Each and every day of the year

Kevin Walsh of Forgotten New York once said that this was the greatest music video in history, and I duly pass it on to you:

I am, of course, a Neil Sedaka fan from way back, though I admit that one of the first things I noticed was the dire presence of a Friday the 13th during that particular March — which couldn’t have been in 1961, when “Calendar Girl” was a hit, because 13 March 1961 was a Monday. I conclude, therefore, that the calendar on display is purely decorative.

This is probably an original Scopitone film, with subtitled lyrics after the fact.


  1. Bill Peschel »

    1 August 2013 · 3:17 pm

    That was fabulous and weird! Good to see David Lynch extending himself.

  2. CGHill »

    1 August 2013 · 4:38 pm

    He shoots, he scores!

  3. Roger Green »

    1 August 2013 · 7:01 pm

    January 1961, though, DID have a Friday the 13th. But you already knew that…

  4. CGHill »

    1 August 2013 · 7:57 pm

    It is, in fact, impossible with our current calendar to have a year that doesn’t have a Friday the 13th.

    (And anyway, the big board behind Neil says “March.”)

  5. Roger Green »

    2 August 2013 · 4:48 am

    Ah, so he had 1959 in mind? Or probably 1953, which, after all, WAS a very good year.
    The rhythm of this song always reminds me of the original version of Handy Man that James Taylor slowed WAY down.

  6. Tatyana »

    2 August 2013 · 9:50 am

    nobody noticed that apart from costumes (obviously designed by a homosexual misogynist) ALL women are played by one? or there are 12 “twins”*: same blond hair, same face, same built, same fake expression…

    *is there a word in English that means “siblings that are born at the same time”, like “близнецы” in Russian? without referring to a number of such siblings

  7. CGHill »

    2 August 2013 · 10:38 am

    @Roger: Previously unnoticed similarities now noticed. :)

    @Tat: That’s the point of the song: there’s only the one girl, but she manifests herself differently each month.

    I don’t think we have a word of that sort, though I do understand the concept.

  8. Roger Green »

    2 August 2013 · 11:42 am

    To Tatyana’s question: “multiple births” is as close as I can get.

  9. Tatyana »

    2 August 2013 · 2:16 pm

    Chaz: I’d have never guessed!
    Roger: I meant the word for siblings, not for births.

RSS feed for comments on this post