Tweet Of Hearts and Flowers

So I was looking up when this poor, bemocked tune was written (melody 1891, words 1899 it seems) and stumbed across its Wikipedia article, which gives this tidbit of information:

Through its use accompanying certain silent films, the instrumental violin version has come to symbolize all that is melodramatic, sentimental or mock-tragic

Is that really true? Some pianists or organists in small theatres doubtlessly used it at certain times, but the article makes it sound as though it was common (and that its association with silents lends it the melodramatic reference). But by the time of Show People in 1928, the tune is a cliché, and Peggy Pepper's request for it is taken as a lack of sophistication.

People in later times might use the melody because of what they *think* its relationship is with silents, but is there evidence that it was actually a popular choice among accompanists, or does it show up in photoplay music?

-Harold

I know that when I run the tune through my head it is a pretty syrupy version played on a violin. The IMDB lists six movies of this title, three in 1914, as well as another half dozen or so with names like "Tarts and Flowers"

Bob

You're taking anything written on Wikipedia seriously?

It is easy to be myopic about silent films in sites like this and elsewhere, but believe it or not, music and theater was around a long time before silent films and Hearts and Flowers is one such example of "silent film" music pre-dating the films themselves.

Prior to my work in silent films I worked for many years (and continue to work, BTW) in theater and dance. H & F is also a popular theme in melodramas which would account for the time period you see in the always questionable Wikipedia.

As a musician circa 1970 I was using this tune from time to time (usually more in a comedic context than a serious one). That was a full 16 years before I first accompanied a silent film. So yes, it is "really true" that H & F predates silent films.

In fact, you can hear a sample here:

http://www.folkways.si.edu/trackdetail. ... emid=24659

This a recording where the tune is used in a music box in the 19th century, perhaps for a carousel.

BTW, the composer was: Tobani, Theo. M. (Theodore Moses), 1855-1933

The copyright on the simplified piano version is 1909.

You're taking anything written on Wikipedia seriously?

Hey- don't be glib. Some of us on this forum have actually contributed to those Wikipedia articles. There's inaccuracy there but a lot of information too. Heck- just because something is in a published book would you take the whole thing seriously? Think of Donald Yalop and Richard Schickel before you say Yes.

The reference in SHOW PEOPLE wouldn't be funny if it weren't true. I'm sure HEARTS AND FLOWERS was used by many nickelodeon pianists as a short-hand for "pathetic" scenes, and it probably affected a great many people who may not have been musically sophisticated but who knew how to enjoy a melodrama.

That said, I've only used the tune "ironically" for humor (since it carries a lot of baggage). For instance, it's perfect for the scene where Buster is rejected at the opening of THE NAVIGATOR, since he takes the rejection seriously but the film itself doesn't. It works in any number of two-reel comedies as well, much as Mendelssohn's Spring Song is abused in countless Warner Bros. cartoons as an ironic short-hand for a pleasant sunny day that will soon be filled with disaster.

Nowadays composers use ersatz Carmina-Burana chorus chanting to show that a particular battle / light saber duel / car chase should be seen as being of mythic proportions, and partly because it has shown up in similar places in prior films, it works just as well on the same kind of audience.

And what is it with Theo. Moses Tobani anyway? He was startlingly productive at both composing and arranging, but he published things under any number of variations of his name -- in one collection of music I've found pieces credited to Theo. Moses, Theo. Tobani, Theo. Moses-Tobani, and Theo M. Tobani. (Rodney takes a moment to check...) Darn! There's no wikipedia entry for him! The mystery will continue...

You're taking anything written on Wikipedia seriously?

Hey- don't be glib. Some of us on this forum have actually contributed to those Wikipedia articles. There's inaccuracy there but a lot of information too. Heck- just because something is in a published book would you take the whole thing seriously? Think of Donald Yalop and Richard Schickel before you say Yes.

it makes me smile, heh, David Yallop

You're taking anything written on Wikipedia seriously?

Hey- don't be glib. Some of us on this forum have actually contributed to those Wikipedia articles. There's inaccuracy there but a lot of information too. Heck- just because something is in a published book would you take the whole thing seriously? Think of Donald Yalop and Richard Schickel before you say Yes.

It's David Yallop, but as far as I'm concerned you may misspell his name at will. While you're at it, call Andy Edmonds a man.

Fred

It's not that Wikipedia is always wrong, but there are two things going on.

1) ANYONE can contribute. So ANYTHING can be posted.

2) There are folks editing it, but they cannot possibly know EVERYTHING and they edit out valid entries, while sometimes leaving incorrect entries to corrupt the site. You know, just like IMDB or a teacher who is always half-right. 2+2=4; but 4-2=3.

You can go thru life depending that, but your bank balance won't always reconcile correctly.

Well, there was the study last year (was it in Nature or Science? Some pretty well-respected magazine) that found that the information in Wikipedia was not that much worse (or better) than the Encyclopedia Brittanica, at least on a wide variety of scientific subjects. Both had about the same small numbers of errors.

Hey- don't be glib. Some of us on this forum have actually contributed to those Wikipedia articles. There's inaccuracy there but a lot of information too. Heck- just because something is in a published book would you take the whole thing seriously? Think of Donald Yalop and Richard Schickel before you say Yes.

I edit on Wikipedia, too, but I take everything that is on it with a humongous grain of salt. And with that comment, you struck a nerve with me. From my personal experience, it's one step forward, two steps back. Rarely do I ever see sources cited on Wikipedia, and whey I do, they're second hand on. You're better off just going to a library and taking the writer's word for it. At least there you might get the original source.

Wikipedia also has a problem of people who have far too much time on their hands. This "Wikicult" goes around nitpicking people about "is this image REALLY public domain" or "is this article REALLY notable?" They're not interested in actually editing the encyclopedia, they're just interested in getting medals to hang up on their page.

Wikipedia's business model is terrible. If you've read Jimmy Wales plea on the front page, it's laughably bad. The guy basically started a non-profit empire and needs more food on his plate. Hey Wales, ever hear of applying for grants?

Oh, and by the way, my copy of HEARTS AND FLOWERS is ©1893, credited to Moses Tobani; so there's a bit more to the Tobani/Czibulka rivalry for credit or blame than is described in the Wikipedia link.

Oh, and by the way, my copy of HEARTS AND FLOWERS is ©1893, credited to Moses Tobani; so there's a bit more to the Tobani/Czibulka rivalry for credit or blame than is described in the Wikipedia link.

Indeed, I mentioned the simplified piano version at UMICH had the later © date. Those versions always came out well after the initial release of the sheet music. I tried to simplify the sheet music link but for technical reasons wasn't able to last evening. Here's the link - thanks to Bruce for fixing the URL for me:


GO HERE

No, I don't take Wikipedia very seriously, and I don't regard it as any more than an amusing way to pass the time. I brought the article to your (in the collective sense) attention to ascertain whether a silent stereotype was being needlessly perpetuated. Perhaps not, although as with discussions about women being tied to the railroad track one has to strike a careful balance, acknowledging that such scenes/uses of music did take place while trying not to imply that they were representative of all silents.

I did think of the possible stage uses of "Hearts and Flowers" right after I posted. I don't recall whether that particular melody was used in the 1936 Show Boat, but the melodrama in which Irene Dunne yearns for her Hamilton Brown or whatever his name was could well be typical of what small towns got for theatrical entertainment in the late 19th and early 20th century, and certain elements of these plays could have carried over to early film presentations.

-Harold

Hey- don't be glib. Some of us on this forum have actually contributed to those Wikipedia articles. There's inaccuracy there but a lot of information too. Heck- just because something is in a published book would you take the whole thing seriously? Think of Donald Yalop and Richard Schickel before you say Yes.

I edit on Wikipedia, too, but I take everything that is on it with a humongous grain of salt. And with that comment, you struck a nerve with me. From my personal experience, it's one step forward, two steps back. Rarely do I ever see sources cited on Wikipedia, and whey I do, they're second hand on. You're better off just going to a library and taking the writer's word for it. At least there you might get the original source.

Wikipedia also has a problem of people who have far too much time on their hands. This "Wikicult" goes around nitpicking people about "is this image REALLY public domain" or "is this article REALLY notable?" They're not interested in actually editing the encyclopedia, they're just interested in getting medals to hang up on their page.

Wikipedia's business model is terrible. If you've read Jimmy Wales plea on the front page, it's laughably bad. The guy basically started a non-profit empire and needs more food on his plate. Hey Wales, ever hear of applying for grants?

Perhaps all those people with too much time on their hands should just write blogs? (OK, I tried blogging briefly myself, but with all my obsesive verbosity I have tothing to say)
OK- sorry to be snippy, it's a hazard of this sort of thing. I'm just a bit pissed with the reactions of some people (not necessarily you) who have a knee jerk reaction. I casually cited Wikipedia in a conversation to a teacher I know and she broke into the sentence to excvlain "You're quoting WIKIPEDIA????????????"
Hey- if it wasn't for Wikipedia the world wouldn't have episode by episode coverage of obscure television shows within a few keystrokes. Seriously, it has a function. I know there's an excellent site on Pola Negri on the web but I have to do some serious Googling to find it. At least on Wiki I can get some basic materials and (perhaps) a link to the site.

OK- lets not let this particular subtopic get out of hand- Back to the movies!

No, I don't take Wikipedia very seriously, and I don't regard it as any more than an amusing way to pass the time. I brought the article to your (in the collective sense) attention to ascertain whether a silent stereotype was being needlessly perpetuated. Perhaps not, although as with discussions about women being tied to the railroad track one has to strike a careful balance, acknowledging that such scenes/uses of music did take place while trying not to imply that they were representative of all silents.

I did think of the possible stage uses of "Hearts and Flowers" right after I posted. I don't recall whether that particular melody was used in the 1936 Show Boat, but the melodrama in which Irene Dunne yearns for her Hamilton Brown or whatever his name was could well be typical of what small towns got for theatrical entertainment in the late 19th and early 20th century, and certain elements of these plays could have carried over to early film presentations.

-Harold

Those melodramas or comedies were also popular in Argentina. However, in the middle of the play, the action would more or less stop in order to have an orchestra or a singer to perform a few tangos, returning for more by the end of the show (known as "fin de fiesta" or end of the party).

One playwright made this genre a trademark for him. His name was Manuel Romero, who created memorable tangos for for these occasions and later became a director working at the Paramount studios in Joinville. Back in Argentina, he adopted his earlier film from his plays (and improved them a lot).

No offense taken, and you make some very good points, Eric.

Yes, for a general reference, like IMDb (which I REALLY have issues with), you can go to Wikipedia and check something out. But I'm reminded by what Reagan used to say: "Trust but verify."

My issue has less to do with the general content, but how the website works against the content up there.

Wasn't Von Stroheim also using Hearts and Flowers in an ironic way when he has McTeague playing it, on melodeon, to his missus at the end of the sewer-pipe, in Greed in 1924 ???

It's not that Wikipedia is always wrong, but there are two things going on.

1) ANYONE can contribute. So ANYTHING can be posted.

2) There are folks editing it, but they cannot possibly know EVERYTHING and they edit out valid entries, while sometimes leaving incorrect entries to corrupt the site. You know, just like IMDB or a teacher who is always half-right. 2+2=4; but 4-2=3.

You can go thru life depending that, but your bank balance won't always reconcile correctly.

In illustration of Michael's points, I confess my malicious sense of humor comes into play with wikipedia's entry on Virginia Rappe. I've had her birth certificate for years now; occasionally I edit the entry to correct her birthdate, which is July 7, 1891. I've even put the source info into the history, to no avail. Then I wait for some yahoo to change it to match her gravestone. I'm not sure why anyone thinks a gravestone is an adequate or reliable source of information for a birthdate, but they do. Never fails.

I'm sorry, but howls of laughter from my direction.

Fred

...I edit the entry to correct her birthdate, which is July 7, 1891. I've even put the source info into the history, to no avail. Then I wait for some yahoo to change it to match her gravestone....

Similarly, my sister was a member of a famous girl rock group in the 1960's with several #1 songs on the Billboard charts. Her name was left out of the Wiki entry. I fix it. It appears and a day later, it's gone again. I've done this 3 times now and just gave up. IMDB (always reliable) dropped 27 titles of movies I scored. If you "know someone" at IMDB you can correct such malfeasance. If you don't, you can't.

If these sites are going to be editing on whims, they have no real value. Essentially, encyclopedic blogs that's right sometimes and wrong just as often (if not more so). The only difference between them and a "normal" blog (if there is such a thing) is that they don't allow "other people's" comments (or in the case of IMDB - legit credits) to remain.

IMDB and Wiki authoritative? I think not.

IMDB and Wiki authoritative? I think not.

Oh let's give them credit. They do the links and editing right sometimes.

Fred
(still giggling...)

Those of the Wikicult will tell you, "well, if someone is changing info that you think is valid, you have to debate it on the talk page," which is a backhanded way of saying "you'll have to have a duel of wits with a 13-year old." Why should I waste my time explaining that my source is more valid that someone who read some BS that someone scribbled on IMDb and taking it as the gospel truth?

The benefit of Wikipedia, at least, is that you can edit it any time and it will be edited immediately. IMDb takes several days to have the info passed, and they don't always pass it, for whatever random reasons. Between the time you submitted the information and the time you finally get the info you want up... sometime six months later... a dozen people have already spread the misinformation on other websites.

So frustrating!!

Those of the Wikicult will tell you, "well, if someone is changing info that you think is valid, you have to debate it on the talk page," which is a backhanded way of saying "you'll have to have a duel of wits with a 13-year old."

I debated that for a long while, but I've learned a good lesson from my pal Marilyn Slater, of Looking for Mabel. No, I don't have to debate it with a 13-year old, witless or otherwise. I'm right and I know it. The 13-year old can believe anything he wants, that's not my problem.

It's a wefweshing attitude, as Kay Fwancis would say.

Fred

Those of the Wikicult will tell you, "well, if someone is changing info that you think is valid, you have to debate it on the talk page," which is a backhanded way of saying "you'll have to have a duel of wits with a 13-year old."

I debated that for a long while, but I've learned a good lesson from my pal Marilyn Slater, of Looking for Mabel. No, I don't have to debate it with a 13-year old, witless or otherwise. I'm right and I know it. The 13-year old can believe anything he wants, that's not my problem.

It's a wefweshing attitude, as Kay Fwancis would say.

Fred

Last summer, after being cinematically gobsmacked by the beyond-bad direction of MAMMA MIA!, I started writing a blog post about the lost art of directing musicals, and babbled on about Roy Del Ruth. (You could bring back Del Ruth's corpse as a zombie and he'd have done a better job than Phyllida Lloyd did with MAMMA MIA!) He was no Minnelli, but he was smart, efficient and his films are still watchable. I checked his wikipedia page, which reduced his career to the original MALTESE FALCON and one more line: "He also directed the universally panned The Babe Ruth Story (1948) and the 20th Century Fox B-movie Alligator People (1959)" It would be better if the entry had no editorial comment at all.

On the other hand, wikipedia is delightful if you want to know what happens in every episode of Adult Swim's "Aqua Teen Hunger Force."