Talk:The Jazz Singer

Singing in the rain

Why no mention?

Ever going to be a DVD of this movie?

Anyone know? -Jcbarr 13:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but you must see this film. I screened it the first time in my home with a friend. After about 40 minutes of silence, when the first sound dialogue occurred, my friend and I were stunned. I believe that we experienced close to what the original audience did in 1929, the incredible experience of a film that talked. 66.108.144.49 03:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Earlier sound features

The article already makes clear that The Jazz Singer was the first feature-length movie with talking sequences, but not the first sound feature.

For the curious, earlier feature-length movies with sound include:

• Dream Street (1921). Two sound sequences, recorded on discs: one song sequence, and another sequence with crowd noises. Sound version shown only in New York City.
• Siegfried (1924). Shown with a music score recorded with DeForest Phonofilm, only at the Century Theater in New York City in 1925.
• Don Juan (1926). Music score and sound effects, on Vitaphone discs. Sound version distributed nationally.
• The Better 'Ole (1926). Music score and sound effects, on Vitaphone discs. Sound version distributed nationally.

— Walloon 03:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is this not in the article? I think it is relevant. I won't move it myself, because I hate doing something that is just reverted. Can a more senior editor confirm, add citations, and add to the article, please? David Spector (user/talk) 11:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the article? Dream Street, Don Juan, and The Better 'Ole are all mentioned in it, as has long been the case.—DCGeist (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

In Spain

According to a documentary I saw, the film lost several scenes in its Spanish showing, because it was censored as pro-Jewish propaganda.

Also, there seemed to be a silent version (the same?) that was playe along (by Enrique Jardiel Poncela?) with records of Jewish and jazz music. --Error 22:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Pop Culture

The third season Simpsons episode “Like Father, Like Clown” is an obvious homage to this film. We have included this reference in the episode, but I thought a similar link should be posted on this site. (207.81.164.238 18:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC))

Probably should add to the AFI reference that in 2005 “Wait a minute, wait a minute. You ain't heard nothin' yet!” was #71 on the “100 YEARS...100 MOVIE QUOTES” list.

The film is used during 2004’s “The Aviator.” Howard Hughes (Leonardo DiCaprio) takes a business associate to an audience viewing the film as a means of convincing the associate that their recently completed silent motion picture epic, Hell’s Angles, needs to be entirely reshot for sound. (207.81.164.238 03:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

Captions

I put back the full stops because after complete sentences the period has to persist, no matter whether there is only one sentence or more. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Captions. Sentence fragments like e. g. the description of theatrical posters in the infobox don't need periods. I already had the same discussion at Talk:Friday the 13th (film)#Caption. Dutzi (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Michigan J. Frog

Can please stuck a fork in this sh*t and be done with it? This cartoon character was inspired by Al Jolson's blackface character in The Jazz Singer. Case closed. Now....MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia

The 10:34, 24 December 2008 DCGeist version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia.--Wing (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Financial details - moved from article

The detail and complexity of this section, with its cites, might be a turn-off for many. A lot of it goes into minutiae about the contracts and dollar comparisons which I feel is best left for the books, should people want more details like that. It also overwhelmed the Reference section. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved

One of the keys to the film's success was an innovative marketing scheme conceived by Sam Morris, Warner Bros.' sales manager. In Crafton's description:

[A] special clause in Warners' Vitaphone exhibition contract virtually guaranteed long runs. Theaters had to book The Jazz Singer for full rather than split weeks. Instead of the traditional flat rental fee, Warners took a percentage of the gate. A sliding scale meant that the exhibitor's take increased the longer the film was held over. The signing of this contract by the greater New York Fox circuit was regarded as a headline-making precedent.

Similar arrangements, based on a percentage of the gross rather than flat rental fees, would soon become standard for the U.S. film industry's high-end or "A" product.

Though in retrospect, the success of The Jazz Singer signaled the end of the silent motion picture era, this was not immediately apparent. Mordaunt Hall, for example, praised Warner Bros. for "astutely realiz[ing] that a film conception of The Jazz Singer was one of the few subjects that would lend itself to the use of the Vitaphone." In historian Richard Koszarski's words, "Silent films did not disappear overnight, nor did talking films immediately flood the theaters.... Nevertheless, 1927 remains the year that Warner Bros. moved to close the book on the history of silent pictures, even if their original goal had been somewhat more modest." Crafton points to the January 1928 national release of the sound version as the true turning point: two months later, Warners announced that The Jazz Singer was playing at a record 235 theaters (though many could still show it only silently). In May, a consortium including the leading Hollywood studios signed up with Western Electric's licensing division, ERPI, for sound conversion. In July, Warner Bros. released the first all-talking feature, Lights of New York, a musical crime melodrama. Within another year, Hollywood would be producing almost exclusively sound films. Jolson went on to make a series of movies for Warners, including The Singing Fool, a part-talkie, and the all-talking features Say It with Songs (1929), Mammy (1930), and Big Boy (1930).

No, that's getting restored. It's all essential to an understanding of the film's importance, and there's no reason to imagine it will be so "off-putting" to anyone that they'll be unable to gather from the article what they want.—DCGeist (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The changes all look good and thanks for editing the long quotes. I like eyewitness testimony, but sometimes keep the witness on the stand too long;-)

Found an older film with sound by Lee DeForest featuring the Spanish singer Concha Piquer in 1923

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/cultura/primera/pelicula/sonora/era/espanola/elpepucul/20101103elpepucul_15/Tes

It's a film found in the Library of Congress featuring Concha Piquer in 1923. The film is directed by Lee DeForest.

In 1922, she debuted in New York City at the age of 14, and later appeared with Eddie Cantor, Al Jolson, and Fred and Adele Astaire. On 15 April 1923, she appeared in a short film, "From Far Seville", made by Lee de Forest in his Phonofilm sound-on-film process, and shown at the Rivoli Theater in New York City. This film is now in the Maurice Zouary collection at the Library of Congress.

As it says in wikipedia article about Concha Piquer.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.17.135.66 (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC) 

The Caption of The Jazz Singer poster

I think the caption of the poster in the section entitled, "Commercial impact and industrial influence" is incorrect. It states that "...the image of Jack, in a suggestive nightrobe, carrying Mary does not actually appear in the film." I believe the image IS in the film; it is the scene where Jack catches Mary as she dances backwards off stage right. He's not carrying her at all, and he's not in a suggestive nightrobe; he's in a bathrobe before (or after) he goes on stage. The scene occurs about 27 minutes into the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jblykins (talk • contribs) 04:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Box office data

I appreciate that the earnings for older films are patchy at best, but I think we should try and cover it in some form. If we can't pin down an exact amount I agree it shouldn't go in the infobox. The $3.5 million figure I added in this edit [1] appears to be the US rentals from its first run according to Variety: [2]. Variety seems to be pretty accurate for US theatrical rentals, so I think we should cover this data at some point in the "Reception" section. The bottom line is that was a pretty good take back in the 20s, and it provides a contempory context for the relative success of the film, even if we can't pin down an exact gross amount. Betty Logan (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The well-researched figures we've had in a footnote—which, I agree, should be brought into the main text—are $2.625 million total earnings for Warner Bros. from both domestic and foreign markets ($1.97 million domestic earnings). Two of the primary complications in handling these figures: (1) As the main text already states, Warners worked out a then-novel deal with exhibitors to take a percentage of the gate (gross revenue) rather than a flat rental fee, but I've yet to see anywhere what that percentage was (which--further complication--was on a sliding scale dependent on the duration of the rental). (2) The film was successfully rereleased in 1931. In no source I've seen are the earnings from that rerelease distinguished from those of the original release.

Thanks for the Reid cite. While the man has seen a tremendous number of movies, he is not a scholar, his books are self-published (Lulu.com), and he cannot be considered a high-quality source for data like this. Specifically, the figures he presents for the rentals for the other 1927 films he lists diverge widely from the figures I've seen from more scholarly sources.—DCGeist (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even notice the note, but I have no problem with how it's covered there. It just needs to be a bit more obvious to the reader, because the prose doesn't make it clear there is more exposition. If you want to keep it as a footnote, I suggest using a note label so it doesn't look like a reference. Betty Logan (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved per notability, educational value, and usage of the film as the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

---

• The Jazz Singer (1927 film) → The Jazz Singer
• The Jazz Singer → The Jazz Singer (disambiguation)

– The 1927 film by far is the most notable use of "The Jazz Singer". It was the first feature-length film with talking sequences. The other links at "The Jazz Singer" are just remakes of the 1927 film and a soundtrack from one of the remakes. JDDJS (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The DAB page The Jazz Singer shows that there are four films bearing that name, before we even think about its other applications.
  The proposer has not demonstrated that the loss of that precision would be to the benefit of any readers, anywhere, in any way.
  NOTE: Surely that is the sort of question to consider, rather than striving to reduce as many titles as possible to a minimum length, regardless of consequences. That would be to follow rules of thumb as if they were perfect recipes for doing "the right thing". An encyclopedia exists to provide information accurately and efficiently to its users; not to serve as a model of conciseness isolated from its place in the actual economy of information provision and exchange.
  Noetica^Tea? 00:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Note All of those other films are just remakes of the original 1927 film. The original has extreme historic value. The remakes do not. Most readers who look up "The Jazz Singer" are looking for the film that actually matters. JDDJS (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Sorry, Noetica. I was going to oppose this proposal, but 800 or 900 views per day make this film popular, while the rest are under 100 or 50 per day (under 12.5% of the 1927 film), such as the soundtrack. I am uncertain about how "loss of that precision" is relevant to this discussion or may affect readers' benefit, but I always associate the "whole name" as of the 1927 film. "Usage" and "long-term significance" criteria for the 1927 film have been met. "Usage": it is popular; "long-term significance": it is the first film with sound by vitaphone. The other topics have not reached that level. Other criteria, such as "familiarity", have been met for this film; I have not been familiar with other derivatives until now, and I will not remember them, as time will pass.

However, one criterion is "interest"; while all topics with the same are on par with each other (it's an old film, and I'm not interested with that amateur film), "interest" is not met. Nevertheless, "interest" is not the big case here. --George Ho (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The 1927 film got 78,870 page views in the last 90 days, the 1952 film got 2,025, the 1959 film got 772, the 1980 film got 11,872, and the soundtrack got 6,445. So this subject got 79 percent of relevant traffic. In Britannica, the 1927 film gets a full-length entry, the 1980 film is mentioned in Neil Diamond's entry, and none of the other uses are even mentioned. Kauffner (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCF. The dab serves the correct purpose to prevent incoming links going to the wrong article. Lugnuts (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note There were only 2 article links to The Jazz Singer that didn't refer to the 1927 film, and I fixed both of them. JDDJS (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the 1927 film is based on the 1925 play, so if your contention is that those later films are based on being remakes of 1927, then that applies even more to the 1925 play, so clearly the 1927 is not primary topic using the same argument presented. As for being the first feature talkie, that does have long term significance, but does not mean it is automatically primary, considering the 1925 play all the rest are based on, including 1927. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The 1925 play does not have an article. And the fact that the others are remakes is not my primary argument. My primary argument is that the 1927 film has extreme historical value because it was the first film with talking sound and completely changed the whole film industry. The other films have no historical value at all. In fact, the 1952 and 1959 films might not even pass WP:GNG (but of course they pass WP:NF). JDDJS (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as the 1952 film was nominated for an Oscar, I'm sure it would have no problem in passing WP:GNG. And isn't it a little bold to claim that they have "no historical value at all"? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Changed my vote to Neutral after realizing that the 1925 play was adapted into a 1927 sound film. --George Ho (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The 1927 film is a landmark of Western culture. It also dwarfs the other "The Jazz Singer" articles by reader usage. As JDDJS notes, linking has not been an issue. This seems like the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Not to treat it as such makes life more difficult for readers and editors alike. Dohn joe (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• The 1927 film is pretty plainly the subject with the most critical commentary and general world impact, making it the primary topic here. Don't see much in the way of a rebuttal to this from those opposing. Doing a service to our readers means getting them to the page they want to go to as directly as possible. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Pretty clearly the primary topic and posterchild for the application of "long-term significance", given its landmark role in film, though it seems it took some time for this discussion to get focused on relevant grounds. The nomination harks toward primacy, but couches the language in terms of "notability", which confuses the issue. The first oppose talks about precision; this also clouds the issue, since it does not play well with the concept of a primary topic—the whole point of primacy is that we are not parenthetically disambiguating nor having a dab page as the first hit on a search because we believe far more people will be looking for this topic when they click through or search the undisambiguated title the first time (that is the benefit to readers, among others). Anyway, incoming hits are not the only metric to look at. A search of reliable sources also shows a large disparity over other uses, e.g., A vs. B, C and D; an approximate 8:1 ratio in the aggregate.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

References

Question concerning reverted edit

(I copied this from my talk page. BMK (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC))

Hi BMK,

Regarding your reversion of my recent IP edit adding a parenthetical to The Jazz Singer:

My WP editing philosophy is that I don't feel much obliged to cite a source when correcting an error in material that cites no sources, and the affected paragraph is entirely and perniciously unsourced. It includes the song fragments in question in a mini-catalog of "numerous synchronized singing sequences", which is misleading at best. My source, in fact, is the film itself -- in articles about films readily available on home video, perfectly acceptable per WP, the last I heard -- and a viewing will make the lack of lip-synchrony in those bits patently obvious to anyone. Folks seeing the film for the first time must have wondered if that was all the much-touted Vitaphone was going to add to the experience, until the first of the live-recorded sequences began and made matters clear. To anyone familiar with the contemporary recording technology and scoring procedure, it will also be clear that the vocal is of a piece with the background score and was therefore recorded at the time the finished footage was scored, i.e., the "wild" vocal was post-dubbed.

The parenthetical disclaimer was an antidote to the misleading inclusion of those bits. An alternative approach, more heavy-handed than my simple addition but probably preferable, would be to delete "Two popular tunes are performed by the young Jakie Rabinowitz, the future Jazz Singer;" and accordingly replace the following "his" with "Jakie's". 66.81.242.131 (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You added to the article "(these song fragments are post-dubbed and not lip-synchronous)". That is a positive statement of fact, and as such should be verifiable, if true. If it is not verified by being sourced, it is editorial analysis, and thus runs afoul of WP:OR. The revert was good. BMK (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, then I'll try following my own suggestion above and simply excise the misleading portion of the preexisting unsourced "positive statement of fact", which, like my condemned parenthetical, is best verified or debunked by referring to the same highly reliable source: the film itself. No technical expertise or "editorial analysis" is required to see that the juvenile vocalizing is not at all lip-synchronous -- it's about as blatantly obvious as a cut or a fade-out. No OR there, just plain old reporting. 66.249.172.18 (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope, however blatant you think it is, it's analysis or interpretation, and that;s WP:OR. Whether "post-dubbed" or "lip-synched" or sung live to the camera, the song is still "performed" by the character, and therefore your removal - which I have reverted -- is incorrect, and entirely WP:POINTy. BMK (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Following up in this new venue: The songs are indeed "performed" by the character, but they are not "synchronized" in the usual meaning of the word (i.e., lip-synchronous), which is what the paragraph claims. My second edit was absolutely NOT done to make a point, but to cure a bit of misleading information, if not by denaturing it with an added statement, as in my first attempt, then by simply deleting the problematic verbiage. It seems we must agree to disagree about the boundary line between OR and reporting in the case of a readily available film's contents -- fair enough -- but I am perplexed to encounter such brusque resistance to the good-faith simple excision of some unsourced "information". 66.249.173.182 (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Your second edit removed a statement that song were "performed" by a character. This is still true regardless of the quality of the lip synch, which is why I reverted it.

Essentially, your claim is that bad lip synching is not lip synching, and therefore must be something else. That is clearly OR, and recentism for that matter. Considering that the film was at the cutting edge of synchronizing pre-recorded sound with live (filmed by a camera) performance, it would be a miracle if some people didn't do it badly. In any case, the claim that bad lip synching means something else clearly needs a source, so you should hardly be surprised to receive "brusqueness" when you continue to press an extremely obvious point. The Jazz Singer being the film it is, subject to volumes of writing and analysis, it's inconceivable that your point wouldn't be supportable by a citation from a reliable source were it actually the case: so go find it, or drop the issue, please. BMK (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. The sentence I tried to delete is perfectly accurate per se, but its existence after the colon at the end of "The Jazz Singer contains those, as well as numerous synchronized singing sequences and some synchronized speech:" transforms it into misinformation. If "wild" singing qualifies as "synchronized", then we will have to accept The Photo-Drama of Creation as a feature-length synchronized sound film after all. I'm all done here -- life is too short -- and I leave it to someone else to cure the problem. 66.249.175.93 (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

NO, you're missing the point, it's still "synchoronized" even if the synchronization is badly done. Bottom line: get a source. BMK (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Back again, alas -- the bait is irresistible. I cited a source above: the film. Perfectly valid per WP as, e.g., a source for plot details, as you well know. Please consult it -- some things really are blue-sky obvious. This is not a matter of "badly done" lip-sync, but of no attempt at or pretense of lip-sync. The performer is not miming to a playback. The sound is not live-recorded. The post-dubbing plainly does not even try to match up with the performer's mouth or body movements. It is an example of what is known as "wild sound" -- essentially an overlaid sound effect, like a ringing doorbell or crowd noise, and not "synchronized singing", whether well or badly synchronized, as that phrase is normally understood. I just wish you would be one-tenth as tough on the unsourced paragraph I was trying to improve as you have been on my two efforts; it might disappear entirely, carrying my objection away with it. 66.81.242.69 (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I cannot help but think that you're being deliberately disingenuous. Your clain is that the song is either post0dubbed or not lipsynched, and yet you have provided no source that says so. Therefore, it's WP:OR, pure and simple.

This is my my last comment, and any attempt to restore your personal comment without a source will be reverted, and brought to the attention of admins as disruptive behaviotr. BMK (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

" ... this scene, obviously, is not synchronized, it's ... recorded after the fact." Thus saith Ron Hutchinson of the Vitaphone Project on the commentary track of the 2007 DVD release (at 0:07:47, during the first of the two wild-vocal "Ragtime Jakie" beer hall scenes). I should have sought some backup from that handy source sooner than this, but, evidently like Mr. Hutchinson, I had supposed that the matter would be sufficiently obvious from a viewing of the scene itself.

Not to worry, @BMK: absent a consensus here, the only edit I will be making to the article is to tag the doesn't-belong item with a "dubious" so as to solicit others' input into this discussion, which has been so very unproductive of consensus as a duet. I have long been aware of your work in patrolling vintage film articles, heartily concur with most of your edits, and regret that what I thought was going to be a simple bit of housecleaning has led to the above head-butting with you, but IMO you are way out of line in threatening to sic an admin on me. When and where have I indicated any intention of "restoring [my] personal comment"? I abandoned that approach after one reversion and your objection that I was adding an unsourced "positive statement of fact" and have subsequently been lobbying solely for the simple removal of the existing bit of verbiage as the best remedy. "I cannot help but think that you're being deliberately disingenuous"? Sheesh! Whatever became of "assume good faith"? My purpose has been purely and simply the improvement of the article by either explaining or removing a bit of misleading text. 66.249.174.181 (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You've still got this bug up your butt? Well, since you're so all-fire hot to "prove" this, I'm not going to accept your say-so on what the commentary says, so find an available reliable source that can be verified without having to take your word for it. A transcript of the commentary will do. BMK (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The DVD is the best "available reliable source" for its own commentary track. Evidently you can't be bothered to consult it. It is not my obligation to google up a (presumably copyvio and non-time-coded) transcript of it for you. Are the arbitrary removal of an input-soliciting tag and a reply that leads off with grossly uncivil language not "disruptive behavior" by current Wikipedia standards? 66.81.240.240 (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

But I cannot verify it, because I don't have it, and I don't trust you, because you seem to have a vested interest in shoving that edit into the article. If another editor -- an editor with an account whose editing I am familiar with -- vouches for it, that's a different story, but I will not take your word on it and will revert any attempt on your part to add it to the article. Is that clear enough? BMK (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Sir, that is perfectly clear, Sir. And because Your Imperial Majesty has decreed that my "dubious-discuss" tag is "not warranted" and summarily shot it, reducing to nearly nil the probability of any input in support of my position appearing on this little-visited talk page, potential dissent to your pronouncements has been effectively suppressed and the triumph of your will is now virtually guaranteed. Congratulations on a successful bit of bullying.

If you reply again, perhaps you would deign to enlighten me about what "vested interest", other than making the article more accurate, you can imagine anyone would have in making such an edit. No "shoving" would be needed if it were not for an editor who is apparently not very (if at all) familiar with the film and does not have access to the DVD of it, but who nonetheless doggedly obstructs a relatively minor alteration to one description of the film's contents, an irrational and exasperating phenomenon which is indeed liable to induce a persistent pesky itch in one location or another. 66.81.242.201 (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup and Expansion

This article is incomplete and requires cleanup of its information. The plot section is too long an contains an unnecessary amount of dialogue quotations which need to be consolidated and/or removed whenever necessary with some rewrites done to it in order to shorten it so that it meets wikipiedia's standards. The Production section is incomplete and also requires cleanup. This section contains pieces of information that aren't fully explained and varies in tone and style that would be considered not encyclopedic in tone and should be rewritten and reformatted so that it meet Wikipiedia's standards of writing style and tone. The Production section should be split into three subsections detailing information on the film's development, casting, and filming (Information on the film's casting and filming will need to be expanded since information currently in the article on these topics are very short and somewhat fragmented). The Realease and reception section should be split into two different sections, one detailing the films releases (with subsections detailing its theatrical and home media releases). The reception section should also include subsections that detail both the film's initial response and later response as well as awards/nominations. All of the above listed changes and additions should include properly formatted citations for all information given. This article can very easily become a Featured Article if enough attention is given to it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Musicology needed

One disappointing aspect of the DVD release of The Jazz Singer is that its commentary track provides hardly any information about the score we are hearing, and which is the totality of most of the film's soundtrack. For example, there is what might be tagged as the "ghetto theme"—is it a traditional European Jewish melody? If so, does it, or its title, serve as an illuminating comment on the scenes it accompanies? Are the various ditties that accompany scenes of chorus rehearsals, etc., contributions by Irving Berlin, or originals by the score's composer, or ...? I recognize the tune that opens the Coffee Dan's sequence as "Hop, Skip", a circa 1926 song appropriate there because of its San Francisco origin (SF is where the sequence is set, despite misidentification as LA in the commentary: that's the SF Ferry Building in the subtitle card illustration, and "SF" in the "Coffee Dan's" logo, not "LA"), just the sort of musical comment that was often used in early film scores and is probably salted throughout this one. I was prompted to post this by just now coming across the claim in the article for the song "Beau Soir" that it was "used as a backdrop near the very end" of this film. In short, a musicological section, the more detailed the better, would, IMO, be a valuable contribution to this article. 66.81.245.3 (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Jazz Singer. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/16/movies/homevideo/16dvd.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160217043304/http://www.warnersisters.com/ourstore.html to http://www.warnersisters.com/ourstore.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afi.com/tvevents/100years/movies.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cinemaweb.com/silentfilm/bookshelf/10_dwp_3.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9A01E0DC113FE03ABC4F53DFB667838C639EDE

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) 09:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

What do you think?

Should we call The 1927 Jazz Singer a romantic musical drama or is that OK as is? --TMProofreader (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)#

Sources overwhelmingly consider it a musical drama. That is the primary genre. Betty Logan (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)