Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/March 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

  • For promoted entries, add {{FSCresult|Promoted|Media:Example.ogg}} to the bottom of the entry, replacing Example.ogg with the file that was promoted.
  • For entries not promoted, add {{FSCresult|Not promoted| }} to the bottom of the entry.
  • For entries demoted, add {{FSCresult|Demoted| }} to the bottom of the entry.
  • Do NOT put any other information inside the template. It should be copied and pasted exactly, and only the first one should have Example.ogg replaced with the actual filename.

Contents

[edit] Shostakovich's Prelude XXI Bb Major (Allegro) - (Part of opus 87)

[edit] Reasons

Sounds cool, appears on the Dimitri Shostakovich, Piano, 24 Preludes and Fugues (Shostakovich) and Prelude (music) articles.

Shostakovich's Prelude XXI Bb Major (Allegro) - (Part of opus 87)
Played by my dad on a Yamaha Clavinova.
  • Nominate and support. - Walter Humala - Emperor of West Wikipedia 00:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, though technically very well played, I have worries about featuring classical music unless it is played by a famous artist/orchestra, or is considered "the" recording of choice. Furthermore, because this is played on an electric piano direct to a computer, there is no atmosphere to the sound as you would get from a live recording. Witty lama 04:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    So.. Can I expect to see you on WP:FAC saying things like "Oppose, Although an excellent article, I have -worries about featuring articles on quantum physics not published by a famous encyclopedia like Britannica, or which are otherwise not considered the definitive encyclopedia articles on the subject.", if not why not? How would this statement differ from the primary point of your opposition? --Gmaxwell 17:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • By that logic, shouldn't you be opposing all featured article candidates because they weren't written by professional encyclopedists? Methinks you misunderstand what Wikipedia actually is. --Cyde Weys 17:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, just a bit dubious: played with a high level of technical ability but in a rather mechanical manner. Lots of pianists, we can possibly do better. Not sure this is featured quality. Moreschi Request a recording? 21:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Opppose per reasons that Moreschi states. While technically hard, there seems to be little passion behind the playing. I like this peice, and I love the fact that a editor made this, but I don't think this particular recording is a FS just yet. Walter Humala - Emperor of West Wikipedia, can you make another recording in the near future where you can demonstrate more emotion? Zidel333 02:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose looks like it's not actually public domain anywhere, due to Shostakovich's date of death. Featured sounds must be free media, and this cannot be released freely. Mak (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose For me, the digital nature of the recording instrument takes something away here. The piece is obviously well-played in the technical sense, but as others have said, emotion is rather lacking. The instrument contributes to this, in my estimation. --Fsotrain09 01:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)



Not promoted

[edit] The Four Seasons

A remarkable donation of Antonio Vivaldi's The Four Seasons from the Wichita State University Chamber Players. This was uploaded as one of twelve files; I am nominating the first movement as a stand-in for the entire piece. Not only is this a fine performance of an iconic work from a large ensemble, it is technically well-recorded and we are fortunate to have been given the entire work, not just a selection.

  • Nominate and support. - Pharos 20:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Clean recording, well played. I'm fine with this movement representing the others in FS, as long as they all link to each other. --Tewy 23:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The only problem with some of the other uploads is a few coughs. --Tewy 04:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So far the first recording is good if a little turgid, except it cuts out just before the cadence! A trill with no final note! Oh, the pain! Also, it is huge. Huge. So, anyway, I took the liberty of making an edit, see above, although the in-browser player probably won't work right away because of database lag or some-such. I normalised it, faded out the end so the missing candence isn't so jarring, and exported it at -5 (the level where humans can't tell the difference, but makes it a reasonable size for people to download). I can do this for the others as well, if there is a consensus that it is useful. Mak (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Neutral for now, the copyright is not clear to me, because the source site (accessed throught the Internet archive)gives no information about releasing it under a CC-By-Sa license. Mak (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I have responded to this concern at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:01 - Vivaldi Spring mvt 1 Allegro - John Harrison violin.ogg.--Pharos 07:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, thanks. I've put an e-mail in to the professor, just to double-check. In the meanwhile, what do you think about the edit? Mak (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks, it's good to compress a bit (these are rather large files). I did notice, though, that it's also much shorter, 24 seconds instead of 3 1/2 minutes. This was intentional, right? Excuse me if this question comes from a misunderstanding of your previous comment.--Pharos 01:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Hm, I asked someone else, and they also said it was 24 seconds. I thought the cutoff was very odd. Hm. Well, then, let me try again, I'll compress the files without shortening them so much! Oh, and I got a message back from the professor, the copyright is fine. Mak (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Is this is writing (for future copyright comfirmation)? --Tewy 21:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Say again? Mak (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
                • Is the message from the professor about the copyright in writing, so if the issue needs to be proven, it can be? --Tewy 22:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
                  • Yes, I have an actual e-mail which I can forward to otrs-permissions, however someone on commons has brought up another issue about whether he really has the right to release the recording, so I need to e-mail him again. Mak (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
                    • Okay thanks, that's all I was curious about. --Tewy 23:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
                      • OK, now the copyright is really seriously fine, and User:Gmaxwell is fixing up the metadata and normalising. Mak (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
                        • So, Mak, are you supporting it now? (we do need those 4 votes...)--Pharos 18:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
                          • I spent weeks talking Dr. Harrison through the process of converting them to ogg, and uploading them, and putting them in the articles. Seeing this here makes all that work seem worthwhile :) Raul654 05:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - looks OK, copyright status now confirmed. Listening to some of the other movements was a pleasure, if the strings are just a little overbearing and weighty on occasion. Good enough, though. Nice work! Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording? 10:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Mak (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Very clear sounding, and perfect execution of this very widely known classical piece. Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


Promoted 01 - Vivaldi Spring mvt 1 Allegro - John Harrison violin.ogg --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] DescenteInfinie

This sound illustrates the Shepard tone article.

  • Created, nominate and support. - Gloumouth1 13:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support very cool illusion. Well executed, encyclopedic. Mak (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Very interesting, high enc. --Tewy 22:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Clear, perfect sound. Very well done. Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 01:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Are we certain that Roger Shepard owns no rights relating to this? Is the programming derived from an example in his published work?--Pharos 03:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    Jean-Claude Risset created a continuous scale like this for the first time in the sixties in the Bell Laboratories. How did I work ? A few years ago, I heared this illusion (maybe in Mutations, a work by JC Risset). In listening it, I undestood how it works. And finely, three years ago, I decided to re-create the illusion thanks to programming. Cf. my web site if you speak french.--Gloumouth1 09:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks, I think that satisfies my concern. It would be cool if you could give us the equation and the source code on the file page, too. Thanks.--Pharos 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    Ok, I added new comments on the image page.--Gloumouth1 17:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Very interesting, I think I'll have to add a new category to WP:FS to fit this in.--Pharos 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Well executed and very encyclopedic content, as Makemi said. Too bad you lost the source code. --Davidkazuhiro 10:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Promoted DescenteInfinie.ogg --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Star in the east solfege

Reasonably well performed, provedes an encyclopedic example of a less-common type of solfege. The recording is used in Shape note and was performed by myself. Mak (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - Mak (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, awesome. :D--§hanel 22:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Completely fails criterion 4, as it utterly fails to illustrate anything at all of Shape notes. Should be in Solfege, which lacks a sound sample. Circeus 22:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Shape notes are called that because each note is also given a shape, and each shape represents a syllable in solfege. Standard solfege has 6-7 syllables in it. Four-syllables is, as far as I know, unique to the shape note tradition. This was created as an illustration of this four-syllable system. See Image:Star_in_the_east.png which uses four shapes to represent the notes. In my view, it illustrates an important aspect of shape notes. Mak (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and see Shape note#Four-shape vs. seven-shape systems, where the example currently is. Mak (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
But Star in the East could be represented in normal notes. Thus it is merely a work that happens to be written in shape notes.Circeus 02:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It could be, but if you look at the image, it isn't. Also, it was written by William Caldwell, for Union Harmony, a four-shape tunebook. It was written as a shape-note song. I'm singing the tenor line, or the main melody of the piece. In addition, it is standard practice to sing through songs on their shape-names at Shape note sing-ins, before singing them on the text. I think it makes complete sense to have this as an encyclopedic example of an aspect of shape note music. Mak (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. This recording is nicely done and nicely illustrative of the topic. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I think this is a nice illustration of the four-syllable shape note tradition. I see Circeus's point, though, in that it would fit at least as well in solfege, in any case until we have a good recording from a more historically widespread solfege tradition.--Pharos 19:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. This is perfect for the Shape Note article! Solfege should have a sound file of one of the modern 7 syllable systems, not this. MarkBuckles (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. An image would more accurately describe shape notes, but I think this is the best way to describe them through the medium of sound. And even if the file fits better in the solfege article, it can just be moved. --Tewy 03:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Star in the east solfege.ogg--Pharos 07:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Joy to the World

This file accompanies the Joy to the World article. I believe it succeeds in satisfying all the creteria, as it is supported by the article, is of excellent sound quality, adds to the article, has a free license, as a Christmas carol, and illustrates the article, as well as having a good caption and being well performed.--Orthologist 23:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - Orthologist 23:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Firstly, I am not convinced, copyright-wise. The tune is public domain, but what about the arrangement? Did you improvise it youself? Or did you play it from sheet music? What is the copyright status of that sheet music? Even were there no copyright questions, I would still have to oppose, because he entire recording is clipped (see Clipping (audio)). We can do better. Mak (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding copyrights, Christmas carols and folklore songs are public domain, any way they are played. Secondly, I recorded and played this, so it's my work and I agree to release it in the public domain. If the recording is clipped, however, I will be able to fix that via a computer anti-clipping programme I have access to.--Orthologist 13:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
That's simply not true. An original arrangement of a Christmas Carol is copyrighted by the arranger. It being a Christmas Carol is not some sort of magic bullet against copyright concerns. Mak (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me for presenting factually wrong arguments. I'm from Greece, and I'm used to different laws concerning copyrights. But I arranged this recording, so it is copyright-free. I'm willing to release it in the public domain.--Orthologist 15:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright, that's all I was asking. Copyright concern resolved. Mak (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for now. I would rather have a recording with words, to get the full "picture". --Tewy 03:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Makemi's concerns about the audio quality. Moreschi Request a recording? 21:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I just don't think this recording's sound quality is up to par for a Featured Sound. Zidel333 00:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it's just too bare! This isn't what I'd call featured quality. Bill (who is cool!) 18:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 02:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)



[edit] The Entertainer

This sound was nominated because I believe that it is of the highest quality. It appears in the article of the same name and it was created by IE.

  • Nominate and support. - Tarret 19:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, it's of good quality and the playing is very good, too. Bill (who is cool!) 20:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. At least as far as I can tell, it's a clean recording with a valid copyright. --Tewy 23:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, striking, good quality, top playing. Jaser 12345 22:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral, leaning toward oppose nice, but it seems rather straight for a Rag to me. A major aspect of the genre, and of this piece, is the "raggedness" of the meter. Mak (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Pat, boring. I prefer a human playing this than a computer. Bastiq▼e demandez 20:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I played the piece. It certainly was not played by a computer. What does "Pat" mean, by the way? --IE 00:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Noclip 22:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Promoted The Entertainer - Scott Joplin.ogg MER-C 10:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_sound_candidates_March_2007_42e9.html"