Topic: 3 Stooges Ultimate Collection DVD, June 5

[Rich Finegan]

What song is played during the intro of the Shemp solo shorts?

If you mean the mid-1940's Shemp starring shorts series, the main titles tune is "Merrily We Roll Along" arranged by Leigh Harline and Ben Oakland.
This was pretty much the regular titles music for most of the non-Three Stooges Columbia shorts from about 1939 onward. A few exceptions were some Andy Clyde shorts for which the titles tune was an arrangement of "Reuben and Rachel" and some Charley Chase and Hugh Herbert shorts for which an arrangement of "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow" was used.

[Bum]

Rich, I think this issue may have been debated in the past [not sure if it was on this board or not]...

I've always been of the opinion that this song is simply "Mary Had a Little Lamb". It shares the first seven notes of "Merrily we Roll Along", but after that, the similarities end. The melody of the song in the non-Stooges shorts matches up perfectly with the words "Mary had a little lamb, little lamb, little lamb, Mary had a little lamb, its fleece was white as snow". As I'm sure you know, "Merrily we Roll Along" was the opening theme music to the Warner Brothers MERRIE MELODIES cartoons for almost thirty years, and aside from the first seven notes, there's no common melody between the two songs.

Here's a Warner Bros cartoon that features the entire song throughout the cartoon [albeit prior to their adopting it for the opening music]. "Eddie Cantor" starts singing the song at about 47 seconds in:

To me this song definitely isn't the same as the one that opens the Columbia shorts.....

As usual, I seem to be in the minority in my opinions [and I do hate to debate with a certified Stooges expert], but I'm afraid I'm gonna have to stand my ground on this one!

[xraffle]

My Rare Treasures set is scheduled to arrive today. It will probably take a good 3-4 days to watch the whole set. Once I get through everything, I'll be sure to let you all know what I think.

[FineBari3]

I think I will go with Rich's information being correct with the title song.  He probably has original studio source material at his home that confirms it!

[Bum]

I figured he might, especially since he listed the arrangers of this particular version of the song. And I have no doubt his records say "Merrily we Roll Along", and I have no doubt whatsoever that I'm wrong.........

.....but when I sing the song out loud, it doesn't match the song heard on the WB cartoons, it matches "Mary had a Little Lamb"!!!

Speaking of identical songs, I just played the clip of "Umpa" [the first Columbia short which was just posted in the YouTube videos thread].... THAT sure is a very familiar song that starts playing at the 6:45 mark of part one!!

[stooged and confused]

Actually, it sounds to me like "London Bridges Falling Down" with a bit of "Oh, Suzannah." Funny how these two titles and Mary Had A Little Lamb and Merrily We Ride Along all sound the same.

[xraffle]

I finished watching "Rockin' In The Rockies" and all the Shemp solo shorts. "Rockin' In The Rockies" was a bit disappointing. The stooges are credited first, but they just don't appear enough throughout the film. It's like they're on screen for a few minutes, then you won't see them again until 5 minutes later. Then they'll appear for another 1-2 minutes (sometimes even less) and you won't see them again for a while. And sadly, there were only a few bits where I laughed. It was pretty sad seeing Curly perform here. You can tell he's trying very hard, but due to his health, he's just very weak and cannot perform with the same amount of energy that he used to during his healthier years. Larry actually gives the best performance out of the three. I really didn't like the fact that they made Moe a straight man instead of a stooge.

The Shemp solos were big step up from "Rockin' In The Rockies." They're basically like watching a Three Stooges short without Moe & Larry. They're filled with a lot of slapstick and mayhem. "A Hit With a Miss" is a remake of "Punch Drunks" and "Society Mugs" is a remake of "Termites of 1938." In "A Hit With a Miss," it was interesting seeing Shemp do his "eeb eeb" in his solo short. It was the only solo short in this set where he does that. All of them were really good, but my personal favorites were "Pick a Peck of Plumbers" and "Where The Pest Begins." My least favorite ones were the first 5, which were the ones that were 'featuring' Shemp because he doesn't shine as much as he does in the other 9 that he was 'starring' in. But overall, I think these Shemp solos are a must-see. Shemp Howard was really a great comedian!

I will begin watching the Joe Besser and Joe DeRita shorts tomorrow.

[falsealarms]

The teaming of Clyde and Shemp was a bust for you, eh?

I do agree about PICK A PICK OF PLUMBERS, which seems underrated in some circles.

[xraffle]

The teaming of Clyde and Shemp was a bust for you, eh?

They were good, but I thought the other ones were better.

[Rich Finegan]

(Regarding title of Shemp solo Columbia shorts titles music):
...I figured he might, especially since he listed the arrangers of this particular version of the song. And I have no doubt his records say "Merrily we Roll Along", and I have no doubt whatsoever that I'm wrong.........

No, I wouldn't say you're wrong!
As you have pointed out, that tune could match several other sets of words from other songs.
 
Yes, I was referring to offficial studio records that identify the tune as "Merrily We Roll Along". The documents I've been using are just about as "official" as you can get: the Music Cue Sheets that Columbia was required to submit to the music publishers (ASCAP, etc.) to ensure that the composers and publishers were properly credited (very important to be documented for reimbursement when the music is used for any public performance). The cue sheets list info such as the composition's title, composer/arranger, publisher, extent of use in the film (entire or partial), whether performed visually, vocal, instrumental, etc., timings, etc.
Sometimes cue sheets reveal if a selection was taken from an earlier film, whether a selection may have been used from a record, and other fascinating facts.

Among the many thousands of cue sheets (for every studio, not just Columbia) that I have, there are hundreds from Columbia shorts including the non-Stooges Columbias that use the opening titles music you asked about. They all identify the tune as "Merrily We Roll Along" with Leigh Harline and Ben Oakland as arrangers. In the late 1940's Lyle "Spud" Murphy took over as arranger but the title of the tune stayed the same.

The info on cue sheets is not always perfect. I have found many errors, omissions, etc. over the years. I'm just reporting here what Columbia submitted as the official composer/arranger credit for the tune.
By the way, to make things even more confusing, I do have a cue sheet for one 1940's Columbia short for which the titles music is given as "Good Night Ladies" but that's crossed out and "Merrily We Roll Along" is written in.   

[Rich Finegan]

I do agree about PICK A PICK OF PLUMBERS, which seems underrated in some circles.

I watched that one again just recently, from the new DVD set and must admit I liked it more than I recalled from whenever the last time was.
But the thing that most impressed me was (as is the case with all these new restorations) the excellent picture quality. I've had that short on video for decades and now it's like seeing it for the first time in the new restoration.

The picture quality is almost TOO GOOD! I mean, we can see details in the picture that we weren't supposed to, such as in the scene at 4 minutes in, where Shemp is trying to put tools into a large wooden box but the cover keeps falling shut just as he gets ready to drop them in. The string pulling the cover down from offscreen can be as easily seen at the right of the screen as anything else in the scene! Certainly that wouldn't have been visible on old video copies, and maybe not even on film prints projected on a screen.

Something else I noticed in that short was even more unexpected: at 12:44 in the short just after the water pours down on the four ladies at their card table, we can see someone stand up in front of the camera at the left of the screen! Check it out! I mean, we know these things were shot quickly, but you got to wonder how they could have left something like that in!

Something else that's very noticeable in these Shemp solo shorts is Shemp's tendency to mouth other actors' lines while waiting to speak his. Check out JIGGERS, MY WIFE at 6:18 minutes in, for a good example.

[Rich Finegan]

The Shemp solos ...
In "A Hit With a Miss," it was interesting seeing Shemp do his "eeb eeb" in his solo short. It was the only solo short in this set where he does that.

He also does it in MR. NOISY in the scene when he's sleeping with the ice on his chest.

[xraffle]

He also does it in MR. NOISY in the scene when he's sleeping with the ice on his chest.

I must've missed that one!

And I agree with you on the quality. I can't believe Sony took a lot of time to properly restore these shorts. It's amazing! And it's sad that they did all this work and they're not releasing it separately for the fans that already have Volumes 1-8.

[shemps#1]

Well let's see: you and a bunch of other on this board have purchased the box set despite already having the volumes or paid almost the amount of the set just to get the bonus volume so why should they release it separately?

[xraffle]

Well let's see: you and a bunch of other on this board have purchased the box set despite already having the volumes or paid almost the amount of the set just to get the bonus volume so why should they release it separately?

I bought the bonus set separately via Amazon Third Party for $25. I didn't double dip. And yes, because everyone here decided to double dip, it now makes me hesitant that Sony will release it separately. That is why when I saw the "Rare Treasures" DVD for $25, I grabbed it. If they released it separately, it probably would've cost around $20, so for another $5, I decided to buy it, especially since this set has more content than any of the previous 8 volumes.

[shemps#1]

I just noticed somebody left a Facebook post below with a letter from Sony (who apparently hired the dog from Family Guy to work in Consumer Affairs) but the letter states that Sony will not release it by itself at all. If folks weren't so impatient and stood their ground, only willing to buy the extra set if it were released by itself, then it would have been released separately. Unfortunately that did not happen with people either double-dipping (which, to each and every one of who did so, was beyond retarded) or willing to pay a premium to get retailers to break up the box set and sell it that way.

People complain about the consumer market but what they fail to realize is that the consumer himself is most influential in dictating where the market goes. As for me, I have not and will not repurchase DVDs I already have perfect copies of and I am not willing to pay a premium for a set with shorts that quite frankly don't come close to matching the Stooges shorts in terms of quality. If I see someone selling it for $5 or so I might pick it up.

[xraffle]

with people either double-dipping (which, to each and every one of who did so, was beyond retarded)

Some people bought the set and sold the individual volumes thereby getting most or all of their money back. If you have the patience and time to do that (which I don't), then it's not such a bad idea.

[shemps#1]

Some people bought the set and sold the individual volumes thereby getting most or all of their money back. If you have the patience and time to do that (which I don't), then it's not such a bad idea.

To Sony that does not matter. Double-dipping tells Sony that they had the correct market strategy. It's quite obvious who the bonus set is geared towards (hardcores) and many of them have this "ME ME ME NOW NOW NOW" attitude that they can't just wait shit out. Those broken up sets are also going to count as sales for the complete box since you have to break it up. If people who had the individual volumes all just held their wallets tightly and said "I'm not going out of way for the bonus, we have to take the market in another direction" they would eventually release the volume by itself and at a price comparable to the other volumes. Nope, instead they said "OMG I CAN'T WAIT TAKE MY MONEY ME ME ME NOW NOW NOW" and now people are selling the volume at inflated prices (Amazon has the box for $45 right now and the bonus volume at $33 from a third party) because the market (consumers) can't control themselves. It hurts not only those of us who refused to double-dip or get gouged, but future business as well.

[shemps#1]

I bought the bonus set separately via Amazon Third Party for $25. I didn't double dip. And yes, because everyone here decided to double dip, it now makes me hesitant that Sony will release it separately. That is why when I saw the "Rare Treasures" DVD for $25, I grabbed it. If they released it separately, it probably would've cost around $20, so for another $5, I decided to buy it, especially since this set has more content than any of the previous 8 volumes.

I almost missed your remark about "more content" X. That would be fine if said content was equal to the other volumes in terms of quality, but a couple of bad movies and Shemp, Joe and Derita solos do not match up to any of the other volumes in terms of quality content (not even volume 8 ).

[metaldams]

I bought my set from a third party for $30.  I only bought the Rare Treasures set and nothing else.  $30 for 3 discs of shorts I've wanted to see for years sounds very reasonable, and I have no regrets about the purchase.

I'm also in agreement with Jim that double dipping sends a message to Sony they can fleece the fans by this double dipping garbage.  We as the consumer have the power to stop this by not giving in, yet many people unfortunately do double dip and exercise no patience.  You can't blame Sony and other companies for trying to make more money because of this.  I was prepared to wait for years if need be, but fortunately I found a deal for the bonus discs alone I was comfortable with and went for it. 

[xraffle]

I was prepared to wait for years if need be, but fortunately I found a deal for the bonus discs alone I was comfortable with and went for it.

Same here!

[metaldams]

Oh, and by the way, I'm about halfway through the Shemp disc, and these Andy Clyde shorts and a some of these Shemp solos are excellent, especially BOOBS IN THE WOODS; OPEN SEASONS FOR SAPS; and OFF AGAIN, ON AGAIN.  I'm starting to think the Shemp solos I haven't seen are better than the ones I have seen.  Great to see Christine McIntyre being put to good use in these movies as well, it still boggles my mind somebody with her talent and beauty did not progress beyond B westerns and shorts  (though as a selfish fan, I'm glad she's in those shorts).

2 of the 3 cartoons were good as well, mainly the ones with all the Hollywood cameos.  Never knew much about the Columbia cartoon department, and interesting to see Frank Tashlin, former Warners cartoon director, directing a Columbia short.

[shemps#1]

I bought my set from a third party for $30.  I only bought the Rare Treasures set and nothing else.  $30 for 3 discs of shorts I've wanted to see for years sounds very reasonable, and I have no regrets about the purchase.

I'm also in agreement with Jim that double dipping sends a message to Sony they can fleece the fans by this double dipping garbage.  We as the consumer have the power to stop this by not giving in, yet many people unfortunately do double dip and exercise no patience.  You can't blame Sony and other companies for trying to make more money because of this.  I was prepared to wait for years if need be, but fortunately I found a deal for the bonus discs alone I was comfortable with and went for it. 

I knew you would understand even though you took the price gouge. My complaint is more with the consumer and how they cut off their noses to spite their faces than the Three Stooges and this box set/bonus volume in particular. This scenario is just a microcosm of a much bigger problem which is particularly alarming because we are only just now very slowly recovering from the worst financial crises since the Stooges were actually alive and performing. I'm glad you and X are happy with your purchases, but please understand the effect that such purchases have on the rest of us. You were willing to pay $30 for something Amazon has valued at $5, not just you but tons of others have as well. This is why the rest of us aren't getting a chance to get it at a reasonable price.

[metaldams]

I knew you would understand even though you took the price gouge. My complaint is more with the consumer and how You were willing to pay $30 for something Amazon has valued at $5, not just you but tons of others have as well. This is why the rest of us aren't getting a chance to get it at a reasonable price.

Our definitions of reasonable price vary, which is fine, that's the whole point of a free market.  I feel $30 for 3 discs and 11 hours worth of material is very reasonable.  What I did not find reasonable was the idea of spending $100 or more on this set just to get the bonus disc, now that's a rip-off.  But $10 a disc for a comedy team I'm a huge fan of with films I've been wanting to see for over a decade?  I'll take it.  I don't know where Amazon got this $5 value, but to me $5 for this material is beyond reasonable, it's a steal.

I hear you on the economy, though.  I'm going to a concert this Friday night, and bought those tickets in February.  This DVD set is my first non-food or bill paying purchase since then.

[shemps#1]

Our definitions of reasonable price vary, which is fine, that's the whole point of a free market.  I feel $30 for 3 discs and 11 hours worth of material is very reasonable.  What I did not find reasonable was the idea of spending $100 or more on this set just to get the bonus disc, now that's a rip-off.  But $10 a disc for a comedy team I'm a huge fan of with films I've been wanting to see for over a decade?  I'll take it.  I don't know where Amazon got this $5 value, but to me $5 for this material is beyond reasonable, it's a steal.

I hear you on the economy, though.  I'm going to a concert this Friday night, and bought those tickets in February.  This DVD set is my first non-food or bill paying purchase since then.

OK, they sell it for $45 so $5 per volume. That is currently the price Amazon has set for the complete box. Anything is only worth what people are willing to pay for it, and by paying $30 you are saying "this bonus set is worth more than the Columbia shorts put together" and is definitely incentive for price gouging third parties to bust open the boxes.

Take your bonus set, for instance: the person broke open a box to sell you the bonus for $30. Even if that person gets $5 each for the other volumes they've made $70 gross off a $45 item. The corporate suits will see this and similar items will be sold at a premium. I can't afford and even if I could afford to will not allow myself to accept a price gouge like that. If anything , if I wanted it that badly (and don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the shorts I haven't seen...well maybe not the Derita shorts, he was just a terrible performer) I would have double-dipped, paid $45 for the box and either give away or sell the volumes I have now. Either way, whether you think it's fair or not is not the point: if you are paying $30 for something that costs $5 you are getting gouged.