Talk:Jeopardy! theme music

Shouldn't this article be titled "Jeopardy! theme music" instead?
I hate to be the first to bring this up, but common sense tells me that this article (and its Jeopardy! article lead in link) should be retitled "Jeopardy! theme music" instead since there are NO lyrics to the theme of the show.

And since there are no lyrics, it cannot be a song by definition.Srosenow 98 (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Christine Lavin, et. al. *did* write lyrics: http://userdata.acd.net/ottinger/gshghp/Shows/JeopardyTheme.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.97.183.31 (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

With all the discussion here it seems to have escaped notice that the song in question is "I'm a Little Teapot" regardless of who claims to have written it and why. The Jeopardy theme, especially the segment played during the Final Jeopardy round, is identical to the tune of that song. The original tune was in public domain for so long that there can't be any support for a charge of plagiarism, but the fact remains that Merv Griffin did not compose this tune. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beercourt (talk • contribs) 02:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable sources where the Jeopardy! theme is compared to "I'm a Little Teapot"? If not, then your assertion (whether correct or not) would seem to be original research.  RJaguar3 &#124;  u  &#124;  t  04:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Strange anon vandal
An anonymous IP editor seems to have made it his mission to adjust all the applicable Wikipedia articles to say that the Chris Bell rendition of the theme music/"Think" music was introduced this year, in Season 27, rather than at the beginning of Season 25. (Here are a few such diffs by the vandal:    )  This is inaccurate, of course, as can be shown from the recordings of episodes and the end credits thereof. The IP vandal's edits have been reverted many times. Yet this IP vandal is not amenable to discussion of the issue. I will roll back this vandal's edits as I catch them, but I'm leaving this note here for the record. Robert K S (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The vandal's still at it, with two more reverts today. In case he's reading this, he can watch this credits roll from early 2008 that lists Chris Bell Music in the credits.  Robert K S (talk) 03:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Chris Bell Music composing the current theme, did Chris bell also do the current board fill sound that started in Season 26? Continental738 (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Original research
In the Alex Trebek era section of the article, the following statements are original researched and thus need to be stated expressly by a reliable (or appropriate self-published, see WP:SELFPUB) source.


 * 1) "Beginning with the Alex Trebek-hosted syndicated version in September 1984, a rendition of 'Think!' was used as the main theme, performed on synthesizers, saxophones and percussion with the original recording of the 'Think!' music retained for the final segment." -- needs a source for instrumentation, as well as the fact that the ending used the same think music as the Fleming version.
 * 2) "At the top of the show, a "swooshing" laser sound effect was used." -- needs source saying that the effect was a laser sound effect and a "swoosh", as this is not obvious from the episode itself
 * 3) "The main theme was remixed in Season 8 for tournament play to include a bongo track, although regular games used the lower-pitched 1984 theme." -- entirely original research; no sources given say this
 * 4) "This remix was then put into permanent use at the start of Season 9 and remained there until the end of Season 13." -- needs a source
 * 5) "Two months after the start of Season 13 with the "Sushi Bar set first put into use, the theme's introduction was shortened again, and the swooshing sound effect was removed from the top of the show." -- this also needs a source
 * 6) Kaplan's "Think!" has "a more piano-driven, orchestral, jazzy sound." -- needs a source for this description
 * 7) "The "Think!" music in the package initially had only a piano lead, but by mid-September 1997, Jeopardy! switched to a different track from the same package of "Think!" with a piano lead in the first verse and a trumpet lead in the second verse." -- needs a source
 * 8) "At the start of Season 17, the theme's introduction was shortened, and a wind blowing sound effect was used at the top of the show." -- needs a source stating that these changes occurred at the start of Season 17
 * 9) "This arrangement was used until after the April 20, 2001 episode." -- needs a source
 * 10) "the introduction was slightly altered, and it consisted of a middle section featuring saxophone and electric guitar improvs" -- needs a source for instrumentation
 * 11) "This version was remixed when it was put into permanent use on the April 23, 2001 episode with a different introduction except for the five notes leading into the theme." -- needs a source
 * 12) "The February 2001 version was used for all celebrity episodes and tournaments on the road except the 2001 College Championship at UCLA and the 2002 Million Dollar Masters Tournament at Radio City Music Hall, which used the April 23, 2001 version." -- needs source, also somewhat trivial
 * 13) "Shortly after the start of Season 18, the swooshing sound effect returned to the top of the show and remained there until the end of Season 24." -- needs a source for this
 * 14) "The main theme consisted of the main sections played on piano, violins, and electric guitar, a section of saxophone and electric guitar improvs, the main sections returning, another section of electric guitar and saxophone improvs, and the main sections returning." -- this is not obvious from just listening to the music, so it needs a source
 * 15) "The "Think!" music in this package initially had a French Horn lead accompanied by percussion resembling the sound of a leaky faucet. By mid-October 2008, the "Think!" music was remixed to de-emphasize the "leaky faucet" percussion and included a piano lead." -- needs a source for the date of the change, the characterization of the percussion as a "leaky faucet", as well as the fact that the percussion was de-emphasized.

If we cannot find reliable sources to verify the information in this section, then I don't think there is much of a choice but to trim the section down to the bare facts (like who composed the various versions). RJaguar3 &#124; u  &#124;  t  20:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of this is interpretive language, even if more or less objectively true under WP:FACTS. (By this I mean you can kind of get what the author was trying to say, if you are already familiar with the music.  If you're not, it's not a helpful description, let alone a musically erudite one.)  Probably best just to axe it all. Robert K S (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources in description of musical structure
Does the description of the musical structure of the Jeopardy! theme need reliable third-party sources for the terms used in the description, or is the theme itself a sufficient source? RJaguar3 &#124; u  &#124;  t  21:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * RfC comment. I came here from the RfC notice, and I better start by saying that I'm very poorly schooled in music. I read the section over, and I would, at a minimum, like to see sourcing for the statements that one version was changed to another on such-and-such a date. As for things like the instrumentation, tempo, and key, I guess the question comes down to WP:SYNTH. If there is no dispute amongst editors that, listening to the theme itself, it is clear that these things are what they are, I'd be inclined to be lenient about the need for secondary sourcing. But if there is any disagreement amongst editors, then I think secondary sourcing is needed. I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * RfC comment. I agree that things like "this version was adopted in such and such a year" need citations, but I don't see much of a synth problem with the actual description. It's like describing the plot of a fictional work using that work as a source. Whether anyone cares about the key signatures is another matter. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well hmmmm'. I don't know about this. Yes, certainly as Roscelese says we would need a citation for "this version was adopted in such and such a year" and so forth. But what about observable facts about the song? For instance, "...exactly thirty seconds elapse between the start of the first note and the start of the last timpani hit at the end." Well, how do we know this? Did a Wikipedia editor count this with a stopwatch? How do we know he did? Maybe he listened to it and said "well, that sounded like about half a minute". I mean, he's probably being truthful, but you could say that about a lot of assertions that Wikipedia editors make. And maybe his stopwatch or reflexes are wanting; maybe it's only 29.5 seconds. Similarly with many other passages... "There's an introduction with the bass note beginning on D, moving up to E on a 6-3 C chord, a half-step up to F, then a 6-4 chord with G in the bass." How do we know the writer is not just blowing smoke here? I would be quite reluctant to accept any of this. It's original research. Again, it sounds like original research that is useful, interesting, and most likely true. But that applies to a lot of other original research. The only way this could be accepted, I guess, is by invoking WP:IAR to override WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and WP:V. Which might be a reasonable thing to do. But while WP:IAR is fine, we don't want to invoke it when not necessary. Is it necessary here? Herostratus (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)