Talk:Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas

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

Lyrics[edit]

These lyrics are obviously copyrighted. Did someone get permission to quote them?

This article can't be right - I have a Judy Collins version of the song with the "muddle through" lyrics. Can someone fact check this? Phil Sandifer 19:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The brighter lyrics were put in later for a commercial recording. I believe it was one made by Frank Sinatra. I don't have source material on hand. I will do what I can to find it. Ecokeeffe 04:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)ecokeeffe, 20:37 PST, 18 November 2005[reply]

I don't know for whom the "highest bough" line was added (it is generally reported that Sinatra demanded the change, which wouldn't surprise me) but I have never EVER seen anybody suggest that that was the original lyric, as this page nonsensically suggests. (Have you ever seen the movie 'Meet Me In St. Louis' that they wrote the song for? A "happy" Christmas song would never have made sense there.) Since the first recorded version of the song is in the film 'Meet Me In St. Louis' with the words "muddle through somehow," I suggest we list that lyric as prior to the "highest bough" one unless somebody can cite a source to the contrary. 68.9.190.116 18:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The lyric that has "I know that" and "ends "Have ourselves ..." is the James Taylor take on the song recorded after 9-11. It's obvious those aren't the original lyrics because that would make the title of teh song "Have ourselves a Merry Little Christmas."68.9.190.116 18:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the lyrics sung in MMISL to the top since that is the earliest recorded version. If somebody can cite evidence of an earlier version, then move that to the top. I also cut out the paragraph about later versions dropping the "depressing" lyrics on NPOV grounds. 68.9.190.116 18:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK: I think my changes should satisfy everyone: I listed the MMISL lyrics as the first recorded, without making claims about whether those are the "original" lyrics, and calle dthe brighter lyrics "alternate" not "later." I am taking the liberty of removing the accuracy sign, but feel free to restore it if you think I didn't do a good job. It's Christmas time, and this page might get a lot of hits, and we don't want it to be a mess.68.9.190.116 18:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Muddle through" lyrics[edit]

James Taylor's version is that of the "early version" lyrics, including the muddle through line, FYI. Anthony 02:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but he takes a couple of liberties like adding "I know that" which is fine, but we should be careful to to transcribe his version and post it as 100% original lyrics. 68.9.190.116 18:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Martin wrote the original "muddle thorugh" lyric. Frank Sinatra was the first to record it as a popular Christmas song and asked if Hugh would write a new lyric that wasn't so lugubrious. Hugh then wrote "hang a shining star upon the highest bough." That is how that lyric came into fruition. A lot of liberties have been taken with the lyric, but those are the only two he wrote, excluding the religious revision of the song called "Have Yourself a Blessed Little Christmas." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.238.176 (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dark, not so dark, a little bright, ugh, too bright![edit]

I believe the Judy Garland version, with the "muddle through" lyrics, is a sort of a half-way house between the earlier, considerably darker "Have yourself a merry little Christmas, it may be your last" version and the later Sinatra version. The original lyrics were re-written to remove the darkest elements at the behest of Garland and studio bosses, but they retained the melancholy, but hopeful theme. By the time Sinatra got his hands on it the song had dispensed with most of the remaining melancholy, with gay yuletides and shining boughs popping up all over the place, and a cosy present tense adopted in place of the forboding ("it may be your last" earliest draft) or hopeful ("now kinda sucks, but maybe next year will be better" Judy Garland version) future tense. - Barra I agree that the song is empty without the bit of subtle melancholy about current troubles being far away by next year. In reality, we all have little (or big) troubles on our minds and gathering together with friends at Christmas helps to take our minds off these things and gives a little hope and cheer for the future. The song has been horribly flushed out of all melancholy with it's apparent need to a describe a constant state of happiness.Ggaylmer (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh originally wrote "Have yourself a merry little Christmas, it may be your last, next year we may all be living in the past." Judy Garland wouldn't sing it to Margaret O'Brien, so Hugh changed it.

Slight rewrite for Sinatra[edit]

The song was slightly rewritten (actually a line or two) at Frank Sinatra's request when he recorded it in 1949. Sinatra was recording the albun "A Jolly Christmas" and liked the song but felt it was a little too downbeat for the album. This is confirmed by Hugh Martin himself in an interview in the video/television program "Del & Friends" in which Martin is interviewed about his life and accompanies religious singer Del Delker who performs his new religious version of the song "Have Yourself a Blessed Little Christmas." The "highest bough" line was indeed written for Sinatra.


I think the line "Frank Sinatra later recorded a version with modified lyrics, which has become more common than the original" should be modified to remove the second part of the sentence. Is there some sort of empirical evidence to support this? I would say that the original with Judy Garland is still more common than the - albeit also popular - Frank Sinatra version. Without anything to support this sentence, I think the latter part about it being more common should be removed.

Implication of 'Blue Moon' plagarism[edit]

I think the final comment in the article about this sharing chord changes with 'Blue Moon'(Cmaj7-Am-Dm7-G7) is an unfair implication of plagarism. The melodies for the two songs are completely different. Having a common chord progression in the verses means nothing.

Furthermore[edit]

The common chord progression only occurs for a couple of repetitions before veering off in a different direction. This changes the character of the song substantially and makes it quite different in every way from other songs that used this progression repetitively. I feel this section should be removed. --InsultComicDog 17:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cover version..[edit]

There's a cover of it by an Australian artist called Paulini.


"Fates" Was "Lord?"[edit]

On the Young Messiah tour in the 1990s, I heard Christian artist Twila Paris preface her performance of this song by saying the lyricist originally used the word "Lord" rather than "fates"..."if the Lord allows." Paris said the lyricist was asked to change it to make it acceptable to non-religious people. Paris then sang the song as the writer "originally intended"...but in reality, she keep all the Sinatra lyrics most commonly recognized "highest bough," etc. She only reverted that one word. Is this true or or an urban legend? The fact that Martin re-wrote the lyrics in recent years with a Christian emphasis seems to indicate it might be true, but I was wondering if anyone knew for sure. - Thanks, DBM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.18.4 (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first version did indeed contain the line "If the Lord allows", which was changed to "If the fates allow" in the recorded version. But the lyrics were rewritten at the request of Judy Garland before the movie version was filmed; she thought she'd seem like a "monster" if she sang the original to Margaret O'Brien. I doubt that the change from "Lord" to "fates" was for the reason Twila Paris claimed; the change from singular to plural permits the exact rhyme ("allow/somehow/now") to replace the inexact one ("allows/somehow/now"). And as you point out, Paris's version seems more focused on her personal intent rather than the author's. The original lyrics were: "Have yourself a merry little Christmas / It may be your last / Next year we may all be living in the past / Have yourself a merry little Christmas / Pop that champagne cork / Next year we may all be living in New York. / No good times like the olden days / Happy golden days of yore / Faithful friends who were dear to us / Will be near to us no more. / But at least we all will be together / If the Lord allows / From now on, we'll have to muddle through somehow / So have yourself a merry little Christmas now. " - Nunh-huh 21:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that by the time Martin, in extreme old age, made his statements about his original lyrics, he had forgotten exactly what they were, remembering only that they had a religious significance that Hollywood insisted on purging. It occurs to me that if the first version he wrote had said "if the saints allow", instead of "if the Lord allows", then the "/somehow/now" rhyme difficulty disappears; and the sound of "saints allow" is certainly closer to "fates allow" than is "Lord allows", so that the general sound of the lyric is only very slightly altered by substituting "fates" for "saints" – much less so than by changing "Lord" to "fates".
The two phrases ("saints allow" and "Lord allows") convey a very similar though not identical sentiment, but both are clearly religious and most likely Christian. Although "saints" may be more likely used by a Catholic than a Protestant (which Martin evidently was), writing popular songs might blur denominational lines somewhat; and quaint phrases like "Saints alive!" were probably uttered as frequently by Protestants as Catholics during my long-ago childhood in a South probably not a lot different from Martin's.
Of course, if Nunh-huh or someone else has an unimpeachably reliable source for "the Lord allows" (but no one has offered such a source so far, and Martin's memory in his 90s is not such a source), then I'm talking into my hat. But regardless of every other consideration, "if the Lord allows" is just a clumsy, clunky sounding line in the context of that song, while "if the saints allow" is not; and Martin didn't often come up with clumsy, clunky sounding lines.--Jim10701 (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Songwriting correction[edit]

This song was not composed by Ralph Blane. The lyrics aren't even by Ralph Blane. Listen to Hugh Martin's interview on Terry Gross' "Fresh Air" a few years back. Ralph didn't write many of the songwriting team's famous tunes. You can read the book "The Boy Next Door," Hugh Martin's autobiography and see that Hugh wrote both music and lyrics. For copyright reasons Blane stayed on. I suppose you could keep the Martin/Blane credits, but this article deserves another section talking about how Hugh was actually the sole writer. And definitely remove Ralph Blane as the "composer" and Hugh as the lyricsist. Hugh did both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.238.176 (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Martin's account of the truth is incredibly one-sided and doesn't have much in the way of facts to back it up. I worked with Blane (well, played in bands that accompanied him) a few times later in his life and the story of how that song was written was told more than a few times at shows where he was honored. This isn't an "Ellington/Mills" issue - Blane was an accomplished composer and lyricist, not an unscrupulous agent. Presenting it as controversy is one thing - presenting this as settled fact when all we have is Martin's questionable account is something entirely different. ```` 2600:8803:B800:4C50:1D55:5DCA:272A:C67E (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the tune sounds like the introductory theme of Bach's Fifth "Brandenburg Concerto, rendered singable (at least for Judy Garland) by reducing the doubled notes to singles, shortening the tune, and slowing the tempo. If Irving Berlin plagiarized anyone it was Johann Sebastian Bach, but in so clever a way that he created a masterpiece of popular song in its own right. One musical master adapts the masterpiece of another.

It might be interesting to establish whether Irving Berlin had heard the Bach masterpiece before writing this song. Even if only an adaptation, what Irving Berlin did was genius. Pbrower2a (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This song is not by Irving Berlin. -- Alarics (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevent Josh Groban, Sam Smith sections removal[edit]

Sam Smith and Josh Groban sections are irrelevant to the overall article. The Sam Smith section especially reads as advertising; it has WAY too much content related to Sam Smith, who is just one of thousands of artists who have covered this holiday classic. The content does not belong in this article, and so I have removed it.74.215.20.249 (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how Smith's cover is deemed "promotional"; it is very much a notable cover, since it charted on multiple charts. Notable covers are relavant to the article, and Smith's cover is considered notable. Furthermore, it does not have too much content related to Smith, and therefore I'm restoring it since your claim appears to be false (I'll leave Groban's cover out for now, though). If it does appear to be promotional, then fix it, not remove it. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have become the second editor to remove the Sam Smith material. It is a FORK from the topic of the song, it is an egregious example of RECENTISM, and it is obviously self-promotional. As i found it, it also contained what amounted to the false claim that Sam Smith's version was the first to chart at Billboard. The fact that it was removed once before, in 2016, and then reinstated tells me that the page bears watching. cat yronwode, not logged in 75.101.104.17 (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a case of advertising, recentism, self-promotional or a fork. Per WP:SONGCOVER, notable cover versions should be included and have their own sections. At the time this section was started there was no Josh Groban section, so there should be a Sam Smith section since it is a notable cover version. Aspects (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since Sam Smith has a mention in the "Popularity" section and that is all he needs unless his head is too big for his britches, so to speak. I'm merging his section into the list of covers with some (not enough) reduction in content. Zaslav (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Sam Smith cover has once again acquired its own sub-head. Folks, it is not that important. It is just one of many cover versions. Look over the editing history and see how many times the Sam Smith fans have tried to create a sub-head and it has been removed by other editors. This is getting ridiculous. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JS Bach, Brandenburg Concerto #5[edit]

The tune sounds much like that of the introductory theme of Johann Sebastian Bach's Brandenburg Concerto #5, BWV 1050.2, with the doubled notes rendered single and slowed to be singable. Where would this be placed, if permitted, in the article? Pbrower2a (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This would need a reliable source, and even then it hardly seems significant enough to include, unless there has been some notable controversy about it. -- Alarics (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The most reliable source to prove this conjecture would be musical scores. Bach's Brandenburg Concertos are public domain and readily available freely, but the Irving Berlin song is not. Differences are strong enough that one cannot accuse Irving Berlin of plagiarism. Coincidence? Well, both Brandenburg Concerto #5 and "Have Yourself a Merry Christmas" are strong works in their respective milieus. So are their composers.

Bach's Brandenburg Concertos were already played in America in the 1930's. Pbrower2a (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not by Irving Berlin. See first paragraph of the article. Alarics (talk) 08:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Have_Yourself_a_Merry_Little_Christmas&oldid=1207590159"