Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2017 August 25

= August 25 =

Looking for a song with this melody and lyrics like "sweet and tender"
More than ten years ago, I remember seeing on TV a commercial, and the song used in the background used lyrics like (to the best of my recollection; words inside brackets are words that I'm not sure of anymore) "[fragrance] of love, [so] sweet and tender". The melody sounded like this, and from what I can remember, the singer was a female who vaguely sounded like Karen Carpenter (although I do not think it was her). However, searching online using the lyrics and other tools like Midomi failed to find any songs that appear to match this information. This has been bothering me for more than a decade, and I'm curious as to what that song is. It did not sound like a song made specifically for the commercial (which was on the local Cartoon Network feed) due to the quality of the song. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you tried looking for the commercial itself, on youtube? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The commercial was so long ago (I think around 2006 or 2007) that I don't think it's on YouTube or anywhere online. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The phrase "so sweet and tender" is prominent in the Raphael Saadiq song "Love That Girl". A much earlier song is the song "Sweet and Tender Hooligan" by The Smiths.  And the line appears in "Darlin' Darlin' Baby (Sweet, Tender, Love)" by The O'Jays even earlier than that.  Perhaps one of those?  -- Jayron 32 14:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I can't play the link given, so this may be way off, but how about ? "Words of love, soft and tender, won't win a girl's heart anymore" —Tamfang (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Winning and losing parties in TV court cases
In those TV "court" shows (like Judge Judy, for example), it is my understanding that the winning and losing parties don't actually "win" or "lose" any money. The money is paid by the producers of the show and split among the parties; or, the producers pay the judgment. So, my question: if no party is really winning or losing any money, why do these parties act so happy (or upset) on the TV show (as if they were indeed being financially penalized or rewarded)? Any thoughts? I assume that the producers can tell the litigants to "act" happy or sad or thrilled or ecstatic or upset or whatever. But, generally, the reactions seem sincere. And the litigants are normal people, not professional actors. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't believe your understanding is correct. They may pay each party in addition to the judgement, and if the amount they pay is more than the judgement, that would just mean the losing side is paid less.  This would be a practical method to ensure that the judgement is actually paid.  As for acting happy or mad, there's the difference in what they are paid, and also the public acknowledgement that they are right or wrong. StuRat (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * See here: This letter from 'Judge Judy' finally explains how they get people to appear on TV.  And here: Who Pays Judgments on TV Court Shows?.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Guess my question wasn't real clear. So, an example. Let's say that I am the defendant. And I lose the case. In "real life", I would have to pay the winning plaintiff $5,000. In other words, I am stuck with a $5,000 bill that I have to pay. In "TV land", I am found to be liable, but the TV people pay the $5,000 for me; they pay the winning plaintiff on my behalf. So, I am stuck with a $0 bill. Why would I "act" all upset in the TV interview component? And, in fact, in the actual litigation, why would I care one way or another, if I win or lose the case? It's irrelevant (to my pocket book). So, I should be apathetic, really. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * (EC then EC again) In the particular case of Judge Judy, StuRat is mostly or partially correct depending on how you intepret what they wrote but at a minimum confusingly worded. As our article explains, 'litigants' are paid an appearance fee, as well as an amount per day and in addition have their travel and hotel expenses necessary to appear on the show covered so effectively receive a mostly free holiday. Our article suggests the amount they receive is probably often under $600 and maybe low as $200, in addition to the expenses. The 'judgements' are paid separately also by the show. The judgements can be up to $5000 so could potentially dwarf the appearance fee. So in addition to what StuRat said about being seen as in the wrong, 'losing' 'litigants' who countersued which seems fairly common from the few episodes I've seen, could be getting a lot less than they would have liked to receive. Exchanges of property would also be a loss to the 'litigant'. Note that because the 'litigants' have signed a contract for the 'arbitration', their ability to pursue the claim elsewhere is likely to be limited unless there was really something majorly wrong in the arbitration (one example I read of before was where Judge Judy went beyond her powers). The exception is when the case is dismissed without prejudice, our article suggests one reason this happens is because Judge Judy wants the litigant who she feels was in the wrong to be held personally accountable.  It's perhaps worth remembering that nearly all of the 'litigants' have surely seen the show, so we can presume they know what to expect, including those losing 'litigants' where Judge Judy is extremely harsh on their case. So either they for whatever reason genuinely didn't have the same opinion about their case. Or were willing to put up with it for the small amount and holiday they will receive just for the appearance and knowing they'd no longer be on the hook for whatever the judgement was which while potentially higher still isn't that much, which also only really applies if they felt there was a genuine risk of the other 'litigant' pursuing the case elsewhere.  Either way you have to consider what this reflects about the participants, our article doesn't discuss this very well but it's easy to find commentary from people feel such shows are exploitative. In other words, unless you'd be willing to appear on the show, there's a good chance you don't understand very well the people who do appear on the show. (The exception is where the litigants are conspiring to share the judgement, our article mentions how cases where Judge Judy expects this is happening are another one where she dismisses without prejudice although also claims one case where the participants said the producers knew about it. Even then, I think there aren't that many people who'd be willing to put up with whatever exposure they receive from the show, just for the small amount of money they receive and the ability to tell their friends how they conned Judge Judy.)  Nil Einne (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how your pocketbook isn't affected if you expected to receive $1500 from your countersuit but didn't. Our article mentions how Judge Judy feels many of these are vindictive and readily dismissed but yet people still file them. As I said above unless you would likewise file a pointless countersuit which is bound to fail and be eviscerated by Judge Judy, I doubt it's helpful to analyse actual participants based on how you would personally feel in the same circumstance. Also you seem to assume all suits are about money. Yet we just had the high profile real court case involving Taylor Swift where she said, and from the amount she sued for, it was clear it wasn't about the money for her. All evidence suggests that winning this actual court case mattered a great deal to her for reasons besides the money. Of course 'winning' or 'losing' a judgement on Judge Judy may not have quite the same effect but then again as I said above plenty of people would not be willing to appear on it no matter whether they had good reason to think they'd win or lose. If you fall into the category, then let me say again it's unlikely how you'd feel if you did somehow magically appear on the show and 'won' or 'lost' is relevant to how the people who do appear on the show feel. (Although the fact that for you a lawsuit will only ever be about the money puts you into a perhaps different category altogether.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Assume there is no countersuit.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * But how often is that? My limited experience is that maybe over 75% have a countersuit. And a number of cases involve property or similar stuff like dogs. In any event, all else I said still applies with or without a countersuit. (The Taylor Swift case did involve a countersuit to add meaning given the particularly set of circumstances, but often that isn't necessary to prove whatever point is being made.) Nil Einne (talk)


 * I watch the show quite a bit. Countersuits are not rare or unheard of.  But they are also not "typical" (from my viewing experience).  If I had to place a guess or an estimate, I'd say they surface about 25% of the time.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Place your question in an entirely different venue: Why do people on Jerry Springer get so angry? Everyone is getting paid to be on the show. They should all be happy. Well, they are paid to be angry. Further, they are being punished in front of a television audience. So, they are angry. The money gets them on the show. Afterwards, they likely regret the whole thing. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That is a false comparison. In Jerry Springer, the guests are there for some other reason (infidelity, or whatever).  They are not there for money reasons.  There is some other dispute (e.g., infidelity); it is not a financial dispute.  It is only an "incidental" fact that they are paid for their appearance.  In Judge Judy, the very reason that they are there in the first place is because of money and who has a "right" to the money in dispute.  So, the dispute itself is the money. So, comparing these Jerry Springer or Maury Povich types of shows to the Judge Judy type of court shows is a false comparison.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, you state that: Afterwards, they likely regret the whole thing. I don't think that's true.  Yes, we (the TV audience at home) see the whole thing as embarrassing and cringe-worthy.  But, I don't think the guests themselves do.  First of all, they are usually very "low class" people.  Too uneducated to even realize that they should be embarrassed.   Second, many of them come back on the show for a second or third appearance.  Also, if a person was semi-educated and had even half of a brain, why on earth would they think a place like Jerry Springer or Maury Povich would be a reasonable way to handle their very personal and intimate dispute?   Makes no sense.  To us normal folks.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There's a podcast done by an associate producer on one of the court shows: I found it very interesting and insightful. You can listen to it here: http://daytimejustice.tumblr.com/. OldTimeNESter (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)