective and encyclopedic FACT is that it IS noteworthy when a song whose title makes it ABOUT music is NOT the kind of music that the title suggests it will be ABOUT. The opposite is ALMOST always true, with exceptions rare enough to make any exception worth mentioning.

If "Foxtrottin' Harry" is NOT a foxtrot, that fact WILL be in the Wikipedia article on "Foxtrottin' Harry", even though someone might argue until blue in the face "Why do we need to say that when the title doesn't imply that this is a foxtrot in the first place, but, rather, merely promises a song ABOUT a foxtrotter". What's the count of songs called "The Yodellin' [Noun]" that have no yodelling in them? "Tennessee Waltz" COULD be, in some parallel universe, a song in 4/4 that is ABOUT a kind of waltz in Tennessee. But it isn't. It IS written in waltz meter. And if it WEREN'T a waltz, it is true that that would not contradict the title, because the title isn't "This Song Is Promised To Be A Waltz And To Have Some Connection To Tennessee" but is just "Tennessee Waltz". (The woman was torn between two Tennessee boyfriends both named Walt?) But if it WERE true that "Tennessee Waltz" isn't a waltz, and someone put in the article on "Tennessee Waltz" "this song, despite the title, is not a waltz", then I think anyone who put on the Talk-Page "we should delete that, because the title implies only that the song is ABOUT a waltz, not that the song IS a waltz" would be laughed out of court.

The alternative is to accept as noteworthy the songs whose titles MATCH the song and add text such as "Astonishingly, 'Topeka Boogie-Woogie' is built on a boogie-woogie line, despite the tendency of songs to only rarely be in the genre of music mentioned in the title. But this is that exceptional song that IS in Boogie-Woogie, as opposed to being a minuet ABOUT Topeka Boogie-Woogie." I don't think it should EVER be deleted when something about a song (meter, range of notes, genre) does not agree with the TITLE of the song but is, rather, something else. This article's subject's title says it's a song about Waltzing Matilda. If she IS Waltzing, she's NOT waltzing to THIS song, and that is noteworthy and should be in this article. (You can point out that the song isn't about waltz-music or anyone named Matilcda, but those facts, given that they contradict the song's title, are noteworthy, just as "Pop Goes The Weasel"'s utter disconnection from exploding mustelid mammals is noteworthy.)2600:8804:8C40:401:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Fair points...but we still need sources that discuss this, if for no other reason than to establish that it's considered significant in some manner. DonIago (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The Pogues

The Irish folk band The Pogues have a version of this song...Youtube video HERE. It was released on the album "RUM, SODOMY AND THE LASH" in 1985. I don't know if this is a cover of another song, but it would be worth looking into, since (In my opinion), they are a very influential band. Kevinmo1 (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Whence the melody?

What is the provenance of the usual melody? Odd question, I know, just thought I'd ask. It should be mentioned in the intro, thanks.CountMacula (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit complicated and mentioned in the first section, "History of the song". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Then that should be stated in the intro.CountMacula (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why I wrote "It's a bit complicated"; it doesn't lend itself to a concise wording in the lead. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

"Song" refers to lyrics. I am talking about the melody.CountMacula (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm counting 5 occurrences of "tune" and "play[ed]" in the section Waltzing Matilda#Writing of the song, 3 "band", 4 "music", 1 "composing"/"composed" each, and 1 "melody". That section seems to explain the origin of the tune quite comprehensively. But, this is Wikipedia and you should improve its shortcomings. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

"Australian English style"

I have reverted the reversion of my recent edits to the article. I have done so in principle as my edits were reverted based on an erroneous assertion that they were somehow contrary to "Australian English style". If there is anything in my edits that is arguably not in common and contemporary Australian English then start a discussion instead of reverting everything. This is not acceptable and, apart from anything else, indicates an ownership mentality towards the article as described at WP:OWN. Afterwriting (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy with the version as it stands. If I were to change anything it might be replacing "at Dagworth" with "in Dagworth", but I look on that as being a question of style rather than "correctness" and hence wouldn't bother. I haven't studied the whole piece closely but from my quick reading it fits into contemporary "Australian English" well enough. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Lets start with a couple of points and take it from there:

1) In Australian English, nobody would refer to an event happening "in" a sheep station. There was movement at the station, not in the station. Google news search returns >13, 000 hits for "at * sheep station". It returns six for "in * sheep station" and 5 of those are "invested in * sheep station", "located in bushland at * sheep station" and so forth". There is a single usage of "in * sheep station" appearing in Australian newspapers in the past 20 years, and that's a quote, not a journalist writing. The same applies to "at * cattle station" vs "in * cattle station". As far as Australian English style, this one is settled unless you have some compelling evidence of Australians ever using "in a station".

2) "Lyrics" is plural, not singular. Therefore it is completely incorrect in Australian (and most other) English to say "The lyrics were were written in 1895 and it was first published"

3) Mathilda the kangaroo is anthropomorphic. Therefore in Australian English the correct article is "who" not "it". This is the aerticle that appears in all the newspapers that I can find. eg "the 13 metre high kangaroo who helped". Although I admit this is open to discussion, it is not necessary to alter it against status quo.

4)Capitalising the definite article in band names violates WP:THECAPS

I could keep going in in a similar manner for almost all of the additions. They are all simply wrong, in violation of Wikipedia policies and not supported by WP:STATUSQUO. Please respect WP:BRD discuss these and your other changes on this talk page before reverting. Thank you. Mark Marathon (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is is that you are not respecting BRD. You are simply attempting to exercise your ownership over the article and mass reverting edits based on an appeal to status quo and your questionable understanding of what is "Australian English". Please provide any evidence that any of my edits are not "Australian English". Unless you can then I will continue to edit the article in ways that I consider appropriate improvements whether you like it or not. Afterwriting (talk) 07:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, had you bothered to actually look at my edits properly instead of just reverting everything, you would have noticed that it was me who removed the capitalising of "the" before band names. In your haste to revert me you managed to restore the problem you are now complaining about when I had corrected it. So try being a collaborative editor in future. At the moment you are being quite ridiculous! Afterwriting (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I just did provide the evidence. Did you somehow miss it? The fact that Australian newspapers unanimously disagree with you is really all the evidence you need that your changes do not conform to standard Australian English, isn't it? What other evidence would you like. The fact that Wikpedia's own MOS tell you that your capitalisation is stylistically wrong is all the evidence you need that it is wrong, isn't it? What more evidence would you like? You were quite insistent both here and on my talk page that all these edits were correct, despite the fact that they have been proven to be wrong under Wikipedia's own MOS and standard Australian English usage. At this stage you may want to show a little humility concerning your other edits and actually discuss them. Please respect WP:BRD, respect WP:STATUSQUO]] and discuss here why you think that your changes are an improvement on the status quo material. Casting aspersions on my motivations is not a discussion, it is not assuming good faith but it is a violation of yet another Wikipedia policy. Please read WP:GOODFAITH,Mark Marathon (talk) 07:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you a complete idiot?! I REMOVED the capitalisation but you RESTORED it! You have "proved" nothing at all except your own arrongance. Afterwriting (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Insults? Really? Is this what you consider a discussion?Mark Marathon (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

You still have not owned the fact that I corrected the capitalisation but you restored it and attacked me over it. Your whole attitude is insulting. Afterwriting (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Also seems fine from here, per User:Mark Marathon's reasoning. --McGeddon (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That would include his reasoning that capitalising "the" in a band's name is incorrect which he restored to the article after I had corrected it. I am still waiting for an acknowledgement of this fact. Afterwriting (talk) 08:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with his reasoning rather than his accidental revert to a version which contradicted that reasoning. --McGeddon (talk) 08:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It would also include his reasoning about lyrics being plural (which is correct) but then criticising me for incorrectly changing the grammar when I had in fact corrected it as can be proven here. This sorry episode of his "reasoning" and his mass reverting of all edits to "accidentally" restore corrected mistakes and then blaming me for the problem is farcical. Afterwriting (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Farcical, ownership, idiot, blather etc etc. You may want to tone down the invective and your anger. Anyway, your latest edit seems ot conflict with MOS:COMMA. Mark Marathon (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing in my removal of the comma which conflicts with anything in MOS:COMMA. It is also traditional Australian English punctuation style to not include a comma before an "and" except in certain circumstances which don't apply in the opening sentence of this article. Afterwriting (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

No, “lyrics” in the sense of the words to a single song is incorrect—-widely used by illiterates, yes, but still incorrect. TheScotch (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Bizarre deletion of highly reliable source.

Afterwriting, you just deleted a reference to the National Library of Australia's online exhibition of Waltzing Matilda material. Can you please explain why you would delete what is probably the most reliable and pertinent source of information this article could have? It appears that you have done so to make your WP:POINT about comma use, but i will give you the opportunity to explain before I decide what my next step will be. In the words of a once-famous politician: please explain. Mark Marathon (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I will also point out that your last edit was the fourth time that you have removed that comma. I highly recommend that you self-revert, since you have broken the three revert rule, you are an established editor, and you have been warned by two editors already today about edit warring in this article. For your own sake, I suggest you should probably revert that last edit and start discussing your issues. You may also want to consider how angry you are coming across to other editors. Mark Marathon (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not a "bizarre deletion" at all. The online reference no longer exists. It cannot be accepted as a reference, or considered "highly reliable", if it cannot be checked. This is just another in your recent history of repeated ownership issues regarding the article. I have attempted to make various style and phrasing improvements to the article and you have just reverted them all (and in the process restored a number of style and phrasing mistakes) on the basis of your questionable understanding of Australian English. You have then tried to blame me for the mistakes which you have restored to the article. All this can be readily checked in the edit history. You have refused to admit to doing this or to apologise for it. Your petty attitude towards the comma before an "and" is just another example of your constant problem with article ownership. And you are just as much, if not more so, guilty of edit warring. Whatever my faults have been yours have been much greater. Afterwriting (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The National Library of Australia source exists and can easily be checked.

The given URL of http://www.nla.gov.au/epubs/waltzingmatilda/ redirects to http://www.nla.gov.au/exhibitions/waltzing-matilda which has a message about how the NLA "no longer maintain the content of the exhibition linked to this page". That page has a clear link to "Visit the archived exhibition" which leads to http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/34755/20110606-1326/www.nla.gov.au/epubs/waltzingmatilda/index.html. I've replaced the reference in the lede with this new link. --McGeddon (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

You have now confirmed that the opening sentence of the article violates the copyright of the NLA website and Wikipedia's copyright policy. Well done. Afterwriting (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

No, quoting the three words "unofficial national anthem" is not against Wikipedia's copyright policies. But we should attribute the quote instead of just saying that it "has been referred to". --McGeddon (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Do carpenters really auf der Walz today?

I have a carpenter as an uncle, and I can honestly say I've never heard him talk about travelling 3 years and one day to learn new skills. No doubt such practice may have occurred when schools were inaccessible for many, but I see no evidence this is the case today. (The listed citation leads to a dead link. If that verifies it, then the link should be repaired). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretkeeper12 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You're probably right for countries outside Germany, where the practice is very rare, but not extinct. It wouldn't hurt to remove this dubious phrase from the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No this practice is still in existence. There are about 500-600 craftsman on the road in Germany today.

Spiegel Artikel "Jeder Tag ist ein neues Abenteuer" Stephanmeyn (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Space broadcast by astronauts

It seems like the claim that it's the first song (or recorded track) broadcast from space is false [edit: by astronauts]. The source cited (Australian Geographic) says it happened in 1983. However, UPI has an article about the broadcast from April 14, 1981 with no mention of it being a first of any kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glimz (talk • contribs) 03:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page:

Hi Michael, you reverted my edit on Waltzing Matilda. I was trying to remove the 'first space broadcast of a song by astronauts' claim. I indicated 'see talk' in my edit summary and was wondering if you had a chance to look at my comments there? You cited 'authoritative source' when reverting, but the Australian Geographic was not even established at the time of the event and, for one, is clearly misstating the year of the broadcast (it was in 1981, not 1983). I believe I am citing a good contemporary source, the UPI article from 1981 (UPI archive link) that makes no mention of the broadcast being a first of any kind. Of course, UPI might have just missed the fact that it was a first, but is there any other source for the claim? The second source cited (Orroral) is just a recording and does not make the claim(?). (I think discussion should probably continue on the article's talk page.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Glimz (talk • contribs) 01:30, 14 January 2019 (AEST) (UTC)

That the UPI article doesn't mention it as a first does not prove that it wasn't. The source I added, the recordings at Orroral, proves that it did happen in 1981, although it doesn't claim it as a first. Going through the Columbia missions' wake-up calls shows no earlier broadcast of a recording. There are now two sources: one establishing that it did happen and when, and the other – although getting the year wrong – claiming it was a first. Removing the sentence altogether, as you did, was not warranted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Back when I removed the paragraph, I still hadn't realized yet we're talking about the first broadcast of a recorded track by an astronaut. (Obviously, the claim would be false without this restriction.) But even with the restriction, it seems dubious to me, though the source being vague and getting the year wrong probably influences me. My problem is not the rest of the Columbia missions. What about all the earlier manned US missions? No broadcast from any Apollo? Skylab had tape players with music for relaxation (NASA source)--were they never heard over radio? Is it plausible that the first broadcast of a recording, initiated by an astronaut, occurred two decades after unmanned satellites did the same and more (e.g. TV broadcast in 1962)? I have no counterexample of an earlier astronaut-initiated broadcast, but I question the source, AusGeo, if it's the only publication making the claim (in a very tangential article about bush ballads) while contemporary sources make note of the event without mentioning anything about it being a first of any kind. Just as the UPI article doesn't disprove anything, the fact that we cannot come up with an earlier broadcast of this kind doesn't prove that this one must be the first. -- Glimz (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

More research on space broadcast claim: it's false

See this Talk:Slim Dusty discussion from 2007 and this 2003 ABC News article that gives the same wrong year as AusGeo for the broadcast (1983 instead of 1981), in addition to making the false claim that Slim Dusty "was the first singer to have his voice beamed from space" with no further qualifiers (easily refuted, e.g. the earliest satellite TV broadcast was two decades earlier, in 1962).

From the 2007 discussion, it appears the earliest known sources for this claim are:

• an interview with Slim Dusty's wife in a children's DVD (It's a Wiggly Wiggly World from 2000).
• Slim Dusty's own website, which contained the information then, and to this day states:

Slim received Australia’s first ever Gold Record in 1958, for “A Pub With No Beer”, and was the first singer in the world to have his voice beamed to earth from space, when his version of “Waltzing Matilda” was beamed to earth.

Note the near identical phrasing to the 2003 ABC News article. One of these texts used the other as a source! The Internet Archive confirms that the text was present on Slim Dusty's website before 2003, so it was ABC News that copied from his personal website.

All these sources are completely wrong in stating that this was the first broadcast from space without qualifications (such as "from an astronaut" or "from a space shuttle") and also get other facts wrong (such as the year of the broadcast). Considering the sources above, there is no reasonable basis to believe the claim, not to mention including it as encyclopedic fact. The claim is just bogus--maybe some kind of misunderstanding that occurred at one point or another. This is where the 2014 AusGeo article comes in and provides a cop out; it reads:

In 1983 the late country-and-western singer Slim Dusty’s rendition became the first song to be broadcast to Earth by astronauts. [emphasis mine]

With this qualifier, "by astronauts," the claim becomes, at least theoretically, plausible. Though it is still not very likely, because of the many earlier manned missions (e.g. SkyLab 1973-74 had reproduction equipment on board). So how much trust should we put in the AusGeo article?

• It gives the same wrong year (1983), indicating that it used one of the sources above that make the bogus claim.
• Its subject (bush ballads) is very tangential to space achievements, so the author likely didn't have any expertise nor conduct serious research on the space-related claim.
• It appears to be the first (and only?) article to add the additional qualifier ("by astronauts"). This is some 15 years after the original claim surfaced in Wikipedian-attested discussions and the children's DVD. This indicates that, if anything, the qualifier was added accidentally or perhaps as an afterthought by a lazy author/editor, realizing the absurdity of the claim without it. It makes no sense to take it seriously, if it was added in 2014 by AusGeo.
• We can see contemporary news sources taking note of the broadcast (1981 UPI article) but without mentioning it being a first of any kind.

I hope these points make it clear that we should not trust the 2014 article at all. We should consider the original sources and the original claim as published. And, as it turns out, we can easily refute the original claim.

The claim is present on Slim Dusty and Waltzing Matilda and I am wondering if Michael or others still have objections to removing it? If we are split 1:1, I hope a third Wikipedian can consider the arguments. -- Glimz (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for you research, Glimz. It seems that the claim as stated is not supported by evidence. Still, the fact of the 1981 transmission seems worth mentioning in the article, omitting "the first"; I suggest: On 14 April 1981, on Space Shuttle Columbia's first mission STS-1, country-and-western singer Slim Dusty's rendition was broadcast to Earth. The citation of the Australian Geographic is not needed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Yes, that's even better. I changed the resp. sentences in both articles. -- Glimz (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Use in JAG

In the tv show JAG, in season 5 episode 14 Waltzing Matlida's first verse and chorus are sung by the main cast to see off their Australian colleague. Is this a significant enough use to be included in the Covers and Derivatives section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottish Baconator (talk • contribs) 03:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

That depends on whether a reliable source exists for the song's use in JAG (season 5), and whether that use was notable enough to be covered elsewhere. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Alternative explanation

It seems a bit far fetched, but is it possible Australian troops headed for South Africa were teased with 'Streets of Rochester' because it refers to military hero Marlborough after which a British oceanic Outpost was named.Tradimus (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

German Source of the term "Matilda"

The article refers to the term Waltzing as a period a craftsman spends travelling (named 'Wandergesellen'. Usually on foot with minimal expenses) and acquiring further skills as part of their path to become a "Meister" (master craftsman). What is missing there is that the term "Mathilda" has a special meaning in this context.

"Mathilda" is a well known term to them and it refers to "the road" the craftsman travels. It is regarded as their patron saint that can sustain them, but also teach them harsh lessons.

Sources: Google Books

Spiegel Artikel "Jeder Tag ist ein neues Abenteuer"

Question: are links to references in German languages ok in the article?

Stephanmeyn (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Non-English references are allowed, but English sources are preferred. See WP:NOENG for more information. DonIago (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Two words

In the original manuscript the word is in fact two ma - tilda.

As in my tilda.

This is not only the spelling as first used but also below in the middle of a line. 92.207.98.72 (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The original manuscript is pictured in the article and the word clearly isn't broken up as you're describing. DonIago (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The song title can be seen as one word. However the lyrics below have both versions. Perhaps someone trained in musical notation could provide the reason. Either it is tempo or a typo issue. 92.207.98.72 (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Or it was just written down a little carelessly. I'm a little skeptical that there's a source out there that would discuss this, but more power to us if there is! DonIago (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I would like to agree that after reading the original manuscript it could be true.

Tilda is, after all, the shortened version of the name Matilda. Vowels also tend to be interchangeable. 92.207.98.72 (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Sad version

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EMzEWpKKOZs It is the theme music for the movie "On the Beach" about the end of the world from nuclear fallout. 2600:1700:5FA1:54F0:1C50:C5C1:AF5E:AE5E (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

If you're suggested this be mentioned in the article, you'll need a secondary source that discusses it, per WP:IPCV. DonIago (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)