I'm The One Who Got Away PDF Free Download

  

Welcome to Walt Disney World. Come and enjoy the magic of Walt Disney World Resort in Orlando, FL. Plan your family vacation and create memories for a lifetime. Welcome to Menu Plan Monday! Affiliate links are included in this post. This means I make a small commission should you purchase product using these links. This is at no extra cost to you. Hi friends, I’m back! My family and I got away for a few days in Jasper Canada.

Abstract

[removed] My kitchen year pdf free download.

Should laypeople worry about the security, privacy, and future uses of genetic material they submit to academic genomics studies or private companies like 23andMe?

The_Circular_Ruins

This is an excellent question and I think societies should definitely get ready for the 'genomic era'. There will be more and more genetic testing done in the future. I personally do not think our greatest worry is access to our genetic material or information. Not right now anyway. Just simple questions about family history and behavioural data that people provide on social media - give more information than genetic testing today. The first thing that 'lay' people (I prefer the term, non-experts) need to worry about is how little we know and understand about genetics. This is because right now most people would not know how to interpret the probabilistic information they are getting from their 'genes'. This may affect them psychologically.

If you'd like to know more about efforts to formulate an international ethical frame work for genetics research I'd recommend this paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3897849/


What do you think will be future implications of using CRISPR technology will be (good and/ bad)?

tialeah

I can see people already provided some excellent responses to the CRISPR (Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) technique. I think this and other new methods of gene-editing will be widely used in some areas of medicine. However, we will need to learn much more about DNA before this can happen. For example, the same gene can affect many different traits (a concept called pleiotropy). There are some examples where a gene may have have a positive effect on one trait and a negative - on another. This obviously calls for much caution for any gene editing. Having said this, there is much research that is going on right now to use genetics to understand how we can target specific cells, for example, so that we can deliver drugs directly to where they need to go.

If you'd like to know more, this might be of interest (as recommended by one of my students) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAhjPd4uNFY&feature=youtu.be


Hi Dr. Kovas,

If you had a genome in front of you, would you be able to tell what a person's strengths/weaknesses, or overall behavioral characteristics are? With what percentage would you expect to be correct? Are there any people involved with creating genetic profiles (gene A and gene B mean something separately, but together mean a different behavioral component)?

What are the current restrictions on sharing genetic data (with patient or without)? Are there any policy changes we should know about related to this?

Do you like the movie Gattaca?

Thanks!

I-9 Form 2021

LookinLikeCroMagnon

Great bunch of questions!
According to some solid predictions, all newborn babies' DNA will be sequenced soon after birth. This means that no more genotyping will ever need to be done on their DNA. The big question is what will we be able to do with this information. Currently, there is very very little that we can tell about psychological characteristics of an individual just by examining their DNA. This is because all psychological traits are influenced by many many genetic markers of very very small effects (the concept called 'polygenicity'). This means that it is very difficult to identify these markers. However, recently this work has begun. For example, here you can find a paper that reports on predicting educational achievement from DNA, where 9% of variability in achievement is explained by multiple DNA markers (polymorphisms): http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp2016107a.html. To hear the author talk about her work please see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vq9WEIx0PI


My family is currently undergoing genetic testing because of my child's autism diagnosis, with no family history. We already did the microarray, now we're doing single-gene tests (over 2,000!).

My question is, what about traits that are a result of interplay between multiple genes? For example, perhaps my child only has autism because she inherited gene A from me and gene B from daddy, neither one alone would cause the disorder. Or it could be you need a certain set of 10+ genes, and without any one of them autism never develops, etc.

My understanding is, current genetic testing can't detect genetic causes of this kind. Is that true? Is anything being done about that? How likely is it that important traits are a result of multiple-gene interactions as I described?

slowlyslipping

As you probably know, our view of autism and autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) has changed dramatically, from viewing it as an entirely environmental condition (parents were often blamed for it) to viewing it as a 'genetic' disorder. Neither view is correct. Like most other traits, it seems to be a product of genetic and environmental influences. The environmental side of it is very poorly understood, it is really not clear what aspects of the environment contribute to the development of the condition. At the genetic level, a lot has been learned from family studies, and in particular - twins. Monozygotic twins who share 100% of their DNA show a remarkably high concordance for autism (if one twin has ASD, the other one is highly likely to also be diagnosed with it). Interestingly, Dizygotic twins (who share only 50% of the variable DNA) are less similar than can be expected from their genetic similarity. This indicates, that it is possible that some of the genetic effects on ASD are of an interactive type - when one gene depends on another gene (epistasis). What is also clear is that many many genetic markers (polymorphisms) seem to be involved in ASD, and currently only some of them have been identified. So, still a lot of research to do..

For more about the twin method I'd recommend this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTYCv1ObZrI


Hi there, thanks for doing the ama!

I'm studying Sociology/Criminology and it's still a debated topic as to whether people's attraction to other people is somewhat genetic or whether it is learnt either subliminally or not.
So my question is, to what extent do you believe that sexual orientation is an influenceable choice over a genetic fact. Sorry if this out of your field but I'm interested to get a little outside perspective.

Ajaiixx

You are right, I am not an expert in this particular area of research. My focus is on individual differences in learning abilities, motivation, cognitive abilities and other human characteristics relevant to education. However, what I can say is that whichever area is addressed with behavioural genetics - we are finding at least moderate genetic effects. This suggests that it is highly likely that sexual attraction and orientation is influenced by many genes (DNA variants) of small effects, that interact with environments - to produce individual differences. There is an excellent summary of behavioural genetics findings in this paper: http://pps.sagepub.com/content/11/1/3.full


For someone like me who suffers from depression and mental health issues(schizophrenia) do you think it is immoral to reproduce?

schizophrenicman123

Every individual should be able to and should be allowed to make decisions about reproduction themselves. Even if we discover all the genetic variants (polymorphisms) that are involved in complex traits, such as depression, the prediction of whether someone may develop depression will be only probabilistic. This is because genes will interact with environments, and the same genes may express differently in different environments. By the time we will be able to make solid predictions of traits from DNA alone, we may also develop better understanding of how to prevent or treat conditions, for example from targeting specific cells with drugs, or by providing specific environmental conditions early in development. In any case, the value of Life can not be evaluated or predicted in a mathematical way and will always remain a mystery. However, we can equip ourselves with the best current information when making any such decisions; be this through academic papers or medical consultation.


Hello Dr.Kovas

I don't really understand what it is you do, could you explain it as if I were a five-year-old?

Sykrias

OK. Probably not a five-year-old, but I will try my best. I am fascinated by individual differences, and would like to understand why people differ in psychological traits, such as learning ability, motivation, empathy etc. The most basic answer is: we differ because we have differences in our DNA sequence and we differ because we develop in different environments. My research programme is dedicated to understanding these processes at all possible levels: molecular genetics, brain, cognitive etc.


What are the potential implications for the public if large companies attempt to patent genetic modifications for humans in the same respect that companies such as Monsanto have done for crops? If a company were able to develop a genetic modification to prevent a degenerative condition such as ALS and patent it, would an individual be infringing upon said patent by passing that genetic sequence on to their offspring through natural reproduction?

XxSolomonxX

This is a real concern and I am very glad you are asking this question. I will leave it to our legal expert at TAGC to respond to this (we will post answers on tagc.world), but briefly, we need to do all we can to sustain funding for genetic research and not to leave it to commercial companies only. Indeed, current law allows patenting in genetics and this may disadvantage us in the future. The Human Genome Project is a tremendous example of scientific collaboration - scientists all over the world worked together round the clock to sequence the human genome and to make it publicly available - rather than allow commercial companies to patent it. I hope that future genetic discoveries will benefit everyone equally.


I'm curious to hear your take on the exposome. How do we best quantify it to measure it's impact on the individual? Do we treat it like the weather, and address it in more of a public health arena, or should we keep it focused on individuals? Also, how do you see it fitting into the emerging field of precision medicine? Thanks for doing this AMA!

DiscursiveMind

OK, for those who don't know this term, exposome refers to all of the environmental exposures that an individual encounters throughout life, complementing the genome - the entire DNA sequence of an individual. When genome meets exposome - transcriptome, epigenome, proteome, neurome and phenome (the collection of all your expressed traits/behaviours) of an individual are created. This is an extremely exciting time - our ability to anlayse huge datasets (big data), containing millions and billions data points - is developing at an astronomical pace. I have no doubts that big data analyses will lead to discoveries of new patterns in the exposome and genome and their interplay - and will lead to new discoveries. We will without a doubt know more about ourselves in the future. What will we do with this knowledge - remains a total mystery.


Hello! I am curious your take on 'gifted' programs at schools. Placement in these is usually determined by the achievements of a student, do you forsee a future where this is instead determined by ones potential? What are the implications on students without the best genetics if that were to be the case?

Frank_Steine

This is a fantastic question. Potential is an extremely difficult thing to measure. Genes do not act in isolation and in fact interact with environments. For example, a student may have genetic potential to become a great musician, but this will only be actualised if they are exposed to or are able to seek a musically rich environment.

Achievement itself, and factors such as SES are themselves genetically influenced to some extent. Whilst there is the potential to use genetic information directly to identify those students who are more likely to do well at school, the important question is whether we direct resources to help those most in need, or those who are most able. It is a misconception that for societies to flourish we just need to foster talent. It is important to direct resources to tailor educational curricular to an individuals needs.

I'm The One Who Got Away PDF Free Download

It is common in schools around the world to stream students into different abilities groups already, but this is done in quite a crude manner. Genetics has helped identify that we are much more different than these streams can accommodate.

For more about genetics in education I'd particularly recommend:

http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118482786.html
http://www.palgrave.com/br/book/9781137437310


I was given a 23andme kit when they were starting up years ago. It was incredibly fascinating to see how much information about myself was readable from my genetic code, such as hair colour and straightness to the consistency of my earwax.

Do you think that gene sequencing is something everyone should have done in the future? Perhaps for the purpose of garnering useful medical information such as blood type and rh factor, sensitivity to certain drugs, and potential disease risks.

Do you think the existence of this information would be exploited by insurance companies to inflate prices for higher risk customers? Or even by potential employers who would choose not to hire a candidate based on genetic traits?

Do the pros outweigh the potential cons?

Also as a final note, how accurate would you consider the current state of understanding when using genetic sequencing to treat patients? For example giving a patient smaller doses of a painkiller that they are genetically predisposed to be more sensitive too.

GentlemenScience

Excellent questions. At TAGC (The accessible genetics consortium) we are working on these issues together with lawyers, policy makers, and other relevant experts. I will provide a brief response here, but we will post a more extensive response on the TAGC website shortly. As I mentioned already in another response - currently prediction for complex psychological traits is very crude. Family history and behavioural (phenotypic) information has more value than genetic testing. In the future, this is likely to change and the predictive power of DNA will become more precise (but will always remain probabilistic). This raises important questions about who will have access to genetic information and who will be allowed to use it. For example, if a newborn's DNA is sequenced at birth, will this data be waiting for them When they turn 16 or 18 before they can act on it? Or will their parents be making decisions about any possibilities of genetic engineering, choices of educational programmes etc. What if the parents disagree on these decisions? Will doctors be able to use this information? Will people need to disclose information about their DNA to insurance companies? All of these issues will need to be thought through and policies will need to be put in place. I can see that as some jobs become obsolete, a new host of jobs will appear - genetic counselling for complex diseases and disorders, 'genetic advice' - like 'mortgage' advice, etc.With regards to your 'painkiller' question, already today genetic testing helps to guide some treatments, in particular in cancer. And genetic research in 'response to treatment' is flourishing. This is definitely where I see huge benefits of genetic research.


Thanks for doing this AMA professor! My question is more philosophical than anything, how do you think genomics will impact the way humans conceive of themselves? I know we tend to think of ourselves as core 'souls' encased by a shell of 'body', so how does understanding genetic variants that relate to, say, intelligence, addiction, tendency to commit crimes/suicide etc change that? Also what does it imply in terms of our conception of free will to think that there is underlying, molecularly determined causality behind our actions and personalities?

OnQuh

I do think that knowledge changes the way we think - fundamentally. Therefore, I do think that genetic discoveries will change (to some extent) the way we think about ourselves and about others. Like with any knowledge, there may be positive and negative sides of this knowledge. On a positive side, we will recognise that genetically everyone is special, individual and unique. We will also recognise that everyone carries risks for many traits - good and bad. That in many ways, genetics is a lottery - some people are more lucky than others - and we should recognise this. It is harder for some people to loose weight, to stay motivated, to be conscientious, not to get angry.. It is easier for some people to do things. These are not excuses or achievements - they are explanations. I think genetic message is one of tolerance, of compassion, of equality despite differences.
On the negative side is that knowing may be a burden. People may try to run away from their 'probabilistic' fate, or worry about things that may (or may not) come, and this may affect them negatively.. This is not a question about genetics only, it is more about any prediction.


Can ones intelligence be considered a genetically inherited trait or is ones intelligence the result of ones upbringing? If both statements are true, then which plays a bigger role?

the505

Indeed, both statements are true. Intelligence, like most human traits, is a product of genetic and environmental influences. They interplay with each other, in most interesting ways. For example, it has been shown in several populations that heritability of intelligence increases with age. That is, individual differences in intelligence in children are largely explained by environmental differences, but as we grow older, genetic differences among us explain more and more differences in intelligence. It is not entirely clear why this is the case. One explanation is that, as we go through life, we make decisions that are partly driven by our genetic propensities. So, we choose environments that are suitable to our genetic propensities or react or respond to environments and events - in ways that reflect our genetic predispositions. This way genes influence intelligence more. I highly recommend this paper on genetic findings about intelligence: https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/35094548/Plomin_Deary_2015_Mol_Psychiatry.pdf


kisordog

It never had it!


Additional Assets

  • t3_5eahf7_comments.json 258 KB

License

This article and its reviews are distributed under the terms of theCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and redistribution in any medium, provided that the original author and source are credited.

Sheet music cover from 1918.

'I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles' is a popular American song which debuted in 1918 and was first published in 1919, since when it has been a hit song for several artists over the years. It is also the anthem of English Premier League club West Ham.

History[edit]

Creation[edit]

The music was written by John Kellette. The lyrics are credited to 'Jaan Kenbrovin' — actually a collective pseudonym for the writers James Kendis, James Brockman and Nat Vincent, combining the first three letters of each lyricist's last name. The number debuted in the Broadway musicalThe Passing Show of 1918, and it was introduced by Helen Carrington.[1]

The copyright to 'I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles' was originally registered in 1919, and was owned by the Kendis-Brockman Music Co. Inc. This was transferred later that year to Jerome H. Remick & Co. of New York and Detroit. When the song was written, James Kendis, James Brockman, and Nat Vincent all had separate contracts with publishers, which led them to use the name Jaan Kenbrovin for credit on this song. James Kendis and James Brockman were partners in the Kendis-Brockman Music Company.

Becomes a hit[edit]

Sheet music cover featuring June Caprice

The waltz was a major Tin Pan Alley hit, and was performed and recorded by most major singers and bands of the late 1910s and early 1920s. The song was a hit for Ben Selvin's Novelty Orchestra in 1919. The Original Dixieland Jass Band recording of the number is an unusual early example of jazz in 3/4 time.

The writer Ring Lardner parodied the lyric during the Black Sox scandal of 1919, when he began to suspect that players on the Chicago White Sox (a United States-based baseball team) were deliberately losing the World Series to the Cincinnati Reds.[2] His version began: 'I'm forever blowing ballgames.'

The song also became a hit with the public in British music halls and theatres during the early 1920s. Dorothy Ward was especially renowned for making the song famous with her appearances at these venues. The song was also used by English comedian 'Professor' Jimmy Edwards as his signature tune—played on the trombone. Harpo Marx would play the song on clarinet, which would then begin emitting bubbles. The melody is frequently quoted in animated cartoon sound tracks when bubbles are visible. The title air, or first line of the chorus, is quoted in the 1920s song 'Singing in the Bathtub', also a popular standard in cartoon sound tracks, including being repeatedly sung by Tweety Bird.

The song features extensively in the 1931 prohibition gangster movie The Public Enemy starring James Cagney. It also was sung by a white bird in the Merrie Melodies cartoon I Love to Singa. The song is also sung in the 1951 film On Moonlight Bay starring Doris Day and Gordon MacRae, which was the prequel to the 1953 film By the light of the silvery moon. A parody of the song was written and performed as 'I'm Forever Blowing Bubble-Gum' by Spike Jones and his City Slickers. In Ken Russell's 1969 film Women in Love the song is featured in an unusual scene where two sisters, played by Glenda Jackson and Jennie Linden, wander away from a large picnic gathering and are confronted by a herd of cattle. In the early 1970s, the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band's stage show featured a robot that sang the title air while blowing bubbles. A solo guitar rendition is periodically featured within the action of Woody Allen's 1999 film Sweet And Lowdown.[3] Director Brad Mays paid homage to that scene in his 2008 film The Watermelon, in which actress Kiersten Morgan sings the song while dancing on a Malibu beach.[4]

Lyrics[edit]

The original lyrics (as per the first publication) [1]

Verse 1[edit]

I'm dreaming dreams,
I'm scheming schemes,
I'm building castles high.
They're born anew,
Their days are few,
Just like a sweet butterfly.
And as the daylight is dawning,
They come again in the morning.

Chorus[edit]

I'm forever blowing bubbles,
Pretty bubbles in the air,
They fly so high,
Nearly reach the sky,
Then like my dreams,
They fade and die.
Fortune's always hiding,
I've looked everywhere,
I'm forever blowing bubbles,
Pretty bubbles in the air.

Verse 2[edit]

When shadows creep,
When I'm asleep,
To lands of hope I stray.
Then at daybreak,
When I awake,
My bluebird flutters away.
Happiness new seemed so near me,
Happiness come forth and heal me.

Chorus[edit]

I'm forever blowing bubbles,
Pretty bubbles in the air.
They fly so high,
Nearly reach the sky,
Then like my dreams,
They fade and die.
Fortune's always hiding,
I've looked everywhere,
I'm forever blowing bubbles,
Pretty bubbles in the air.

West Ham connection[edit]

The song is well known in England as the club anthem of West Ham United, a London-based football club. It is said to have been adopted by West Ham's supporters in the 1920s (although there is no record of West Ham fans singing the song until 1940),[5] and it is now one of the most recognisable club anthems in English football, alongside songs similarly adopted by other clubs, such as 'Keep Right on to the End of the Road', 'You'll Never Walk Alone', 'Blue Moon', 'Blue Is the Colour', “On the Ball, City” and 'Blaydon Races'.

'I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles' was played in various football grounds by marching bands in the 1920s, for example at Swansea and West Ham's rival Millwall.[6] The song was introduced to West Ham by former manager Charlie Paynter in the late twenties. A player, Billy J. 'Bubbles' Murray, who played for the local Park School had a resemblance to the boy in the 'Bubbles' painting by Millais used in a Pears soap commercial of the time. Headmaster Cornelius Beal began singing the tune 'I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles' with amended lyrics when Park players played well.[7] Beal was a friend of Paynter, while Murray was a West Ham trialist and played football at schoolboy level with a number of West Ham players such as Jim Barrett. Through this contrivance of association, the club's fans took it upon themselves to begin singing the popular music hall tune before home games, sometimes reinforced by the presence of a house band requested to play the refrain by Paynter.[7]

In 1980, as a tribute to West Ham United, the punk rock band the Cockney Rejects covered the song. The song is also heard in the movie Green Street Hooligans and at the end of episode 6 of series 3 of Ashes to Ashes, which took place in 1983 and featured the death of a West Ham United supporter.[citation needed]

In 2006, at the final match at Arsenal F.C.'s Highbury stadium, Arsenal supporters broke into song to celebrate West Ham's defeat of Tottenham which secured Arsenal's spot in the Champions League on the last day.[citation needed] Similarly, Blackburn Rovers were heard singing 'Bubbles' in their dressing room after West Ham assisted them winning the Premier League in 1995 having held Manchester United to a 1–1 draw on the final day of the season, led by Tony Gale (an eleven-year West Ham veteran who had moved to Blackburn earlier in the season).[8]

On 16 May 1999, prior to a home game against Middlesbrough, 23,680 fans in the Boleyn Ground blew bubbles for a minute, setting a new world record.[9]

On 27 July 2012, during the Olympics Opening Ceremony, 'I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles' was used as part of the soundtrack to the event at the London Olympic Stadium.[10]

On 1 September 2018, to mark the centennial of the song's original debut, Alex Mendham & His Orchestra performed a special arrangement of 'I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles' at the London Stadium.[11]

Shriners International connection[edit]

In North America, the song played a part in the foundation of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, which are owned and operated by Shriners International, a Freemasonry-related organisation.

At their 1920 Imperial Session (national convention), Freeland Kendrick proposed a unified charitable mission for the Shriners fraternity by building an orthopedic hospital for children. The idea had come to him after visiting the Texas Scottish Rite Hospital for Children, which primarily treated children suffering the devastating effects of polio. He was shocked to learn that there were not enough hospitals specialising in care for children, especially those suffering from polio.

When he made the proposal, many expressed doubts; with the prospects of the plan being approved fading fast, Forrest Adair then spoke: “I was lying in bed yesterday morning, about four o’clock, and some poor fellow who had strayed from the rest of the band stood down there under the window for 25 minutes playing 'I’m Forever Blowing Bubbles'.” Adair said that when he awoke later that morning he thought again of the wandering musician. “I wondered if there were not a deep significance in the tune that he was playing for Shriners… I’m Forever Blowing Bubbles.” Adair continued, “While we have spent money for songs and for bands, it is time for the Shriners to spend money for humanity. .. Let us get rid of all the technical objections. And if there is a Shriner in North America who objects to having paid the two dollars after he has seen the first crippled child helped, I will give him a check back for it myself.” Adair sat down to the sound of thunderous applause. In that moment, the tide had turned; the resolution was passed unanimously.

A committee chosen to determine the site and personnel for the Shriners Hospital concluded that there should not be just one hospital, but a network of hospitals throughout North America. When the committee brought the proposal to the 1921 Imperial Session in Des Moines, Iowa, it too was passed.[12][13]

Sparta Warriors connection[edit]

In Norway, the song is known as the club anthem of Sparta Warriors, a Sarpsborg-based ice hockey club.

The Norwegian version of the song, rewritten and performed by Kai Robert Johansen, is titled 'Blå Bobler' (Blue Bubbles).

Recordings[edit]

Recordings of the song include:

  • Albert C. Campbell & Henry Burr
    • Columbia A-2701 (matrix: 78263-1)
    • Recorded January 22, 1919
  • Helen Clark & George Wilton Ballard
    • EdisonBlue Amberol 3798
    • Released August 1919
  • Ben Selvin & his Novelty Orchestra
    • Victor 18603 (matrix: 22966-6)
    • Recorded July 31, 1919
  • Peter Dawson (as Will Strong)
    • HMV B 1092
    • Recorded London February 16, 1920
  • Vera Lynn
    • Recorded London
  • Doris Day & Jack Smith with the Norman Luboff Choir with orchestra directed by Paul Weston
    • Columbia 39453 (matrix: RHCO 4481-1N)
    • Also released as a track of the 10' LP, On Moonlight Bay
    • Recorded Los Angeles April 27, 1951
  • Les Paul & Mary Ford
    • CL. 13583
    • Recorded Sep 1951
  • Les Brown and his Band of Renown
    • Vogue Coral Q 72242
    • Recorded April 1957
  • Kirby Stone Four
    • Philips PB 938
    • Recorded 1959
  • The Blue Diamonds
    • Decca F 21346
    • Recorded 1961
  • The Kalin Twins
    • Brunswick 05862
    • Recorded 1961
  • Frank Fontaine (as Crazy Guggenheim on The Jackie Gleason Show/CBS-TV;'Songs I Sing on the Jackie Gleason Show' – Track 2)
    • ABC Paramount Records 90212
    • Recorded 1962
    • Number One Album on Billboard in February 1963
  • The Kaye Sisters
    • Philips 326569 BF
    • Recorded 1963
  • West Ham United Cup Squad
    • Pye 7N 45470
    • Released May 1975
  • Grandma's Boys
    • [SPEBSQUA: Barbershop Harmony Music]
    • Recorded 1979
  • Cockney Rejects
    • Zonophone Z 4
    • Released May 1980
  • Joan Morris and William Bolcom
    • Moonlight Bay: Songs As Is and Songs As Was
    • Albany Troy 318
    • Released 1999
  • Charlie Ventura – Bop for the People (vocal by Jackie Cain and Roy Kral)
    • Proper Box UK
    • Released September 2005
  • Also, a version of the tune can be heard in the animated film The Thief and the Cobbler by Richard Williams

Singles chart success[edit]

'I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles'
Single by Cockney Rejects
B-side'West Side Boys'
Released1980
GenrePunk
Length3:32
LabelEMI Records (UK)
Songwriter(s)John Kellette, James Kendis, James Brockman, Nat Vincent
Producer(s)Chris Briggs
Cockney Rejects singles chronology
'The Greatest Cockney Rip Off'
(1980)
'I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles'
(1980)
'We Can Do Anything'
(1980)

Versions of the song have charted in the UK Singles Chart on two occasions, both coinciding with an FA Cup Final appearance by West Ham United. On 10 May 1975 a version recorded by the West Ham 1975 FA Cup Final squad entered the chart at number 31,[14] only staying in the top 40 for one week. For the 1980 FA Cup Final appearance the Cockney Rejects version of the song entered the charts at number 35 on 31 May 1980,[15] again only staying in the top 40 for the one week.

References[edit]

  1. ^Jasen, David A. (1988). Tin Pan Alley; the Composers the Songs the Performers and their Times. New York: Donald I. Fine. p. 183. ISBN1556110995.
  2. ^'Entry for Ring Lardner at the Baseball Library'. Baseballlibrary.com. Archived from the original on 2007-05-28. Retrieved 2011-08-14.
  3. ^Sweet and Lowdown (1999) – IMDb
  4. ^'IMDbPro'. Pro.imdb.com. Retrieved 2011-08-14.
  5. ^Brown, Paul (23 March 2016). 'Why West Ham fans sing 'I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles''. FourFourTwo.
  6. ^Nannestad, Ian (8 January 2016). ''Bubbles', 'Abe my boy' and 'the Fowler war cry': singing at the Vetch Field in the 1920s'. In Anthony Bateman (ed.). Sport, Music, Identities. Routledge. pp. 33–34. ISBN9781315763149.
  7. ^ abJohn Helliar. 'The Story of Bubbles'. West Ham United. Archived from the original on 28 May 2010.
  8. ^Sharratt, Ben (2010). Bring Me the Head of Trevor Brooking: Three Decades of East End Soap Opera .. Random House. ISBN978-1845966614.
  9. ^'World Bubble Records'. Bubble Blowers Museum. Bubblin' Marilyn. 28 April 2008. Retrieved 14 August 2011.
  10. ^'West Ham United statement'. West Ham United FC. Archived from the original on 30 July 2012. Retrieved 28 July 2012.
  11. ^'West Ham-supporting bandleader Alex celebrates Bubbles' 100th birthday'. West Ham United FC. Retrieved 1 September 2018.
  12. ^'Shriners International: A Historic Decision'. Shriners International.
  13. ^'Forrest Adair: I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles'.
  14. ^'UK Singles Chart 10th May 1975'. Official Charts Company. 1975-05-10. Retrieved 2011-08-14.
  15. ^'UK Singles Chart 31st May 1980'. Official Charts Company. 1980-05-31. Retrieved 2011-08-14.

External links[edit]

  • West Ham United club history at KUMB, contains full lyrics for the song
  • The Story of Bubbles by John Helliar, from the official West Ham United website
  • Hogg, Tony (2005). Who's Who of West Ham United. Profile Sports Media. p. 24. ISBN1-903135-50-8.
  • Lyrics of this song at MetroLyrics
Away

I Love Pdf

Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_Forever_Blowing_Bubbles&oldid=1030663915'