document_title: Child benefits in the United Kingdom

question_text: when did child benefit start in the uk

question_tokens: when did child benefit start in the uk

text: Child benefits in the United Kingdom

text: The child tax allowance[edit]

text: The first modern child tax credit was introduced in the 1909 'People's Budget' of Lloyd-George. This introduced a £10 income tax allowance per child, for tax payers earning under £500 per annum. Following extensive Parliamentary debate, the Budget became law as the Finance Act (1909–1910) 1910 on 29 April 1910.[1] Since the income tax rate was then 1 shilling, two pence in the pound (5.83%), the value of the tax credit was therefore 11 shillings and eight pence per child. Since most people did not earn enough to pay tax, this was a subsidy for middle class parents. The nominal value of these tax credits were generally, though not always, increased in line with income tax rates. For instance, by 1916, income tax had increased to five shillings in the pound (25%), and the tax credit to £25, giving a value of the tax credit of £6 5 shillings.

text: Family Allowance[edit]

text: Calls began for a specific family payment in the early part of the 20th century. These were successfully opposed by those who saw men, earning higher wages than women, as bread-winners, supporting the family through their wages - family allowance payments were seen as socialist and/or feminist in nature.[2] In addition, eugenicist arguments perceived the poor as unworthy of support.

text: Over the 1930s, growing evidence showed that large numbers of children were born into poverty, with 47% suffering five years or more of malnutrition. Higher wages would not effectively target these children, as the majority of male workers had no dependent children. A White Paper of Family Allowances was published in May 1942, giving costings for various levels of family allowance. These were not immediately adopted, and following the publication of the Beveridge Report, which called for subsistence levels of payments, uprated with the cost of living, the Family Allowances Act 1945 was passed. This provide for a five shilling per week payment for each child, after the first. This was designed to support large families, and was set well below the nine shilling a week subsistence level (further devalued by inflation) recommended by Beveridge.[3] In 1952 the rate was increased to eight shillings per week. In 1956 the rate for the third and subsequent children was increased to ten shillings per week, and the maximum age for payments for dependent children was increased from 15 to 18.

text: In 1968 the rates were increased from 8 to 15 and then 18 shillings and from 10 to 17 shillings and then £1 respectively,[4][5] but this was paid for in part by a reduction in the value of child tax allowance, so that the poor would benefit, but the middle classes did not.[6]

text: In 1975, the rate was increased to £1.50 for each child after the first.[7]

text: Family Income Supplement[edit]

text: Family Income Supplement was introduced in 1970 by the new Conservative government of Edward Heath, following a child poverty campaign, effective from August 1971, and provided for a payment to families on low wages. Claimants were required to provide payslips, to prove they were in employment, for a minimum of 24 hours per week. Takeup of the benefit was initially poor, with only half of those eligible claiming.[8]

text: Rates were raised largely in line with inflation to 1979, but several above-inflation increases followed under the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher. By November 1984, rates had risen to a maximum £23/week for one child, and an additional maximum of £2/week for each subsequent child, based on a maximum income threshold of £90/week, plus £10/week for each additional child. In addition, the numbers of families in receipt of the benefit, which showed no increase in the number of recipients over the 1970s (in 1972, there were 89,000 in receipt, and in 1980, 88,000), grew increased sevenfold over the course of the 1979–1997 Conservative governments.

text:
Year
Claimants
Annual Growth rate[9]

1972
89,000
N/A

1980
85,000
0%

1985
199,000
18.5%

1990
300,000
9.8%

1995
600,000
13.6%

1999
780,000
6.8%

text: The Social Security Act 1986 provided for Family Income Supplement to be replaced with Family Credit, a similar scheme.

text: Child Benefit and the end of child tax allowance[edit]

text: The Child Benefit Bill was introduced in 1975 by Barbara Castle, introducing for the first time a universal payment, paid for each child, doubling the number of children within its scope. Like the family allowance, which it replaced, the new benefit was not means tested; an attempt by the Callaghan government to introduce this was thwarted in 1976 when cabinet papers were leaked to the Child Poverty Action Group.[10]

text: The rate payable was £1/week for the first and £1.50 for each subsequent child. An addition 50p was payable to lone-parent families. Unlike the family allowance, provision was made for the rate to be uprated, at the Secretary of State's discretion, each year. By the end of 1978 the rate had been increased to £3/week for each child, with an additional £2/week payable to lone-parent families.

text: In 1979 the Child Tax Allowance was removed, the value of the allowance taken up in higher child benefit payments, now £4/week, plus £2.50/week extra for lone-parent families.

text: Child benefit rates were uprated roughly in line with inflation until 1988, but subsequently was frozen until 1990, in order to curb welfare spending.[11] A new higher rate of child benefit, payable for the first child only, was introduced in 1991. This was £1 higher than the rate payable for subsequent children, which was again frozen, at £7.25/week. From 1991 Child Benefit increased in line with inflation, until 1998, when the new Labour government increased the first child rate by more than 20%, and abolished the Lone Parent rate.

text: Rates increased again in line with inflation until 2010, since which time they have been frozen.

text: Effective from 7 January 2013, Child Benefit, a universal benefit since its introduction, became means tested - those earning more than £50,000 per year would have part of their benefit withdrawn, and if earning over £60,000, would receive nothing at all. The charge was based on individual, not household income, hence two earners on £49,999 would receive full child benefit, while one earner earning £60,000 would receive none.[12][13]

text: Current rates[edit]

text: The following are the rates that apply as of March 2017.[14]

text:
Who the allowance is for
Weekly rate

Eldest or only child
£20.70

Additional children
£13.70 (per child)


document_title: Broken Halos

question_text: what is the meaning behind the song broken halos

root

text: Broken Halos

text: Composition and lyrical interpretation[edit]

text: Musically, it was defined by critics as a multi-genre song. Stapleton said the song was inspired by "people who have passed away before their time." The singer recorded the song a day after a longtime friend passed away.[3] "Broken Halos" is a mid-tempo country rock number in which Stapleton "meditates on the wounds people suffer and the road toward healing that they travel," as noted by a Los Angeles Times' reviewer.[4] An NPR editor described it as Southern gospel,[5] and a Rolling Stone reviewer, as folk rock.[6] Another Rolling Stone writer, Chris Parton, named it country gospel after listenting to a live performance of the song, and interpreted it as:

tag: p

text: ...[The track] offers a tender, lump-in-your-throat reminder to keep the faith, even in the midst of tragedy. Angels appear to help us on our way, Stapleton sings, but when their job is done they leave. . . and we're not meant to understand why.[7]

text: Critical reception[edit]

text: Writing for Billboard, Spotify editors opined the song "helps build a strong argument that [Stapleton] is one of the most refreshing and consistent country artists to emerge in recent memory."[8] Laura McClellan of Taste of Country wrote "the stripped-down tune is a commentary on, essentially, stumbling along this life together as human beings, and its lyrics are poignant enough to affect even the most cynical of us." She commented its mid-tempo, "laid-back" feel with only guitar and vocals featuring prominently "makes it easy listening, but its core is significant."[9] In Paste, Ben Salmon described it a "a perfectly paced song that lyrically spans the spiritual and the earthbound."[10]

text: In Rolling Stone, Robert Crawford commented, "Equal parts folk-rock anthem and Sunday-morning spiritual, [the song] begins with five seconds of Stapleton in solo mode, howling over an acoustic guitar. When the band joins him halfway through the first verse, it's an understated entrance, stripped free of radio-friendly gloss... [The song] is a straightforward, uncluttered opener, designed to welcome – not overwhelm – the listener."[6]

text: Commercial performance[edit]

text: The song has sold 127,000 copies in the United States as of July 2017.[11]

text: Live performances[edit]

text: Stapleton premiered the song during Dolly Parton's Tennessee wildfires telethon in December 2016.[12] The song is featured on the setlist of his All-American Road Show Tour. On July 18, 2017 the singer performed it on The Today Show, along with "Tennessee Whiskey" and "Second One to Know".[13]

text: Charts[edit]

text:
Chart (2017)
Peak
position

US Billboard Hot 100[14]
93

US Country Airplay (Billboard)[15]
33

US Hot Country Songs (Billboard)[16]
13

tag: table


document_title: The Jungle Book (2016 film)

question_text: who plays the snake in the jungle book movie

text: The Jungle Book (2016 film)

text: Plot[edit]

text: Mowgli is a "man cub" raised by the wolf Raksha and her pack, led by Akela, in an Indian jungle ever since he was brought to them as a baby by the black panther Bagheera. Bagheera trains Mowgli to learn the ways of the wolves, but the boy faces certain challenges and falls behind his wolf siblings, while Akela disapproves of him using human tricks like building tools instead of learning the ways of the pack.

text: One day, during the dry season, the jungle animals gather to drink the water that remains as part of a truce during a drought that enables the jungle's wildlife to drink without fear of being eaten by their predators. The truce is disrupted when a scarred tiger named Shere Khan arrives, detecting Mowgli's scent in the large crowd. Resentful against man for scarring him, he issues a warning that he will kill Mowgli at the end of the drought. After the drought ends, the wolves debate whether they should keep Mowgli or not. Mowgli decides to leave the jungle for the safety of his pack. Bagheera agrees with the decision and volunteers to guide him to the nearby man village.

text: En route, Shere Khan ambushes them and injures Bagheera, but Mowgli manages to escape. Later, Mowgli meets an enormous python named Kaa who hypnotizes him. While under her influence, Mowgli sees a vision of his father being mauled while protecting him from Shere Khan. The vision also warns of the destructive power of the "red flower" (fire). Kaa attempts to devour Mowgli, but she is attacked by a large brown sloth bear named Baloo, rescuing an unconscious Mowgli. Baloo and Mowgli bond while retrieving some difficult-to-access honey for Baloo, and the boy agrees to stay with Baloo until the winter season arrives. Upon learning that Mowgli has left the jungle, Shere Khan kills Akela and threatens the pack to lure Mowgli out.

text: Bagheera eventually finds Mowgli and Baloo and is angered that Mowgli has not joined the humans as agreed, but Baloo calms him down and persuades both of them to sleep on it. During the night, Mowgli finds a herd of Indian elephants gathered around a ditch and uses his vines to save a baby elephant from the ditch. Although Baloo and Bagheera are both impressed, Baloo realizes that he cannot guarantee Mowgli's safety after learning that he is being hunted by Shere Khan. Baloo agrees to push Mowgli away to get him to continue onward to the man village.

text: Mowgli is kidnapped by the "Bandar-log" (monkeys) who present him to their leader, a giant ape named King Louie. Assuming that all humans can make fire, King Louie offers Mowgli protection from Shere Khan in exchange for it. Baloo distracts King Louie while Bagheera tries to sneak him out, but their plan is discovered. As King Louie chases Mowgli through his temple, he informs Mowgli of Akela's death. King Louie's rampage eventually causes his temple to collapse on top of him. Furious that Baloo and Bagheera never told him about Akela's death, Mowgli goes to confront Shere Khan alone.

text: Mowgli steals a lit torch at the village to use as a weapon and heads back to the jungle, accidentally starting a wildfire in the process. He confronts Shere Khan, who argues that Mowgli has made himself the enemy of the jungle by causing the wildfire. Mowgli throws the torch into the water, giving Shere Khan the advantage. Baloo, Bagheera, and the wolf pack intervene and hold Shere Khan off, giving Mowgli enough time to set a trap. He lures Shere Khan up a dead tree and onto a branch, which breaks under the tiger's weight and Shere Khan falls into the fire to his death. Mowgli then directs the elephants to divert the river and put out the fire.

text: In the aftermath, Raksha becomes the new leader of the wolf pack. Mowgli decides to utilize his equipment and tricks for his own use, having found his true home and calling with his wolf family, Baloo, and Bagheera.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Neel Sethi as Mowgli, a young boy who was raised by wolves.
Kendrick Reyes as toddler Mowgli
Ritesh Rajan as Mowgli's father

tag: ul

text: Voice cast[edit]

text:
Bill Murray as Baloo, a sloth bear who befriends Mowgli.
Ben Kingsley as Bagheera, a black panther who is Mowgli's mentor and protector.
Idris Elba as Shere Khan, a fearsome, scar-faced tiger with a grudge against humans.
Lupita Nyong'o as Raksha, a female wolf who is Mowgli's adoptive mother.
Scarlett Johansson as Kaa, an enormous python.
Giancarlo Esposito as Akela, a male wolf who leads the pack.
Christopher Walken as King Louie, a giant ape who rules the Bandar-log.
Garry Shandling as Ikki, a porcupine that observes the Water Truce.[1]
Brighton Rose as Grey Brother,  a wolf cub that is Mowgli's adoptive brother.[1]
Jon Favreau as Fred, a Pygmy Hog.[1]
Sam Raimi as a giant squirrel.[1]
Russell Peters as Rocky, a rhinoceros.[1]
Madeleine Favreau as Raquel, a rhinoceros.[1]
Sara Arrington as an antelope.[1]

text: Emjay Anthony, Max Favreau, Chloe Hechter, Asher Blinkoff, Knox Gagnon, Sasha Schrieber, and Kai Schrieber voice the Young Wolves.[1]

text: Dee Bradley Baker, Artie Esposito, Sean Johnson, and Allan Trautman provide additional animal voices.[1]

text: Production[edit]

text: Development and casting[edit]

text:
"The idea of going out to the jungle and shooting this, it just felt like it wouldn't have the magic that the 1967 film had had. There was a dreamlike quality to it. There was a surreal quality to it. It was a high-water mark for character animation and to me, that's what I remember about it. And so I wanted to make sure we preserved that...But what [Alan] Horn said was: Look at the technology. Look at Life of Pi, Avatar. Why not use the technology to create a whole world that transports you? Let's really embrace this new technology and see what we can do if we push its limit."

— Jon Favreau on approaching the film's technical intent.[9]

tag: div

text: On July 9, 2013, Walt Disney Pictures announced that a live-action adaptation of Rudyard Kipling's short story collection The Jungle Book was in development, with Justin Marks set to write the script.[10] The film would be Disney's second live-action adaptation of Kipling's works, following the 1994 film and the 1998 direct-to-video film Mowgli's Story; and the studio's fourth overall after the 1967 animated film.[11] Jon Favreau was confirmed as director on November 5, 2013.[12] Favreau as a child used to watch Disney's 1967 animated film.[13] He felt the need to strike a balance between the two films by retaining the buoyant spirit of the 1967 film, including some of its memorable songs, while crafting a film with more realism and peril. He also stressed the importance of nature and realized how things have shifted during Kipling's time and now, "In Kipling's time, nature was something to be overcome. Now nature is something to be protected."[13] He was encouraged by Walt Disney Studios chairman Alan Horn to take advantage of the film's setting and story as an opportunity to use the latest advancements in photorealistic rendering, computer-generated imagery, and motion capture technologies.[14] The story of the film is not independently taken from Kipling's works, but also borrows cinematic inspirations from other films, including the child-mentor relationship in Shane (1953), the establishment of rules in a dangerous world from Goodfellas (1990) and the use of a shadowy jungle figure in Apocalypse Now (1979).[13]

text: The cast was announced between March and August 2014, with Idris Elba being announced to voice Shere Khan during early stages and Bill Murray eventually confirmed as the voice of Baloo in August 2014. Between then, Scarlett Johansson, Ben Kingsley, and Christopher Walken were confirmed to play Kaa, Bagheera, and King Louie.[15][16][17][18] Favreau decided to cast Johansson to play Kaa, originally a male character, as he felt the original film was "a little too male-oriented."[19] Favreau and Marks noticed the lack of female characters in the 1967 film version and wanted to address that by featuring Raksha's character more prominently, as in Kipling's tales.[13] Lupita Nyong'o was cast as Raksha as Favreau believed her voice imbued the emotion required for the role, "Lupita has tremendous depth of emotion in her performance. There's an emotional underpinning she brings, and a strength, and we wanted that for this surrogate mother. Much of that comes from her voice."[20] Favreau also decided to change King Louie from an orangutan to a gigantopithecus due to the fact that orangutans are not native to India, where the story takes place.[6] His character was given a slight alteration from the 1967 film and was partly inspired by Marlon Brando's character Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now,[13] as well as incorporating Walken's own physical mannerisms.[21] In regards to Louie's changes, Favreau stated, "We created this looming figure that was trying to extract the secret of fire from Mowgli. And also this gave Mowgli the idea that if he had fire, he could have power over Shere Khan, whether it was good or bad. So there was a Lord of the Rings aspect to that; the fire was almost like the ring in that was going to give someone ultimate power, but corrupt them as well as create destruction."[22] The film is dedicated to Garry Shandling, who voiced a porcupine in the film and died of a heart attack before the film's release.

text: The search for casting Mowgli was extensive, with thousands of children auditioning from the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Canada. Eventually, newcomer Neel Sethi was confirmed for the role, with casting director Rebecca Williams describing him as embodying "the heart, humor, and daring of the character. He's warm and accessible, yet also has an intelligence well beyond his years and impressed us all with his ability to hold his own in any situation."[23] Sethi underwent parkour training in preparation for the role.[7] Pixar Animation Studios assisted in the development of the story, as well as providing suggestions for the film's end credits sequence.[24]

text: Filming and visual effects[edit]

text: Principal photography took place entirely on sound stages at L.A. Center Studios[22] in downtown Los Angeles.[20][25] The animal characters were created entirely in computer animation, with the assistance of footage of real animal movement, the actors recording their lines, and performance capture for reference.[6] The production team underwent a thorough process to realistically convey the animals' speaking, while still making them perceptually believable to the audience. Favreau researched earlier films featuring anthropomorphic animals—including Walt Disney's animated features, such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Bambi, as well as modern films such as Babe—and adopted certain techniques from those films into The Jungle Book.[22] Nearly 70 separate species of animals native to India are featured in the film, with several species being portrayed as "150% larger" than their actual counterparts.[22]

text: Jim Henson's Creature Shop was brought in to provide animal puppet figures for Sethi to act against, although none appear in the finished film.[26] The animal puppets were performed by Artie Esposito, Sean Johnson, Allan Trautman, and April Warren.[1] Favreau utilized motion capture with certain actors, expressing a desire to avoid overusing the technology in order to prevent evoking an uncanny valley effect.[6][19]

text: Moving Picture Company (MPC) and Weta Digital created the film's visual effects.[14] MPC developed new software for animating muscular structure in the animals.[22] Around 1,000 remote jungle locations in India were photographed and used as reference in post-production.[27] Weta was responsible for animating the King Louie sequence, with visual effects supervisor Keith Miller adding that, "It was important for Jon to see Christopher Walken in the creature. So we took some of the distinctive Walken facial features—iconic lines, wrinkles and folds—and integrated them into the animated character."[28] Favreau expressed desire in wanting the film's 3D shots to imbue the abilities of the multiplane camera system utilized in Disney's earlier animated films.[24] At Favreau's behest, the idea was extended into the film's version of the Walt Disney Pictures opening production logo, which was recreated as "a hand-painted, cel-animated multi-plane logo" in homage to the animated films of that era, also incorporating the word "Presents" in the same style as the 1967 film's opening credits.[24] The film's ending also features the original physical book that opened the 1967 film.[24]

text: Sound[edit]

text: Director Jon Favreau and composer John Debney sought to recreate the Fantasound experience Walt Disney, himself, had in mind. When mixing the soundtrack in Dolby Atmos, as Favreau said, "we isolated instruments when we could. And in the sound mix, we created a Fantasound mix. If you see the film in Atmos, you will feel that there are instruments that move around the theater."[29] A mention for Fantasound appears in the film's closing credits.

text: Music[edit]

text: The musical score for The Jungle Book was composed and conducted by frequent Favreau collaborator John Debney,[30] mostly drawing from George Bruns' original music. Though Favreau decided not to make the film a musical, nevertheless, he and Debney incorporated several songs from the 1967 animated film.[31] "The Bare Necessities," written by Terry Gilkyson, is performed by Murray and Sethi,[13] and a cover version by Dr. John is featured in the end credits. "I Wan'na Be Like You" and "Trust in Me"—written by the Sherman Brothers—are performed by Walken and Johansson, respectively; Richard M. Sherman wrote revised lyrics for Walken's version of "I Wan'na Be Like You."[13] Johansson's rendition of "Trust in Me" was produced by Mark Ronson and appears in the end credits only.[13]

text: Soundtrack[edit]

text:
The Jungle Book (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack)Film score by John DebneyReleased
April 15, 2016Recorded
2015–16Studio
Sony Pictures Studios (score)Esplanade Studios, New Orleans Chalice Recording StudiosMusic Shed Studios, New OrleansGenre
Orchestral, swing jazzLength
74:17Label
Walt DisneyProducer
John Debney
John Debney chronology

The Young Messiah(2016) The Young Messiah2016

The Jungle Book(2016) The Jungle Book2016

Mother's Day(2016) Mother's Day2016

text: Walt Disney Records released the film's soundtrack on April 15, 2016.[32]

text: Track listing[edit]

text: No.TitleWriter(s)Performer(s)Length1."The Bare Necessities"Terry GilkysonDr. John and The Nite Trippers3:362."Trust in Me"Richard M. Sherman, Robert B. ShermanScarlett Johansson2:553."Main Titles[Note 1] / Jungle Run"John Debney & George Bruns 2:274."Wolves / Law of the Jungle"John Debney 2:165."Water Truce"John Debney 3:406."Rains Return"John Debney 1:467."Mowgli's Leaving / Elephant Theme"John Debney 3:288."Shere Khan Attacks / Stampede"John Debney 2:069."Kaa / Baloo to the Rescue"  5:2110."Honeycomb Climb"  3:3111."Man Village"  2:5912."Mowgli and the Pit"  3:2613."Monkeys Kidnap Mowgli"  1:5214."Arriving at King Louie's Temple"  4:3515."Cold Lair Chase"  4:0316."Red Flower"  3:1517."To the River"  3:0518."Shere Khan's War Theme"  2:3719."Shere Khan and the Fire"  4:5220."Elephant Waterfall"  3:2721."Mowgli Wins the Race"  0:4122."Jungle Book Closes"  2:1623."I Wan'na Be Like You"Richard M. Sherman, Robert B. ShermanChristopher Walken3:0224."The Bare Necessities"Terry GilkysonBill Murray, Kermit Ruffins3:01Total length:74:17

text: Note 1. ^ Original "When You Wish Upon a Star" melody composed by Leigh Harline; Walt Disney Pictures logo melody composed by Mark Mancina.

text: Release[edit]

text: The film was originally scheduled for October 9, 2015, but the film's release date was later postponed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures to April 15, 2016.[33][34] The film was released in the Dolby Vision format in Dolby Cinema in the United States,[35] and is the first film to be released in Dolby Vision 3D (in a few select theaters in New York City and Chicago).[36] The Jungle Book held its world premiere at the El Capitan Theatre on April 4, 2016.[37] It was released in 15 countries, a week ahead of its U.S. debut on April 15, in countries like Argentina, Australia, Russia, Malaysia, and most notably in India on April 8.[38] The release date in India was strategic for the film as it coincided with the Indian New Year and was a holiday in most parts of the country.[39] The film had a special Hindi version with famous actors giving their voices to the main characters, including Irrfan Khan as Baloo, Om Puri as Bagheera, Priyanka Chopra as Ka, Nana Patekar as Sher Khan and Shefali Shah as Raksha, for its Indian audiences as the book and the Disney series based on it had been immensely popular in India in 1990s. Disney India also commissioned a contemporary recording of "Jungle Jungle Baat Chali Hai" (originally used for the popular Indian version of Japanese anime series Jungle Book Shōnen Mowgli), overseen by the original Hindi song's composers Vishal Bhardwaj and Gulzar, and released it as part of the film's promotional campaign in India.[40][41]

text: Home media[edit]

text: The film was released digitally on August 23, 2016, and on DVD and Blu-ray on August 30 (August 22 in the UK[42]). A 3D Blu-ray was said to be coming by the end of the year.[43] The film topped the NPD VideoScan overall disc sales chart for two consecutive weeks.[44][45]

text: Reception[edit]

text: Box office[edit]

text: The film became a huge financial success and a sleeper hit.[46] It briefly held the record for the biggest remake of all time until the studio's own Beauty and the Beast surpassed it the following year.[47] It grossed $364 million in the United States and Canada and $602.5 million in other countries for a worldwide total of $966.6 million, against a budget of $175 million.[4] Worldwide, the film was released across 28,000 RealD 3D screens[36] and had an IMAX worldwide opening of $20.4 million from 901 IMAX screens, a new record for a PG film.[48] It grossed a total of $39 million in IMAX screens worldwide.[49] On May 13, it became the second film of 2016 (after the studio's own Zootopia) to pass the $800 million mark.[50][51] On June 10, it became the third film of 2016 after Zootopia and Captain America: Civil War to pass the $900 million mark.[52] Deadline Hollywood calculated the net profit of the film to be $258 million, when factoring together all expenses and revenues for the film, making it the sixth-most profitable release of 2016.[53]

text: United States and Canada[edit]

text: Projections for its opening weekend in the United States and Canada were continuously revised upwards, starting from $60 million to as high as $88 million, with female and older male quadrants being the prime draw.[54][36][55][56] The Jungle Book was shown across 4,028 theaters of which 3,100 theaters (75%) were in 3D, including 376 IMAX screens, 463 premium large format screens, and 145 D-Box locations.[54][57][58] It opened Friday, April 15, 2016, on around 9,500 screens across 4,028 theaters, and earned $32.4 million, the fourth-biggest April Friday.[36][59] This includes $4.2 million from Thursday previews, the biggest preview number for a Disney live-adaptation film (tied with Maleficent),[60] an almost unheard-of for a PG title which rarely attracts many ticketbuyers later in the night.[61] In total, it earned $103.3 million in its opening weekend, exceeding expectations by 40% and recorded the biggest PG-rated April opening (breaking Hop's record), the second-biggest Disney live-action adaptation opening (behind Alice in Wonderland), and the second-biggest April opening (behind Furious 7).[36][62][63] It also performed exceptionally well in both 3D and IMAX formats, where they both generated an income of $44 million and $10.4 million of the film's opening-weekend gross, respectively, the later broke the record for the biggest April Disney release IMAX opening.[36][48] Notably, it also became the only second PG-rated release to ever open above $100 million (following Alice in Wonderland) and the third film of 2016 overall to open above $100 million (following Deadpool and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice).[36][64] It earned $130.7 million in its first full week, the second-biggest for a Disney live-action adaptation, behind only Alice in Wonderland's $146.6 million seven-day gross.[65]

text: Buoyed by excellent word of mouth and benefiting from spring break, it fell only by 40% in its second weekend earning $61.5 million, still maintaining the top position and far surpassing newcomer The Huntsman: Winter's War.[66] That puts The Jungle Book in the top fifteen second weekends of all time and in terms of films that opened above $100 million, it scored the fourth-smallest drop behind Shrek 2 (−33%), Spider-Man (−39%), and Star Wars: The Force Awakens (−39%).[67][68] Of those numbers, $5.6 million came from IMAX shows for a two weekend cumulative total of $18.4 million which represents about 10% of its entire North American box office gross.[66] It crossed $200 million on its twelfth day of release[69] and managed to hold the top spot for the third consecutive weekend with $43.7 million from 4,041 theaters (an addition of 13 more theaters), a fall of only 29%, outgrossing the next six pictures combined (including the openings of three newcomers)[70] and recorded the sixth-biggest third weekend of all time.[71] Moreover, the 29% drop is the smallest third-weekend drop (from its second weekend) for a $100 million opener ever.[71] Disney added an additional 103 theaters for the film's fourth weekend of release which propelled its theater count to 4,144 theaters,[72] but nevertheless, it was overtaken by Disney's own Captain America: Civil War after experiencing a 50% decline.[73][74] It passed $300 million on its thirtieth day of release, on May 14, as it continued to witness marginal declines in the wake of several new releases weekend after weekend.[75] It made 3.53 times its opening weekend numbers, which is one of the biggest of all time for a film opening above $100 million. It became one of the few surprise hits and one of the highest-grossing films of the year, alongside Finding Dory, The Secret Life of Pets, and Zootopia, centered around talking animals to dominate the year-end chart.[46]

text: Other countries[edit]

text: The film was released in approximately 70 countries.[76] Outside the US and Canada, it opened across 15 markets and 69 IMAX screens a week ahead of its US debut, and faced notable competition from newcomer The Huntsman: Winter's War and holdover Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, the latter of which was entering its third weekend. The reason behind the divided release pattern was because Disney wanted to get some space before Captain America: Civil War releases in early May, as well as availing school holidays and avoiding local competitors.[77] It eventually grossed $31.7 million, debuting at first place in all markets and second overall at the international box office, behind Dawn of Justice, which was playing across 67 markets.[77] In its second weekend, it expanded to an additional 49 countries (88% of its total marketplace) and grossed $138.6 million from 64 countries, easily topping the international box office, a bulk of it came from China.[78] Approximately 63% or $85 million of that came from 3D screenings, with the largest 3D opening haul represented by China (98%), Germany (83%), Brazil (73%), Russia (60%), Mexico (47%), and the UK (39%).[78] $10 million alone came from 525 IMAX screens, a record for a PG and April release.[48] It further continued to hold the top spot in its third weekend after adding another $98.9 million from 53 territories, falling only by a marginal 32%. IMAX generated another $6.1 million from 484 IMAX theaters for a three-weekend total of $20.6 million.[49] After three straight No. 1 runs, it was finally dethroned by the studio's Captain America: Civil War in its fourth weekend.[79]

text: In India, it scored the second-biggest opening day for a Hollywood film, earning $1.51 million (behind Avengers: Age of Ultron) from around 1,500 screens[80] and went on to score the second-biggest Hollywood opening weekend of all time, with $8.4 million from 1,600 screens, behind only Furious 7 in terms of local as well as U.S. currency,[81][82] performing better than expected and its initial $5–6 million opening projection.[80] Its opening weekend in India alone surpassed the entire lifetime total of Disney's other live-fantasy adaptations—Cinderella, Maleficent, Oz the Great and Powerful, and Alice in Wonderland—in the country.[77] It then went on to score the biggest opening and single week for a Hollywood film with $15.1 million.[76][83] In its second weekend, it dropped just by a mere 40% to $4.97 million.[84] In just ten days, it became the fourth-highest-grossing Hollywood film there with $21.2 million.[62] On Wednesday, April 19—its twelfth day of release—it surpassed Furious 7 to become the highest-grossing Hollywood/foreign release of all time there.[85][86] By the end of its theatrical run, the film made an estimated $38.8 million with half of its revenue—58%—coming from local dubbed versions, compared to Avengers: Age of Ultron, which saw 45% of its revenue from dubbed versions.[87]

text: In China, where the film was locally known as Fantasy Forest, expectations were high, with projections going as high $154–200 million or more.[88][89][90][91] Ultimately, it was unable to hit these marks.[75] Before the release of the film in the state, Disney had a very successful run at the box office with Zootopia the previous month, in which anthropomorphic animals were the central figure.[92] Forbes noted that The Jungle Book was precisely the sort of film that Chinese audiences love with its 3D visuals, heartwarming story, and talking animal cast.[89] It earned around $12 million on its opening day, including $300,000 worth of previews from 65,000 screenings.[89] Buoyed by good word of mouth and positive reception (albeit mostly from audiences with polarized reception from Chinese critics),[93] it rose 72% on its second day to $20 million.[91] Through its opening weekend it grossed $48.5 million, including $5.1 million from 279 IMAX screens, a new record for April release.[62][94] Its opening marked the biggest Walt Disney Pictures film opening ever,[95] the second-biggest for a family film (behind Kung Fu Panda 3), the second-biggest April debut (behind Furious 7), and the fourth-biggest Disney opening (behind Avengers: Age of Ultron, Iron Man 3, and Star Wars: The Force Awakens).[96] It topped the daily box office through the whole opening week and went on to remain at the top of the box office for a second weekend, after dropping by a mere 20% to $29.8 million, despite facing some competitions.[97] It ended its run there with a total of $150.1 million after thirty days of playing in theaters, adding $1.2 million on its last day. Albeit falling just below expectations, it nevertheless emerged as a huge financial success and becoming the fourth-biggest Disney release there.[75][98]

text: In the United Kingdom and Ireland, it had an opening weekend total of £9.9 million ($14.1 million) from 594 theaters[99] and in France with $8.1 million.[78] Elsewhere, the highest openings were recorded in Russia and the CIS ($7.4 million), Germany ($5.1 million), Spain ($3.9 million), Australia ($2.8 million), Argentina ($2.3 million), and in Malaysia, where it scored the biggest opening weekend for a live-action Disney film with $2.3 million.[77][78] In the UK, it became the first film of 2016 to earn over £5 million in three straight weekends and the first film since Jurassic World, Spectre, and Star Wars: The Force Awakens (all 2015 films) to achieve such an accomplishment,[100] and the first film of 2016 to earn above £40 million ($58 million).[101] In South Korea, it faced competition with Warcraft, but ended up debuting atop the charts with $6.2 million.[102] It has so far grossed a total of $18 million there.[103]

text: It opened in Japan on August 11, alongside the superhero film X-Men: Apocalypse[95][104] and delivered a four-day opening of $6.2 million from 676 screens ($3 million in two days), debuting at second place behind The Secret Life of Pets. Although the opening figure was considered mediocre, Deadline Hollywood noted that Japan is a market that can see big multiples.[105][106] It fell just 30% in its second weekend earning $2.1 million for an eleven-day total of $13.7 million.[107][108]

text: In total earnings, its biggest markets outside of the US and Canada were China ($150.1 million), the United Kingdom ($66.2 million) and India ($38.8 million).[98] It was the highest-grossing film of 2016 in Europe with a total of $209 million,[109] the United Kingdom and Ireland,[110] and in India (although it was later surpassed by Sultan, in terms of Hollywood/imported films, it is still the biggest).[111]

text: Critical response[edit]

text: The film received praise for its visual effects, vocal performances, direction, musical score, and its faithfulness to the animated film.[116][117][118] On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 95% based on 296 reviews, with an average rating of 7.7/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "As lovely to behold as it is engrossing to watch, The Jungle Book is the rare remake that actually improves upon its predecessors—all while setting a new standard for CGI."[119] On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 77 out of 100, based on 49 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews."[120] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A" on an A+ to F scale, while PostTrak reported filmgoers gave it an overall positive score of 92%. Ninety-seven percent of the audience gave the film an A or a B, and it got A's from both the under- and over-25 crowd and A+ among those under 18 years of age and also for the over-50 audience.[36]

text: Todd McCarthy of The Hollywood Reporter wrote, "Exceptionally beautiful to behold and bolstered by a stellar vocal cast, this umpteenth film rendition of Rudyard Kipling's tales of young Mowgli's adventures amongst the creatures of the Indian jungle proves entirely engaging, even if it's ultimately lacking in subtext and thematic heft."[121] Andrew Barker of Variety felt that this version "can't rival the woolly looseness of Disney's 1967 animated classic, of course, but it succeeds on its own so well that such comparisons are barely necessary."[122] Robbie Collin of The Telegraph gave the film four stars out of five, and deemed it "a sincere and full-hearted adaptation that returns to Kipling for fresh inspiration."[123] Alonso Duralde of The Wrap says "This 'Book' might lack the post-vaudeville razzamatazz of its predecessor, but director Jon Favreau and a team of effects wizards plunge us into one of the big screen's most engrossing artificial worlds since Avatar."[124] Peter Bradshaw, writing for The Guardian, gave the film four out of five stars and felt that the film had a touch of Apocalypto in it, finding the plot elements to be similar to those in The Lion King. He wrote that the film was "spectacular, exciting, funny and fun" and that it "handsomely revives the spirit of Disney's original film."[125] Pete Hammond of Deadline Hollywood wrote that the film had laughs, excitement, an exceptional voice cast and, most importantly, a lot of heart, calling it a cinematic achievement like no other. He particularly praised Murray's performance and the visual effects, deeming it "simply astonishing."[126] Chris Nashawaty of Entertainment Weekly graded the film an "A–," calling it one of the biggest surprises of 2016. He, however, felt the two songs were rather unnecessary and distracting, and believed the film to be a little too frightening for children.[127]

text: Richard Roeper of Chicago Sun-Times awarded the film three-and-a-half stars, pointing out the CGI as the apex achievement of the film. He labelled it "a beautifully rendered, visually arresting take on Rudyard Kipling's oft-filmed tales" but found the musical numbers to be trivial, saying that without the musical numbers, the film might have been a more exhilarating streamlined adventure.[128] Los Angeles Times' Kenneth Turan remarked that "The Jungle Book is the kind of family film calculated to make even those without families wish they had one to take along."[129] Peter Travers of Rolling Stone awarded the film three-and-a-half stars out of four, labeling it scary and thrilling, yet unique and unforgettable, and adding that it "fills us with something rare in movies today—a sense of wonder."[130] The Village Voice's Bilge Ebiri hailed the film as fast and light and that it "manages to be just scary enough to make us feel the danger of solitude in the middle of a massive jungle, but never indulgent or gratuitous."[131] The New York Times' Manohla Dargis was less enthusiastic.[132] Cath Clarke of Time Out compared Elba's character of Shere Khan to Scar from The Lion King, calling him "baddie of the year."[133] Matt Zoller Seitz of RogerEbert.com also had high praise for Elba's portrayal of Shere Khan stating: "His loping menace is envisioned so powerfully that he'd be scary no matter what, but the character becomes a great villain through imaginative empathy. We understand and appreciate his point-of-view, even though carrying it out would mean the death of Mowgli."[114]

text: The film's visual effects and 3D photography were compared to those of Avatar, Gravity, Hugo, and Life of Pi.[116][124][134] Sarah Ward of Screen International wrote that the level of detail on display in the film "is likely to evoke the same jaw-dropping reaction as James Cameron's box office topper."[135] Entertainment Weekly called it "one of the few 3D movies that actually benefits from being in 3D."[127] The film also had a positive reception from Indian contemporary critics and publications,[136] such as The Times of India,[137] The Hindu,[138] India Today,[139] The Indian Express,[140] and The Economic Times.[141]

text: The film also had its share of negative reviews with most reviewers criticizing the inconsistent tone of the film and the director's indecision to stick to one vision. Sam C. Mac of Slant Magazine wrote, "Jon Favreau draws heavily on his film's animated predecessor for plot, characterizations, songs, and set pieces, but doesn't know how to fit these familiar elements into his own coherent vision".[142] Josh Spiegel of Movie Mezzanine also echoed these feelings, saying that the film "stumbles because the people involved aren't willing to fully commit to either making a near-shot-for-shot remake or going in a completely different direction".[143] Rene Rodriguez of the Miami Herald felt that the movie was soulless, writing that "The better these talking beasts look, the more the film resembles a gorgeous screen saver. You admire The Jungle Book, but you can't lose yourself in it".[144]

text: Accolades[edit]

text: Sequel[edit]

text: Following the film's early financial and critical success, the studio has begun working on a sequel. Jon Favreau is reported to return as director and Neel Sethi is reported to reprise his role as Mowgli, while screenwriter Justin Marks is also in negotiations to return.[145] It was announced on April 25, 2016 that Favreau and Marks will return to direct and write, and the sequel could potentially have a release sometime in 2019 and will be shot back-to-back with a remake of The Lion King.[146][147][148] However, it was reported in March 2017 that the sequel was put on hold in order for Favreau to instead focus mainly on The Lion King.[149]


document_title: Nuclear option

question_text: when did the senate changed to 60 votes

question_tokens: when did the senate changed to 60 votes

text: Nuclear option

text: Background[edit]

text: The 60-vote rule[edit]

text: Beginning with a rules change in 1806, the Senate has traditionally not restricted the total time allowed for debate. In 1917, Rule XXII was amended to allow for ending debate (invoking "cloture") with a two-thirds majority, later reduced in 1975 to three-fifths of all senators "duly chosen and sworn" (usually 60).[6] Thus, although a bill might have majority support, a minority of 41 or more senators can still prevent a final vote through endless debate, effectively defeating the bill. This tactic is known as a filibuster.

text: Since the 1970s, the Senate has also used a "two-track" procedure whereby Senate business may continue on other topics while one item is filibustered. Since filibusters no longer required the minority to actually hold the floor and bring all other business to a halt, the mere threat of a filibuster has gradually become normalized. In the modern Senate, this means that any controversial item now typically requires 60 votes to advance, unless a specific exception limiting the time for debate applies.

text: Changing Rule XXII to eliminate the 60-vote rule is made difficult by the rules themselves. Rule XXII sec. 2 states that to end debate on any proposal "to amend the Senate rules...the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting." This is typically 67 senators assuming all are voting. Meanwhile, Rule V sec. 2 states that "[t]he rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules."[6] Effectively, these provisions mean that the general 60-vote cloture rule in Rule XXII can never be modified without the approval of 67 senators.

text: Procedure to invoke the option[edit]

text: The "nuclear option" is invoked when a simple majority of the Senate overrides the normal consequences of the rules above. Following a failed cloture vote, the majority leader raises a point of order that Rule XXII should be interpreted – or disregarded on constitutional grounds – to require only a simple majority to invoke cloture on a certain type of business, such as nominations. The presiding officer, relying on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian, then denies the point of order based upon rules and precedent. But the ruling of the chair is then appealed, and is overturned by simple majority vote. For example, the option was invoked on November 21, 2013, as follows:

text:
Mr. REID. I raise a point of order that the vote on cloture under rule XXII for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court of the United States is by majority vote.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the rules, the point of order is not sustained.
Mr. REID. I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask for the yeas and nays.
(48–52 vote on upholding ruling of the chair)
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The decision of the Chair is not sustained.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. *** Under the precedent set by the Senate today, November 21, 2013, the threshold for cloture on nominations, not including those to the Supreme Court of the United States, is now a majority. That is the ruling of the Chair.[7]

text: A new precedent is thus established allowing for cloture to be invoked by a simple majority on certain types of actions. These and other Senate precedents will then be relied upon by future Parliamentarians in advising the chair, effectively eliminating the 60-vote barrier going forward. (Riddick's Senate Procedure is a compilation by Senate parliamentarians of precedents established throughout the entire history of the Senate by direct rulings of the chair, actions relating to rulings of the chair, or direct Senate action.)

text: Validity[edit]

text: The legality of the nuclear option has been challenged. For example, former Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin expressed opposition to the nuclear option in 2005.[citation needed] It's been reported that a Congressional Research Service report "leaves little doubt" that the nuclear option would not be based on previous precedents of the Senate.[8] However, its validity has not been seriously challenged since being invoked by both parties in 2013 and 2017, at least with regard to invoking cloture on judicial nominations by simple majority vote.

text: Terminology[edit]

text: Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) suggested using a ruling of the chair to defeat a filibuster of judicial nominees in February 2003. The code word for the plan was "Hulk". Weeks later, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) coined the term nuclear option in March 2003 because the maneuver was seen as a last resort with possibly major consequences for both sides.[9][10][11] The metaphor of a nuclear strike refers to the majority party unilaterally imposing a change to the filibuster rule, which might provoke retaliation by the minority party.[12][13]

text: The alternative term "constitutional option"[14][15][16] is often used with particular regard to confirmation of executive and judicial nominations, on the rationale that the United States Constitution requires these nominations to receive the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Proponents of this term argue that the Constitution implies that the Senate can act by a majority vote unless the Constitution itself requires a supermajority, as it does for certain measures such as the ratification of treaties.[12] By effectively requiring a supermajority of the Senate to fulfill this function, proponents believe that the current Senate practice prevents the body from exercising its constitutional mandate, and that the remedy is therefore the "constitutional option."

text: History[edit]

text: Senate rules before 1917[edit]

text: The first set of Senate rules included a procedure to limit debate called "moving the previous question." This rule was dropped in 1806 in the misunderstanding that it was redundant.[17] Starting in 1837, senators began taking advantage of this gap in the rules by giving lengthy speeches so as to prevent specific measures they opposed from being voted on, a procedure called filibustering.

text: In 1890, Senator Nelson Aldrich (R-RI) threatened to break a Democratic filibuster of a Federal Election Bill (which would ban any prohibitions on the black vote) by invoking a procedure called "appeal from the chair." At this time, there was no cloture rule or other regular method to force an immediate vote. Aldrich's plan was to demand an immediate vote by making a point of order. If, as expected, the presiding officer overrules the point, Aldrich would then appeal the ruling and the appeal would be decided by a majority vote of the Senate. (This plan would not work today because appeals from the chair are debatable under modern rules.)[citation needed] If a majority voted to limit debate, a precedent would have been established to allow debate to be limited by majority vote. Aldrich's plan was procedurally similar to the modern option, but it stayed within the formal rules of the Senate and did not invoke the Constitution. In the end, the Democrats were able to muster a majority to table the bill, so neither Aldrich's proposed point of order nor his proposed appeal was ever actually moved.

text: In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Ballin that both houses of Congress are parliamentary bodies, implying that they may make procedural rules by majority vote.

text: Early cloture era, 1917–1974[edit]

text: The history of the constitutional option can be traced to a 1917 opinion by Senator Thomas J. Walsh (Democrat of Montana). Walsh contended that the U.S. Constitution provided the basis by which a newly commenced Senate could disregard procedural rules established by previous Senates, and had the right to choose its own procedural rules based on a simple majority vote despite the two-thirds requirement in the rules.[15]:236,258-60 "When the Constitution says, 'Each House may determine its rules of proceedings,' it means that each House may, by a majority vote, a quorum present, determine its rules," Walsh told the Senate. Opponents countered that Walsh's constitutional option would lead to procedural chaos, but his argument was a key factor in the adoption of the first cloture rule later that year.

text: In 1957, Vice President Richard Nixon (and thus President of the Senate) wrote an advisory opinion that no Senate may constitutionally enact a rule that deprives a future Senate of the right to approve its own rules by the vote of a simple majority.[18][15]:236-39 (Nixon made clear that he was speaking for himself only, not making a formal ruling.[19]) Nixon's opinion, along with similar opinions by Hubert Humphrey and Nelson Rockefeller, has been cited as precedent to support the view that the Senate may amend its rules at the beginning of the session with a simple majority vote.[20]

text: The option was officially moved by Senator Clinton P. Anderson (D-NM) (1963), Senator George McGovern (D-SD) (1967), and Senator Frank Church (D-ID) (1969), but was each time defeated or tabled by the Senate.[15]:249-251

text: 60-vote rule takes hold, 1975–2004[edit]

text: A series of votes in 1975 have been cited as a precedent for the nuclear option, although some of these were reconsidered shortly thereafter. According to one account, the option was arguably endorsed by the Senate three times in 1975 during a debate concerning the cloture requirement.[15][a] A compromise was reached to reduce the cloture requirement from two-thirds of those voting (67 votes if 100 Senators were present) to three-fifths of the current Senate (60 votes if there were no current vacancies) and also to approve a point of order revoking the earlier three votes in which the Constitutional option had been invoked. (This was an effort to reverse the precedent that had been set for cloture by majority vote).

text: Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) was later able to effect changes in Senate procedures by majority vote four times when he was majority leader without the support of two-thirds of senators present and voting (which would have been necessary to invoke cloture on a motion for an amendment to the Rules): to ban post-cloture filibustering (1977), to adopt a rule to limit amendments to an appropriations bill (1979), to allow a senator to make a non-debatable motion to bring a nomination to the floor (1980), and to ban filibustering during a roll call vote (1987).[15] However, none of these procedural changes affected the ultimate ability of a 41-vote minority to block final action on a matter before the Senate via filibuster.

text: 2005 debate on judicial nominations[edit]

text: The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances. Several of the blocked nominees were brought to the floor, voted upon and approved as specified in the agreement, and others were dropped and did not come up for a vote, as implied by the agreement.

text: Minor rules reforms, 2011 & 2013[edit]

text: In 2011, with a Democratic majority in the Senate (but not a supermajority), Senators Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) proposed "a sweeping filibuster reform package" to be implemented via the constitutional option but Majority Leader Harry Reid dissuaded them from pushing it forward.[21] In October 2011, however, Reid triggered a more modest change in Senate precedents. In a 51-48 vote, the Senate prohibited any motion to waive the rules after a filibuster is defeated,[22][23][24] although this change did not affect the ultimate ability of a 41-vote minority to block final action via an initial filibuster.

text: The nuclear option was raised again following the congressional elections of 2012, this time with Senate Democrats in the majority (but short of a supermajority).[25] The Democrats had been the majority party in the Senate since 2007  but only briefly did they have the 60 votes necessary to halt a filibuster. The Hill reported that Democrats would "likely" use the nuclear option in January 2013 to effect filibuster reform,[26] but the two parties managed to negotiate two packages of amendments to the Rules concerning filibusters that passed on January 24, 2013, by votes of 78 to 16 and 86 to 9,[27] thus avoiding the need for the nuclear option.[28]

text: In the end, negotiation between the two parties resulted in two packages of "modest" amendments to the rules on filibusters that were approved by the Senate on January 24, 2013, without triggering the nuclear option.[29] Changes to the standing orders affecting just the 2013-14 Congress were passed by a vote of 78 to 16, eliminating the minority party's right to filibuster a bill as long as each party has been permitted to present at least two amendments to the bill.[29] Changes to the permanent Senate rules were passed by a vote of 86 to 9.[29]

text: In July 2013, the nuclear option was raised as nominations were being blocked by Senate Republicans as Senate Democrats prepared to push through a change to the chamber’s filibuster rule.[30] On July 16, the Senate Democratic majority came within hours of using the nuclear option to win confirmation of seven of President Obama's long-delayed executive branch appointments. The confrontation was avoided when the White House withdrew two of the nominations in exchange for the other five being brought to the floor for a vote, where they were confirmed.[31]

text: Use in 2013 & 2017[edit]

text: 2013: nominations except Supreme Court[edit]

text:
On November 21, 2013, the Senate voted 52–48, with all Republicans and three Democrats voting against, to rule that "the vote on cloture under Rule XXII for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court of the United
States is by majority vote,"[32] even though the text of the rule requires "three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn" to end debate.[33] This ruling's precedent eliminated the 60-vote requirement to end a filibuster against all executive branch nominees and judicial nominees other than to the Supreme Court.[34] The text of Rule XXII was never changed.[33] A 3/5 supermajority was still required to end filibusters unrelated to those nominees, such as for legislation and Supreme Court nominees.[35]

text: Rationale for change[edit]

text: The Democrats' stated motivation for this change was expansion of filibustering by Republicans during the Obama administration, in particular blocking three nominations to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Republicans had asserted that the D.C. Circuit was underworked,[36] and also cited the need for cost reduction by reducing the number of judges in that circuit.[37] At the time of the vote, 59 executive branch nominees and 17 judicial nominees were awaiting confirmation.[36]

text: Prior to November 21, 2013, in the entire history of the nation there had been only 168 cloture motions filed (or reconsidered) with regard to nominations. Nearly half of them (82) had been during the Obama Administration,[38] but those cloture motions were often filed merely to speed things along, rather than in response to any filibuster.[39] In contrast, there were just 38 cloture motions on nominations during the preceding eight years under President George W. Bush.[40] Most of those cloture votes successfully ended debate, and therefore most of those nominees cleared the hurdle. Obama won Senate confirmation for 30 out of 42 federal appeals court nominations, compared with Bush's 35 out of 52.[40][41]

text: Regarding Obama's federal district court nominations, the Senate approved 143 out of 173 as of November 2013, compared to George W. Bush's first term 170 of 179, Bill Clinton's first term 170 of 198, and George H.W. Bush's 150 of 195.[40][42] Filibusters were used on 20 Obama nominations to U.S. District Court positions,[43] but Republicans had allowed confirmation of 19 out of the 20 before the nuclear option was invoked.[44]

text: 2017: Supreme Court nominations[edit]

text: On April 6, 2017, Senate Republicans invoked the nuclear option to remove the Supreme Court exception created in 2013. This was after Senate Democrats filibustered the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States, after the Senate Republicans had previously refused to take up Merrick Garland's nomination by President Obama in 2016.[45][46]

text: Proposed use for legislation[edit]

text: Following elimination of the 60-vote rule for nominations in 2017, senators expressed concerns that the 60-vote rule will eventually be eliminated for legislation via the nuclear option.[47]

text: Donald Trump[edit]

text: President Donald Trump has spoken out against the 60-vote requirement for legislation on several occasions. On January 21, 2018, President Trump said on Twitter that if the shutdown stalemate continued, Republicans should consider the "nuclear option" in the Senate.[48]

text: Policy arguments[edit]

text: Issues[edit]

text: Policy debates surrounding the nuclear option – a tool to implement a rule change – are closely related to arguments regarding the 60-vote requirement imposed by Rule XXII. Issues include:

text:
whether a simple majority of the Senate should be able to confirm a judicial nominee or pass a bill;
whether a three-fifths vote (60/100) should be required for cloture, as required by Rule XXII;
whether the rule should differ for nominations vs. legislation; and
whether the Constitution mandates either threshold.

text: Constitutional provisions[edit]

text: The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly address how many votes are required for passage of a bill or confirmation of a nominee. Regarding nominations, Article II, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution says the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges...."[49] The Constitution includes several explicit supermajority rules, including requiring a two-thirds majority in the Senate for impeachment, confirming treaties,[50] expelling one of its members,[51] and concurring in the proposal of Constitutional Amendments.[52]

text: Arguments for simple majority[edit]

text: Constitutional argument[edit]

text: Supporters of a simple majority standard argue that the Constitution's silence implies that a simple majority is sufficient; they contrast this with Article II's language for Senate confirmation of treaties. Regarding nominations, they argue that the Appointments Clause's lack of a supermajority requirement is evidence that the Framers consciously rejected such a requirement.[53] They also argue that the general rule of parliamentary systems "is that majorities govern in a legislative body, unless another rule is expressly provided."[53]

text: From this, supporters argue that a simple-majority rule would bring current practices into line with the Framers' original intent – hence supporters' preferred nomenclature of the "constitutional option". They argue that the filibuster of presidential nominees effectively establishes a 60-vote threshold for approval of judicial nominees instead of the 51-vote standard implied by the Constitution.[54][55][56] A number of existing Judges and Justices were confirmed with fewer than 60 votes, including Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (confirmed in a 52–48 vote in 1991).[57][58]

text: Obstruction[edit]

text: Supporters have claimed that the minority party is engaged in obstruction. In 2005, Republicans argued that Democrats obstructed the approval of the president's nominees in violation of the intent of the U.S. Constitution. President Bush had nominated forty-six candidates to federal appeals courts. Thirty-six were confirmed. 10 were blocked and 7 were renominated in Spring 2005. Democrats responded that 63 of President Clinton's 248 nominees were blocked via procedural means at the committee level, denying them a confirmation vote and leaving the positions available for Bush to fill.[59][60]

text: Majority rule[edit]

text: In 2005, pro-nuclear option Republicans argued that they had won recent elections and in a democracy the winners rule, not the minority.[61] They also argued that while the Constitution requires supermajorities for some purposes (such as 2/3 needed to ratify a treaty), the Founders did not require a supermajority for confirmations, and that the Constitution thus presupposes a majority vote for confirmations.

text: Arguments for 60-vote rule[edit]

text: Constitutional arguments[edit]

text: Proponents of the 60-vote rule point out that while the Constitution requires two-thirds majorities for actions such as treaty ratification and proposed constitutional amendments, it is silent on other matters. Instead, Article I, Section V of the Constitution permits and mandates that each house of Congress establish its own rules. Regarding nominations, they contend that the word "Advice" in the Constitution refers to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President's power to make nominations.

text: Tradition[edit]

text: Supporters of the right to filibuster argue that the Senate has a long tradition of requiring broad support to do business, due in part to the threat of the filibuster, and that this protects the minority. Starting with the first Senate in 1789, the rules left no room for a filibuster; a simple majority could move to bring the matter to a vote. However, in 1806, the rule allowing a majority to bring the previous question ceased to exist. The filibuster became possible, and since any Senator could now block a vote, 100% support was required to bring the matter to a vote. A rule change in 1917 introduced cloture, permitting a two-thirds majority of those present to end debate, and a further change in 1975 reduced the cloture requirement to three-fifths of the entire Senate.

text: Majority rule[edit]

text: Proponents of the 60-vote rule have argued that the Senate is a less-than-democratic body that could conceivably allow a simple majority of senators, representing a minority of the national population, to enact legislation or confirm appointees lacking popular support.

text: Ensuring broad support[edit]

text: In 2005, Democrats claimed the nuclear option was an attempt by Senate Republicans to hand confirmation power to themselves. Rather than require the President to nominate someone who will get broad support in the Senate, the nuclear option would allow Judges to not only be "nominated to the Court by a Republican president, but also be confirmed by only Republican Senators in party-line votes."[62][63]

text: Of the 9 U.S. Supreme Court Justices seated as of May 2005, 6 were confirmed with the support of 90 or more Senators, 2 were confirmed with at least the support of 60 senators, and only 1 (Thomas) was confirmed with the support of fewer than 60 Senators, however, since John G. Roberts was confirmed, no candidate has gotten more than 68 votes. Conservative nominees for Appellate Courts that were given a vote through the "Gang of 14" were confirmed almost exclusively along party lines: Priscilla Owen was confirmed 55–43, Janice Rogers Brown was confirmed 56–43, and William Pryor was confirmed 53–45.

text: Public opinion[edit]

text:
In 2005, polling indicated public support for an active Senate role in its "advise and consent" capacity. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll released May 20, 2005, found 78 percent of Americans believe the Senate should take an "assertive role" examining judicial nominees rather than just give the president the benefit of the doubt.[64]
The agreement to stave off the "nuclear option" reached by 14 moderate Senators supports a strong interpretation of "Advice and Consent" from the Constitution:[65]

text: We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word "Advice" speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the president's power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

text: Court-packing[edit]

text: Some fear that removing the 60-vote rule for judicial nominations would allow the courts to be "packed" by a party that controls the other two branches of the government. As of November 2013, Republican presidents have appointed five of the nine justices on the Supreme Court and all four of the chief justices since the Truman administration.

text: In 1937, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a Democrat, sought to alter the court through the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 (a.k.a. "the court-packing plan"). Noting that the Constitution does not specify a number of Supreme Court justices, the bill would have added a seat for every justice over the age of 70½, creating a new majority on the Court. Roosevelt allowed the bill to be scuttled after Justice Owen Roberts began upholding the constitutionality of his New Deal programs.[citation needed]

text: Elimination of the 60-vote rule is a significantly less drastic strategy, only allowing the majority to fill existing vacancies on the Court. However, if the two strategies are combined, a party that controls the Presidency and has a simple majority in the Senate, as FDR's Democrats did in 1937, could quickly gain control of the Court as well.

text: Opportunism[edit]

text: In general, senators from both parties have been very opportunistic in making these policy arguments. Senators in the majority often argue for simple majority rule, especially for nominations, while senators in the minority nearly always defend the 60-vote rule. However, since a simple-majority rule for nominations was progressively adopted in 2013 and 2017, a significant bipartisan majority has remains opposed to eliminating the 60-vote rule for legislation.[citation needed]

text: Examples of opportunism abound. In 2005 Republicans pointed out that several Democrats once opposed the filibuster on judicial nominees, and only recently changed their views as they had no other means of stopping Bush's judicial appointees.[66][67][68]

text: However, Republicans were staunch supporters of the filibuster when they were a minority party and frequently employed it to block legislation. Republicans continued to support the filibuster for general legislation – the Republican leadership insisted that the proposed rule change would only affect judicial nominations. According to the Democrats, arguments that a simple majority should prevail apply equally well to all votes where the Constitution does not specify a three-fifths majority. Republicans stated that there is a difference between the filibustering of legislation – which affects only the Senate's own constitutional prerogative to consider new laws – and the filibustering of a President's judicial or executive nominees, which arguably impinges on the constitutional powers of the Executive branch.

text: Other uses of "nuclear option"[edit]

text: Beyond the specific context of U.S. federal judicial appointments, the term "nuclear option" has come to be used generically for a procedural maneuver with potentially serious consequences, to be used as a last resort to overcome political opposition. In a recent legal ruling on the validity of the Hunting Act 2004[69] the UK House of Lords used "nuclear option" to describe the events of 1832, when the then-government threatened to create hundreds of new Whig peers to force the Tory-dominated Lords to accept the Reform Act 1832. (Nuclear weapons were not theorized until the 20th century, so the government's threat was not labeled as "nuclear" at the time.)

text: The term is also used in connection with procedural maneuvers in various state senates.[70][71][72][73][74]

text: The nuclear option is not to be confused with reconciliation, which allows issues related to the annual budget to be decided by a majority vote without the possibility of filibuster.[75][76]


document_title: List of actors nominated for two Academy Awards in the same year

question_text: who was nominated for two oscars in 1992

text: Nominees[edit]

text:
Year
(Ceremony)
Actor/Actress
Category
Film title used in nomination
Result

1938
(11th)
Fay Bainter
Best Actress
White Banners
Nominated

Best Supporting Actress
Jezebel
Academy Award !Won

1942
(15th)
Teresa Wright
Best Actress
The Pride of the Yankees
Nominated

Best Supporting Actress
Mrs. Miniver
Academy Award !Won

1944
(17th)
Barry Fitzgerald
Best Actor
Going My Way
Nominated

Best Supporting Actor
Academy Award !Won

1982
(55th)
Jessica Lange
Best Actress
Frances
Nominated

Best Supporting Actress
Tootsie
Academy Award !Won

1988
(61st)
Sigourney Weaver
Best Actress
Gorillas in the Mist
Nominated

Best Supporting Actress
Working Girl
Nominated

1992
(65th)
Al Pacino
Best Actor
Scent of a Woman
Academy Award !Won

Best Supporting Actor
Glengarry Glen Ross
Nominated

1993
(66th)
Holly Hunter
Best Actress
The Piano
Academy Award !Won

Best Supporting Actress
The Firm
Nominated

Emma Thompson
Best Actress
The Remains of the Day
Nominated

Best Supporting Actress
In the Name of the Father
Nominated

2002
(75th)
Julianne Moore
Best Actress
Far from Heaven
Nominated

Best Supporting Actress
The Hours
Nominated

2004
(77th)
Jamie Foxx
Best Actor
Ray
Academy Award !Won

Best Supporting Actor
Collateral
Nominated

2007
(80th)
Cate Blanchett
Best Actress
Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Nominated

Best Supporting Actress
I'm Not There
Nominated


document_title: Shine On You Crazy Diamond

question_text: who does vocals on shine on you crazy diamond

text: Shine On You Crazy Diamond

text: Background[edit]

text: The song was conceived and written as a tribute and remembrance to their former band member Syd Barrett; the title of the song itself can also be seen as a reference to Barrett (Shine On You Crazy Diamond). The work was first performed on their 1974 French tour and recorded for their 1975 concept album Wish You Were Here. It was intended to be a side-long composition (like "Atom Heart Mother" and "Echoes") but was ultimately split into two sections and used to bookend the album, with new material composed that was more relevant to the album and to the situation in which the band found themselves.[3]

text: Recording[edit]

text: Bassist Roger Waters commented, as the sessions were underway, that "at times the group was there only physically. Our bodies were there, but our minds and feelings somewhere else."[4] Eventually an idea was raised to split the epic in two, Parts I–V and Parts VI–IX.[4]

text: According to guitarist David Gilmour and drummer Nick Mason on the Wish You Were Here episode of In the Studio with Redbeard, Pink Floyd recorded a satisfactory take of "Shine On You Crazy Diamond", but because of a new mixing console which was installed at Abbey Road Studios, it needed to be re-recorded because excessive 'bleed' from other instruments could be heard on the drum tracks.[5]

text: On part 3, a piano part seems to have been added "live" to the final mix, making it absent from multitrack masters. That part was re-recorded at British Grove Studios by pianist Richard Wright during the multi-channel mix used for the album Immersion Edition and the SACD release.[6]

text: We originally did the backing track over the course of several days, but we came to the conclusion that it just wasn't good enough. So we did it again in one day flat and got it a lot better. Unfortunately nobody understood the desk properly and when we played it back we found that someone had switched the echo returns from monitors to tracks one and two. That affected the tom-toms and guitars and keyboards which were playing along at the time. There was no way of saving it, so we just had to do it yet again.

text: With the invention of 16-track and 2-inch tape there was the belief for quite a while that there would be something wrong with editing tape that big. Consequently whenever we played these pieces, they had to be played from beginning to end. Particularly for Roger [Waters] and myself being the rhythm section, which would be laid down first, this was [chuckling] a fairly tough business because the whole thing had to be sort of right.

text: The Syd Barrett incident[edit]

text: One day during recording, Barrett (now heavyset, with a completely shaved head and eyebrows) wandered into the studio (although Mason has since stated that he is not entirely certain whether "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" was the particular work being recorded when Barrett was there). Because of his drastically changed appearance, the band did not recognize him for some time. When they eventually determined the withdrawn man in the corner was Barrett, Roger Waters allegedly became so distressed about his appearance he was reduced to tears.[3] Someone asked to play the suite again for Barrett and he said a second playback was not needed when they had just heard it. When asked what he thought of the song, Barrett said it sounded a "bit old". He subsequently slipped away during celebrations for Gilmour's wedding to Ginger Hasenbein, which took place later that day.[7] Gilmour confirmed this story, although he could not recall which composition they were working on when Barrett showed up.[8][9]

text: Roger was there, and he was sitting at the desk, and I came in and I saw this guy sitting behind him – huge, bald, fat guy. I thought, "He looks a bit... strange..." Anyway, so I sat down with Roger at the desk and we worked for about ten minutes, and this guy kept on getting up and brushing his teeth and then sitting – doing really weird things, but keeping quiet. And I said to Roger, "Who is he?" and Roger said "I don't know." and I said "Well, I assumed he was a friend of yours," and he said "No, I don't know who he is." Anyway, it took me a long time, and then suddenly I realised it was Syd, after maybe 45 minutes. He came in as we were doing the vocals for "Shine On You Crazy Diamond", which was basically about Syd. He just, for some incredible reason picked the very day that we were doing a song which was about him. And we hadn't seen him, I don't think, for two years before. That's what's so incredibly... weird about this guy. And a bit disturbing, as well, I mean, particularly when you see a guy, that you don't, you couldn't recognize him. And then, for him to pick the very day we want to start putting vocals on, which is a song about him. Very strange.

text: Composition[edit]

text: This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (April 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: As neither the original 1975 vinyl release nor the CD re-release actually delineate the various parts precisely, the make-up of the parts below is based on a comparison of the recorded timings with the identifications in the published sheet music. Without benefit of the publication, it is easy to mistake Parts I and II as Part I, Part III as Part II, and so on, with the extensive postlude of Part V (at 11:10) as the beginning of the fifth section.

text: Parts I–V[edit]

text: Part I (Wright, Waters, Gilmour; from 0:00 to 3:54) begins with the fade-in of a dense G-minor synthesizer pad created with an EMS VCS 3, ARP Solina, a Hammond organ and the sounds of a wine glass harp (recycled from an earlier project known as Household Objects). This is followed by Wright's Minimoog passages followed by a lengthy, bluesy guitar solo played by Gilmour on a Fender Stratocaster (neck pickup) using a heavily compressed sound and reverb. The harmony changes to D minor at 2:29, then to C minor, and back to G minor. This is repeated, and the part ends with the synth pad fading into the background. During this section some very faint conversation in the studio can be heard in the left channel.

text:
Four Note Theme

The main four note guitar theme that sets the tempo for the next section of the epic.

Problems playing this file? See media help.

text: Part II (Gilmour, Waters, Wright; from 3:54 to 6:27)[11] begins with a four-note theme (B♭, F, G, E) (known informally as "Syd's theme") repeated throughout much of the entire section. This theme leads the harmony to C major (in comparison to the use of C minor in Part I). Mason starts his drumming and Waters his bass playing after the fourth playing of the four-note theme, which is the point where the riffs get into a fixed tempo, in 6/8 time. The chord leads back to G minor (as from Part I), followed by E♭ major and D major back to a coda from G minor. This part includes another solo by Gilmour.

text: Part III (Waters, Gilmour, Wright; from 6:27 to 8:42) begins with a Minimoog solo by Wright accompanied by a less complex variation of Mason's drums from Part II. This part includes Gilmour's third guitar solo, in the G natural minor scale, and ends with a fade into Part IV. When performed on the Animals tour, Gilmour added distortion to the guitar for this solo. This solo is often dropped in live performances while the rest of part III is still played—notably on Delicate Sound of Thunder and Pulse.

text: Part IV (Gilmour, Wright, Waters; from 8:42 to 11:10) Waters sings his lyrics, with Gilmour, Wright and female backing vocalists Venetta Fields and Carlena Williams on harmonies.

text: Part V (Waters, Gilmour, Wright; from 11:10 to 13:32) Part IV is followed by two guitars repeating an arpeggio variation on the main theme for about a minute with the theme of Part II. A baritone saxophone overlays the sounds, played by Dick Parry. The saxophone changes from a baritone to a tenor saxophone, as a time signature switch from 6/8 to 12/8 creates the feeling that the tempo doubles up. The sax solo is accompanied by a Solina string synthesizer keyboard sound. A machine-like hum fades in with musique concrète and segues into "Welcome to the Machine".

text: Parts VI–IX[edit]

text: Part VI (Wright, Waters, Gilmour; from 0:00 to 4:59) begins with a howling wind from the preceding song "Wish You Were Here".[12] As the wind fades away, Gilmour comes in on the bass guitar. Waters adds another bass with a continuing riff pattern. Then Wright comes in playing an Solina String Ensemble Synthesizer and after a few measures, several rhythm guitar parts (Gilmour played the power chord rhythm part using his black Fender Stratocaster before switching to lap steel guitar for the solo in live performances from 1974–77. Snowy White did the rhythm guitar parts on this track on the band's 1977 "In the Flesh" tour) and drums come in, as well as a Minimoog synthesizer to play the opening solo. At the two-minute mark, Wright's Minimoog and Gilmour's lap steel guitar play notes in unison before Gilmour does a lap steel guitar solo (the lap steel had open G tuning with the high E string tuned to E) with some counterpointing from Wright's synthesizers. It lasts for about three minutes (four when played on the band's "In the Flesh" tour) and Gilmour played each section an octave higher than the previous one. The highest note he hit on the lap steel/slide solo was a B♭6, followed by a reprise of the guitar solo from Part IV (which was played by White live on Pink Floyd's 1977 tour so Gilmour could switch back to his Fender Stratocaster). The song then switches time signatures to 6/8 (found in Parts II–V), giving the appearance of a slower tempo and reintroducing the vocals.

text: Part VII (Waters, Gilmour, Wright; from 4:59 to 6:09) contains the vocals, in a similar vein to Part IV though half the length, before segueing into Part VIII. Waters again sings the lead vocals with Gilmour, Wright, Venetta Fields and Carlena Williams providing backing vocals.

text: Part VIII (Gilmour, Wright, Waters; from 6:09 to 9:07) brings in Waters to play a second electric guitar for a high-noted sound riff while Gilmour plays the arpeggio riff that bridges Parts VII and VIII. A solid progression of funk in 4/4 plays for about two minutes before very slowly fading out as a single sustained keyboard note fades in around the nine-minute mark. Throughout this section, Wright's keyboards dominate, with the use of a Minimoog synthesizer, and a Hohner Clavinet. Originally the section clocked in at 8 minutes before it was edited down to three minutes on the final version (the unedited Part 8 without the electric piano and Minimoog overdubs surfaced on a bootleg called The Extraction Tapes). When performed on the "In the Flesh" tour in 1977, the section would be extended to between 5 and 10 minutes as it would feature guitar solos from Gilmour (which would vary from funky power chords to a proper solo as the Animals tour progressed) and Snowy White. In addition to their guitar solos, there was also occasional trading of leads from Gilmour and White instead of the keyboard sounds as heard on record.

text: Part IX (Wright, from 9:07 to 12:28) is played in 4/4 time. Gilmour described Part IX in an interview[which?] as "a slow 4/4 funeral march... the parting musical eulogy to Syd".[13] Again, Wright's keyboards dominate, with little guitar input from Gilmour. Mason's drums play for much of this part, and the keyboards play for the final minute before fading out. On the fade-out, a short keyboard part of the melody of "See Emily Play" (at 12:12), one of Barrett's signature Pink Floyd songs, can be heard. Part IX, and the album, ends in G major, a Picardy third. When performed early on the Animals tour, the part begins with the piano (as heard on record) then the synth solo is played (as on record) by Dick Parry with some slide guitar accompaniment by Snowy White would then change to half synthesizer/half harmony lead guitar solo for the remainder of European leg and first US leg. For the final US leg, after the piano began it was a bluesy guitar solo from Gilmour then harmony guitars from Gilmour and White (Gilmour playing the highest parts) and then ending like on record. This was the final solo writing credit Wright would receive in Pink Floyd during his lifetime, as well as his last writing credit of any kind until The Division Bell in 1994.

text: Live performances[edit]

text: This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: The song series was first performed in 1974 as "Shine On",[14] during the band's French tour in June that year. It was first introduced as "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" on the British tour in November 1974. The set was originally performed as one whole suite with some of the parts differing from the album versions with samplings of Barrett's solo song "Dark Globe" during the opening of the performance. The version from the British tour was included on the 2011 Experience and Immersion editions of Wish You Were Here. The multi-part version of "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" was first performed on the band's 1975 North American tour with "Have a Cigar" thrown into the middle of the piece. The 1975 versions were close to the final versions except parts one and nine were still not refined yet. The band performed the whole nine-part "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" as part of the Wish You Were Here portion of their 1977 In the Flesh Tour, with extra musicians White on guitar and backing vocals and Parry on saxophones.

text: Parts I–V of "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" became a staple of Pink Floyd's live performances from 1987–94. The track opened shows for most of the A Momentary Lapse of Reason tour of 1987–89 and the tour closing performance at Knebworth in 1990 with Candy Dulfer on saxophone.[15] The first eleven performances had "Echoes" as the show opener before the band proceeded to play all of A Momentary Lapse of Reason in the rest of the first half in a slightly different sequence to the album. A condensed edition of the track (without the Gilmour solo in Part III) would then open the second half of the shows on the group's 1994 The Division Bell tour (documented on Pulse) except on shows where all of The Dark Side of the Moon was performed when "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" opened the first half and in the last month and a half of the tour the band added part VII to Parts I–V. A similar version was also played during David Gilmour's Rattle That Lock Tour in 2015 with the according screen film on display.

text: Gilmour performed almost the whole suite (save part IX) at his 2001 and 2002 semi-unplugged concerts (which were documented on his 2002 David Gilmour in Concert video film) and has performed Parts I–II and IV–V (in a new arrangement) on his 2006 On an Island solo tour. Part III was omitted and Parts I and II were simplified and more guitar-focused. Gilmour performed Parts I–V on his Live in Gdańsk album on disc two and on the DVD in the four-disc edition of the album. The five-disc edition and the online downloads available in the three and four-disc editions include Parts I–V recorded in Venice and Vienne in 2006. In many of his performances, solo and with Pink Floyd, Gilmour alters the vocal melody to avoid the higher notes that were originally sung by Waters.

text: Waters has also performed the epic on his 1999 and 2000 tours documented on his In the Flesh – Live album and DVD which was a condensed parts I, II, IV, VI, VII, and IX. Part VI on these performances had a lap steel solo from Jon Carin then guitar solos from Doyle Bramhall II and White. Then on Waters' 2002 tour, he played all nine parts like on record (although part VIII was shortened). An abridged version of parts I–V was performed on Waters' 2006–07 The Dark Side of the Moon Live tour.

text: Personnel[edit]

text:
Roger Waters – bass guitar, lead vocals, additional electric guitar on Part VIII, glass harp
David Gilmour – electric guitars, backing vocals, lap steel guitar, additional bass guitar on Part VI, EMS Synthi AKS, glass harp
Richard Wright – Hammond organ, ARP String Ensemble, Minimoog, quadruple-tracked EMS VCS 3, clavinet and electric piano on Part VIII, Steinway piano on Parts III and IX, glass harp, backing vocals, Bösendorfer piano on the multi-channel re-release (recorded in 2008).[6]
Nick Mason – percussion

text: with:

text:
Dick Parry – baritone and tenor saxophones
Carlena Williams – backing vocals
Venetta Fields – backing vocals

text: Edited versions[edit]

text: Three different edited versions of the composition have appeared on compilation albums:

text: The version on this compilation album was cut significantly. Parts III, V, VI, VIII and IX were dropped completely. Parts IV and VII are linked by the guitar solo from earlier in Part IV. Lastly, the riff that links Parts VII and VIII is repeated several times as the song segues into the introductory radio passage from "Wish You Were Here".

text: The version on this compilation album was also cut, but less significantly. The guitar solo on Part III was dropped. Part VI was shortened. Parts VIII and IX were dropped completely. Linking Parts V and VI is the sound of wind. These are the same wind effects used to bridge "Wish You Were Here" to Part VI of "Diamond" on the original LP. Finally, the riff that links Parts VII and VIII is repeated several times as the song segues into the introductory passage of clocks of "Time".

text: This version was also cut. Parts VI–IX were dropped completely. Part I was shortened. The guitar solo on Part III was dropped. The saxophone on Part V has an early fade-out. Finally, the machine-like hum that segues into "Welcome to the Machine" in the original album was dropped, the song simply stops and "Brain Damage" begins.

text: Releases[edit]

text: "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" features on all the below releases:

text:
Wish You Were Here (Original release) – Pink Floyd, 1975
A Collection of Great Dance Songs (Edited version) – Pink Floyd, 1981[16]
Delicate Sound of Thunder (Live version, Parts I–V) – Pink Floyd, 1988
PULSE (Live version, Parts I–V and VII) – Pink Floyd, 1995
In the Flesh – Live (Live version, Parts I–VIII) – Roger Waters, 2000
Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd (Edited version) – Pink Floyd, 2001[17]
Live in Gdańsk (Live version, Parts I–II, IV–V) – David Gilmour, 2008
Wish You Were Here 2011 remastered "Experience" and "Immersion" sets (early live version recorded in November 1974) – Pink Floyd, 2011
A Foot in the Door – The Best of Pink Floyd (Edited version, Parts I–V) – Pink Floyd, 2011

text:
Delicate Sound of Thunder (VHS, Part I only) – Pink Floyd, 1988
PULSE (VHS and DVD, Parts I–V and VII) – Pink Floyd, 1995 (VHS) 2006 (DVD)
In the Flesh – Live (DVD, Parts I–VIII) – Roger Waters, 2000
David Gilmour in Concert (DVD, Parts I–II, IV–V and VI–VII, reprise of Part V) – David Gilmour, 2002
Remember That Night (DVD and BD, Parts I–II and IV–V) – David Gilmour, 2007
Live in Gdańsk 3-disc, 4-disc and deluxe editions (Parts I–II, IV–V) – David Gilmour, 2008


document_title: Coil spring

question_text: where is a coil spring on a car

question_tokens: where is a coil spring on a car

text: Coil spring

text: Variants[edit]

text: Types of coil spring are:

text:
Tension/extension coil springs, designed to resist stretching. They usually have a hook or eye form at each end for attachment.
Compression coil springs, designed to resist being compressed. A typical use for compression coil springs is in car suspension systems.

Volute springs are used as heavy load compression springs. A strip of plate is rolled into the shape of both a helix and a spiral. When compressed, the strip is stiffer edge-on than a wire coil, but the spiral arrangement allows the turns to overlap rather than bottoming out on each other.

Torsion springs, designed to resist twisting actions. Often associated to clothes pegs or up-and-over garage doors.

text: Applications[edit]

text: Coil springs have many applications; notable ones include:

text:
Buckling springs in computer keyboards
Mattress coils in innerspring mattresses
Upholstery coil springs in upholstery