Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/March 2011

• Support as nominator Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as co-nominator. Jujutacular ^talk 07:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I am enjoying this --Guerillero | My Talk 04:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. Killiondude (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faure - Fantasie

A gorgeous piece, professionally recorded and released commercially, but now available to everyone for free.

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent find.
  Wha? 20:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Marvelous --Guerillero | My Talk 05:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with minor concern about noise artefacts early in the recording... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a tiny bit of crackle, but not anything unusual for a thirty-five year old recording. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. Killiondude (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Airs Suite No. 1

Ancient Airs, Suite No. 1

1. Balletto, “Il Conte Orlando”

---

2. Gagliarda

---

3. Villanella

---

4. Passo mezzo e mascherada

---

Problems playing these files? See media help.

Suite No. 1 from Ottorino Respighi's Ancient Airs and Dances. It is based on Renaissance lute pieces by Simone Molinaro, Vincenzo Galilei, and other anonymous composers.

I'm not sure how notable Ancient Airs is, but I like this piece and was glad to find that the Marine band played the entire first suite.

• Nominate and support. haha169 (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wonderful find.
  Wha? 06:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support An excellent performance. Work is somewhat obscure, but fits well in our educational effort. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. Killiondude (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltan Kodaly

This is an excellent recording of a notable composer. It's not really my preferred type of music - it's a difficult and unsettling modernist composition - but I can appreciate it as being very well performed. The recording greatly adds to the article on Zoltán Kodály, and so, I think that it's quite worthy of Featured Sound status. Would prefer a less abrupt opening, but I can accept it as interpretation.

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not exactly what I think of when I think of classical, but it's very good nonetheless.
  Wha? 04:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Oh my, that's unique. Very interesting.--haha169 (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The early modernist movement was an interesting flurry of new and unique ideas in music. Not all of them are entirely successful, but sometimes you get something unique and superb, like
    Luigi Nono, and Schoenberg. But then, I'm an opera fan, and those three did some AMAZING theatrical works. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Promoted. Killiondude (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Joachim Quantz - Sonata Concertate in D.ogg

Fascinating piece, not something we have a lot of. IMO, excellent performance using period pieces and methods.

• Nominate and support -
  Wha? 23:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak oppose Definitely a valuable recording to have, but I'm not ecstatic about the performance. The flutist has a somewhat timid sound. There seems to be a strange background copy of the song playing, ahead of the main one by a few seconds. It can be heard at the very beginning, and between movements: noticeably at 2:00. Sixteenth runs around 4:15 misses quite a few notes. Sixteenth runs around 6:50 again misses quite a few notes. The harpsichord and flute lose each other there a couple times. The accelerando of the harpsichord immediately following that seems to be a strange interpretation. Overall it was a pleasure to listen to, but these points make me unable to support. Jujutacular ^talk 08:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure about this one; I can hear all the problems which Jujutacular highlights, but the use of period instruments is interesting and the recording does usefully illustrate the article about the composer, even if that article is terribly brief. I'm not wild about the performance, especially that accelerando which does seem very out of place, but it is a live performance, and on the whole I think it is of a high artistic standard, so therefore weak support.. Nope, sorry, I've changed my mind; the performance is too ponderous and while I appreciate it's on period instruments there's enough problems in this recording to limit its artistic standard. So therefore Oppose. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caprice No. 24

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The educational value is certainly undeniable here, I think. Her performance is good, despite a few minor irregularities (although, I'm only an amateur violinist so it's not really my place to judge her!). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support My, what a find. This is really good. --haha169 (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I really like the way she played the high harmonics and the consecutive double-stopped octaves. However the variation with the scales in consecutive 3rds and 10ths did not come out so well, especially on the lower string. But she certainly captured the spirit of the piece and the imperfections are minor, so I must support. Graham87 05:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose:
  • The sense of metre is interrupted again and again in the opening section by the hiatus between each phrase.
  • Tuning problems start of second variation and elsewhere.
  • The double-stopped section is pretty awful.
  • She has a tendency to grate the lower notes. Tony (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Super stuff. Well played and the phrasing sounds fine to me; I have recordings of this with similar delays between phrases (Perlman, Accardo & Rabin), and I'm not worried about the imperfections. Major Bloodnok (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not worried about the imperfections"—well that is a real problem. This process will be a lost cause if we're aiming so low. Tony (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're not aiming "so low." We're aiming for what normal human beings, not Jascha Heifetz or Artur Rubinstein, can do. Let me know when Joshua Bell or Murray Perahia start releasing PD recordings. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 15:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Tony doesn't like the way I phrased it, but I chose to ignore the problems in the performance because on balance I thought it was a performance of "high artistic standard". Was it perfect? No. Did errors in the performance distract from the musicianship shown throughout the performance as a whole? No. I did bring this up on the talk page and there is an obvious disagreement about exactly what we are trying to achieve with musical performances and the FS process. If you are after perfection in the first instance, then I think we have a problem because wikipedia should cater to both the uninformed audience, and to the specialist. Going for perfection at the moment given the state of play with the FS would be a mistake, and has been said elsewhere we can raise the bar in due course when the number of nominees, and the quality increases. We have to draw the line somewhere (I'm not going to upload any of my piano performances thanks) and until there is a consensus about the whereabouts of the line which can be clearly written in the FS criteria, there will be disagreement about it. I will worry about imperfections in the performance when they distract notably from the performance itself. I didn't feel it did here too much, but you obviously did. Fine. Don't start picking on others if they disagree with you. We'd be losing an awful lot of existing FS and possible nominations if we went with your interpretations of the criteria; I don't believe it is the consensus view. Until it is and until nominations become of such high quality that they are note-perfect with a very close reading of the score feeding into their interpretation, I will disregard errors as I see fit.

Some errors in a performance of Bach's 1st Prelude in C Major from the 48 Preludes and Fugues, no matter how well-phrased and interpreted, would not get to Featured status in my view, because it is a relatively simple piece to play. The same number of errors in, say a Chopin or Debussy suite would not necessarily detract from the performance given the relative complexity of the music, and could become a FS in my view, all else equal. It's my view of the guidelines and the way we gauge a FS. Please clarify the criteria if you are unhappy about them. Major Bloodnok (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • • This is a piece that has been called "ten minutes of hell" and is essentially a loosely knit collected of all of the hardest techniques for the violin in one piece.
      Wha? 03:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Support Not without its imperfections, but the musicianship is clearly present. The educational value of the video, too, is also worth noting. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 15:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is sub-professional. I suppose we'll have to go through the same process we did at FAC in raising standards. People griped for more than a year, resentfully, about reviewers who insisted on professional-standard prose, referencing, etc. We won in the end, and now no one even blinks. When someone here says: "Did errors in the performance distract from the musicianship shown throughout the performance as a whole? No.", I quiver. There is no hard-and-fast distinction between artistry and technique. Tony (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I did actually mention (and I did think it was the core of my message above) that if standards were to improve at some point in the future then obviously we would gauge the pieces by those improved criteria. I am currently operating on the basis of the criteria as they stand now, not upon some standard of my own making independent of that. All the criteria says in relation to this is "Musical performances are of a high artistic standard". This obviously is in the ear of the beholder, and really an inadequate method of assessing pieces of music. By all means lets have a debate about professional technique, how this can be assessed by professional musicians, musos and non-musicians, and how this fits into the ethos of Wikipedia. Let's work out how to move forward and improve the standard of work here, but we also have to bear in mind exactly where the FS is, and how it stands now. Also, if you do quote me and complain about anything I have written, at least do me the courtesy of attributing the quotation. I really do appreciate the knowledge about the pieces you describe and this gives a value to your judgement about the performance. However, if knowledge of how the piece of music should be played, based on exhaustive knowledge of the score, is key to assessing whether or not a muscial recording should be an FS then I think there will be significant problems getting enough knowledgeable souls to assess the pieces, at least until FS becomes more established and well-known. Perhaps that is the goal, but until the assessment criteria discuss this more clearly then I'll continue as I have been thanks.Major Bloodnok (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it's going on the main page. I don't require utter perfection, but I've pointed out a few very obvious problems. Some of the performance is just unpleasant to listent to (the tuning in particular). Ten minutes of hell? For the performer, yeah, not for the listeners, thanks. I'm getting a separate, outside opinion on this. Tony (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Outside opinion, admittedly not of a violinist, but a pianist at a conservatoire: here's what he said on Skype while listening to it:
  • "not good intonation at all ... and the grating lower notes could be the bow or the cheap violin too". Me: "IS it a cheap vln?" Him: "thin sound. Intonation is way off. Fail. Rhythmically wayward also. i've finished heard enuff" Tony (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I commented above in the Frog Legs Rag submission on what I think of the expert, and you should read it there. The TLDR version, however, is that I think he's a lazy quack and that if he's going to offer his opinions he needs to get an account.
      Wha? 21:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Support I caught only two errors, and while I'm sure professional ears can find others, this is an exceptionally difficult piece played at a very high level, and it's overall quality is quite impressive. Unless we start getting professional recording studio performances, we're never going to get recordings where every note is perfect and where there is no peddling or occasional cough or movement sound by a performer. As seen in other nominations, when we do have note perfect performances, complaints are raised about them sounding artificial and lacking artistic expression or interpretation. If we do get professional recording studio performances they will have their own problems, I'm sure. In the end we can hope for total perfection, but we cannot vote under the assumption that it is possible. Even the US Navy Band, which we view as a benchmark for certain styles of music, has their problems, and they only do a small selection of pieces. If we convert the grading system of Wikipedia from numbers to letters, an FA would be a high A or an A+, numerically about a 96% or up. Yes, shooting for 100 is always nice, but it's unrealistic to ignore the 97s and 98s that come through the door. This seems very much like a high A to me.
  Wha? 23:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Additional general statement. We should be excited that main page exposure will soon be upon us. But it is all the more reason to get serious about standards, particularly when nominating "found" material that is already available on the net or elsewhere. After so many decades of commercial recordings, standards are now very very high; we risk looking mediocre if we promote items that are not first-rate, unless they have special interest, such as for many historical recordings. I would be embarrassed to have this exposed on the main page, especially since it's a vid, and for that reason will attract huge numbers of hits. And let's not be lulled into the notion that standards will rise over time, and we can easily delete substandard items then. Tony (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd pull my support for it, as the more I listen, the more on the fence I am, but at this point, numerically it wouldn't matter. Take heart though, in that plans are underway to overhaul the main page vetting system. Details soon, however it will be very much to your liking, I would think.
  Wha? 06:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Promoted MHVC-KyokoYonemoto-PaganiniCaprice24.ogv The votes are over the margin by only 4%Why was I thinking 3.4 and not 2/3 12%. I suspect that this will come up for reassessment more then once. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JS Bach - Brandenburg Concerto No 6

Brandenburg Concerto No. 6 - 1. Allegro

Performed by the Advent Chamber Orchestra with Elias Goldstein & Elizabeth Choi (violas) and Anna Steinhoff (cello)

---

Brandenburg Concerto No. 6 - 2. Adagio ma non troppo

Performed by the Advent Chamber Orchestra with Elias Goldstein & Elizabeth Choi (violas) and Anna Steinhoff (cello)

---

Brandenburg Concerto No. 6 - 3. Allegro

Performed by the Advent Chamber Orchestra with Elias Goldstein & Elizabeth Choi (violas) and Anna Steinhoff (cello)

---

Problems playing these files? See media help.

Fabulous pieces of music by Bach. They come from the Al Goldstein collection in the Pandora music repository at ibiblio.org. They are recordings by the Advent Chamber orchestra in a live concert for the small record label that has released its work to the public. They are well played with spirit and would make a fine set of FS. They illustrate the Brandenburg Concerto page well. Separated from a nomination with three of the 6 Brandenburgs.

Add your reasons for nominating it here, and say what article(s) it appears in.

• Nominate and support. Major Bloodnok (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose—Robotic performance; same audio-engineering issues as below. Tony (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This concerto is meant to contain two
  violas da gamba. They are not credited either on the Pandora Records site or on the file description page. I can't hear any, and it seems to me that modern instruments are used in the performance. Since the whole idea of this concerto is to contrast new and old instruments, that seems a bit silly to me. Graham87 06:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not promoted -- Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JS Bach - Brandenburg Concerto No 5

Brandenburg Concerto No. 5 - 1. Allegro

Performed by the Advent Chamber Orchestra with Roxana Pavel Goldstein (violin), Constance Schoepflin(flute), and Matthew Ganong (harpsichord)

---

Brandenburg Concerto No. 5 - 2. Affettuoso

Performed by the Advent Chamber Orchestra with Roxana Pavel Goldstein (violin), Constance Schoepflin(flute), and Matthew Ganong (harpsichord)

---

Brandenburg Concerto No. 5 - 3. Allegro

Performed by the Advent Chamber Orchestra with Roxana Pavel Goldstein (violin), Constance Schoepflin(flute), and Matthew Ganong (harpsichord)

---

Problems playing these files? See media help.

Separated this from a large nomination to make 3 smaller nominations with a Brandenburg Concerto in each. A superb piece of music by JS Bach, and this recording illustrates the Brandenburg Concertos page very well. They come from the Al Goldstein collection in the Pandora music repository at ibiblio.org. They are recordings by the Advent Chamber orchestra in a live concert for the small record label that has released its work to the public. They are well played with spirit and would make a fine set of FS. Originally uploaded by Graham87.

• Nominate and support. Major Bloodnok (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I listened to the first movement. Wrong notes and tuning problems, mostly in the first 30 s. Harpsichord is a is box of bees. But the main problem is the audio-engineering. Fuzzy and lacking in body. Tempo slackens. Tony (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Harpsichord does not have enough resonance, especially considering the vital role it plays in this work. This is evident in the cadenza of the 1st movement ... the lowest notes sound completely wrong to me, as if they were artificially amplified or ... almost as if they come from another instrument. Graham87 06:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tchaikovsky - Symphony No. 4, Mvt. 4

Wow, this is a phenomenally difficult piece to play (especially for the woodwinds in the beginning :P). But it was well performed.

• Nominate and support. haha169 (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fantastic!
  Wha? 00:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Promoted Finale Tchaikovsky Symphony No 4.ogg --Guerillero | My Talk 02:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debussy - Toccata from Pour le Piano

Moonlight Sonata 2–3

Delist nomination

These were nominated with a live performance of the first movement. I think they got rather minimal review because of that. I don't think they'd have passed on their own, and, hil completeness is good, I don't think these are the way to get that completeness.

Withholding judgement on the human-performed part for now.

• Nominate to delist. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist I was hoping we could replace these with the musopen versions immediately, and do a delist and replace job like we did with It's a long way to Tipperary, but at the moment that proposal has stalled. Tch. In the mean time this is a mess of a set. Should we delist all three currently listed ones (see the chart below)?
  Wha? 23:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'm inclined to leave the genuine human performance, for now. If we don't get the full Musopen set, then we'll need to put these head-to-head. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to find a third party hosting the third movement of Paul Pitman's performance on Musopen. I'll see if I can find the second movement, then upload them. --haha169 (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, amazing what a few hours of searching can do. I'm not exactly sure what to do with them right now...so: . --haha169 (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Not as good as the first movement (there's some obvious mistakes), but far better than what we have. An interesting conundrum! =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist: given the highly competitive nature of playing such canonic works (they're very exposed parts of the repertory), I don't believe either file should remain featured. Wrong notes, unevenness of touch, a bit underwhelming in artistic terms. Might be worth using in an article, but certainly not on the main page. That seems to be the benchmark now. Tony (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat inclined to agree; It's a great find, but - and here's what we couldn't have known until we did find them - they aren't up to the high standards set by La Pianista and other. I'll have to review the competing first movements, as they seem a bit above the rest of this before I decide if any of those are FS-worthy. THAT said, I think these are definitely better for the article than what we have. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist all I've just listened to this lot again and it's very dispiriting because to be frank they are all terribly dull. The MIDI version sounds just as it would if I'd step-entered the notes to a pre-determined tempo and then occasionally changed the volume of a phrase. Very poor. The Pitman performance is well below the standard expected; his first movement is ponderous and tedious and the rest are embarrassing. The same goes for the slow version in the nomination below - ponderous and dull on a poor piano. That too should be delisted. For once I agree with Tony.Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per proposal on moving forwards, all current Moonlight Sonata FSes are delisted, and current discussions closed, without prejudice to future nominations. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moonlight Sonata

Wonderfully beautiful and masterful playthrough of Beethoven's Sonata. Recording is flawless, no background noise.

• Nominate and support. haha169 (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Certainly well played with a very clear recording. I've a minor quibble that I don't think the performance brings out all the drama in the music - the middle section is a bit insipid where it should be more forthright. Having said that I think it is of high quality and should be promoted. Are the other movements of the piece on the web-site too? If so, could they be uploaded and added to the nomination? If not, is there a good recording of the whole sonata No 14 on there somewhere? Oppose See my note for the delist nomination. Major Bloodnok (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• We have a trio of featured sounds of the moonlight sonata at
  Wha? 16:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

For my money, the currently nominated version of the first movement is by far the best. I don't like the MIDI version because, well, it's a MIDI version. As carefully crafted as it is, it doesn't sound fresh - there is a noticable delay at the start of every bar in the first mvt which sounds inauthentic to me. The slow recording by Jfarjona is generally played well, but the piano is not terribly good with some very shrill notes in the treble. I notice the MIDI versions were nominated in 2008; maybe it is time to reassess? I couldn't find out when the other version was nominated though. Major Bloodnok (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Musopen features all three movements, I believe, so if someone has an account on that website and is willing to upload it for us, it would be highly appreciated. I'm just surprised that they are charging money to download high-quality public domain music...bandwidth costs probably. --haha169 (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That set was always a little funny. If we can get a decent full recording by one person, that'd be better. Perhaps we should open at least some of the old set to delisting? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the main subject, I suggest we Delist our current set, and Suspend this nomination, to see if we can get the whole Musopen set. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the current MIDI set shows evidence of a crude cut-and-paste job in the 1st Movement. Major Bloodnok (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there one more vote for moving forwards with the delist/suspend? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure, seems sensible enough.

Wha? 02:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Per proposal on moving forwards, all current Moonlight Sonata FSes are delisted, and current discussions closed, without prejudice to future nominations. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To The Colors and Retreat

• Nominate and support. Guerillero | My Talk 05:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Really, a bit of trivia:) In the US Army usage I remember, for morning flag-raising, the sequence goes: Reveille, morning gun, To the Color. The hoist commences at the first note of To the Color, with the flag reaching the top of its staff or pole at the last note. Similarly, Retreat is sounded before the evening gun, followed by To the Color as the flag is lowered, with similar synchronization of call and hoist. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, well if they pass, then they will be promoted separately, at least for my opinion. You may want to wiki-link some of the names there, since lots of people who sift through featured sounds want to learn more about them, just like the rest of Wikipedia :). And I believe Retreat is the same as Sunset? --haha169 (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have read sunset has a few differences from Retreat.--Guerillero | My Talk 04:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I was just asking because there is an article on Sunset, but I couldn't find one on Retreat. Anyway, Support, sounds good. --haha169 (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to renominate these individually?--Guerillero | My Talk 04:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Together is fine, particularly for short works like this, performed by the same group or person. You could reasonably throw in a few more bugle calls, actually, since they are so short. That said, you might want to break up that massive Brandenburg nomination. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Clear EV and the recording and performance quality are more than ample. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well played. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promote all Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to do a little research to try and find the dates, as soon as I have a little time. Otherwise we have to put them into undateable, which is awkward. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reveille is already in undateable. Perhaps we should make a section specifically for bugle calls, or a section for short tunes? A lot of these types of things are undateable. An example is the Can-can.--haha169 (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Can-Can is easily datable. It's from Orpheus in the Underworld. I sang it once. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Promoted ToTheColor.ogg and Promoted Retreat.ogg as two separate files (as opposed to one file in two parts.)
  Wha? 02:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Pavane pour une infante défunte

A fine example of the excellent work from Ravel's early period.

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Copyright query. Unfortunately, Ravel is different from everything else. Copyrighted until 2026 in the US, and until 2016 in France? I'd need to check again: this has come up before. There's something about it in the lead of
  Ravel, too. Tony (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This work is from before 1923, so it's out of copyright in the US. It's only his after-1922 works which run into US copyright problems, which is lucky, as the vast majority of his works are before 1923. We can't have his famous Bolero, but this, Miroirs, Gaspard de la nuit, and dozens of other important works are available to En-wiki, though not Commons. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[2] and [3]. Tony (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons requires works to be out of coyright in their home country. Ravel is NOT out of copyright in France. En-wiki only requires the work be out of copyright in the U.S., which his pre-1923 works are. This is why we have {{

notforcommons

}} (and why this needs to be locally uploaded).

It should probably be noted that Featured Pictures works under the above rule as well, and works of similar copyright status (free in America, not free outside of America, and thus uploaded to en-Wiki) do somewhat regularly appear on the main page already, though it must be said, in fairness, that U.S. copyright is one of the most restrictive in the world, so the cases where it works out in our favour are very rare, and only make up a tiny percentage of possible works. I'd suspect FS could easily end up with more works of this type than FP, due to a few highly notable, long-lived early-20th-century musicians (Bartok, Ravel, etc) with a lot of important relatively early works. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"En-wiki only requires the work be out of copyright in the U.S., which his pre-1923 works are." - aren't all his works out of copyright in the US, as he died more than 70 years ago? Jujutacular ^talk 13:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, U.S. Copyright is crazy complicated. Disney didn't want to lose control of Mickey, and someother people with valuable copyrights worked to extend them, so.... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To make it even more complicated, there is an entirely seperate set of rules just for recordings, which somehow involves New York and 1976, I think... I really need to read up on that, it's embarrassing that I know so little about the area. Either way that doesn't come into play in this case because the performer explicitly released her work.

Wha? 01:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Aye. That's why I'm rather conservative with what I grab early-recording-wise. Pre-1923 should be safe, after that, you have to actually deal with that absolute mess of copyright law. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Sounds great, played well with feeling. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the more I liken to this the more beautiful it becomes. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was recently brought to my attention that this was never officially closed. Umm... it's closed. I promoted it a while back and forgot to mention it here.... so... ummm... Promoted - Pavane pour une infante défunte --

Wha? 04:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Now everyone back away slowly and pretend nothing weird happened.

Wha? 04:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Syrinx

An excellent performance, and, well, we're kind of light on early 20th century composers, so I'm focusing on that this week.

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's very good. As an added bonus, the swarm of angry snakes in my room calmed down while this was playing.
  Wha? 20:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Zginder 2011-03-08T21:09Z (UTC)
• Support—why can no one get into the description page to edit "Ogg Vorbis sound file, length 2m 26s, 201kbps"> The spacing needs to be fixed, as with all such. Tony (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's added by Wikipedia software automatically, and cannot be edited. I'll take this to your talk page. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• support Great stuff. Major Bloodnok (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promote File:Debussy - Syrinx.ogg Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Not yet Eligible - Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Debussy - Syrinx.ogg I see no reason why this could be in dispute right now --Guerillero | My Talk 23:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burleske

Still feeling a bit ill, which meant I wasn't feeling up to the intense, concentrated, and extended effort of coding, but I made a breakthrough on something I've been wanting to nominate: There were insufficient details about this excellent performance, which meant I didn't feel it was suitable for FS. After 4 hours picking at research, I've filled in the gaps.

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Fantastic research, nice performance. Graham87 08:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support—Interesting piece (not deep, but it's colourful and energetic). Recording quality is just OK. Nice to have a more complete description page. This is going to be a fly in the ointment for many FSs chosen for the main page. We really DO need to furnish the information for visitors, where at all possible. On the nerd side, thank GOD we finally have a proper dash in the year range. And just why hyphens dot all of the file names is hard to fathom. The geeks who seem to object to proper dashes have never come up with a proper argument against them. IMO, "Richard Strauss - Neal O'Doan - Burleske" is second-rate. The typography should be professional, and there is no excuse for squidgy little hyphens: "Richard Strauss – Neal O'Doan – Burleske". Tony (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Filenames really do need to be simple ASCII, since they CANNOT be redirected to in any meaningful way, and some users downloading them will run into awkwardness if we use too many unusual characters. Everywhere else, you have a point. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "some users downloading them will run into awkwardness if we use too many unusual characters"—why? What is "too many"? " they CANNOT be redirected to in any meaningful way"—how do people search for a soundfile, then? Surely they are in categories. The file names are often so bizarre that the whole business of file names is dysfunctional for pure searches. Won't the search function respond to single search words such as "Beethoven"? Why does proper typography interfere? Who is going to search for items with typography anyway? I would like answers to these questions. Tony (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, Tony, but you really don't seem to understand the difference between filenames and text. Filenames can cause problems if users take them to other devices which do not support Unicode, however, all modern browsers DO support Unicode. What's possible in text is not necessarily possible if you want to, say, have the file on an MP3 player (not that we support MP3 players that well, but that's because Wikipedia's decision-making sucks when philosophy and usability collide.) Now, perhaps I'm coming from a perspective of someone who started on computers in the early 80s, and the restrictions are gradually lifting, but we need to be conservative on this point for things that may be used in fairly cheap, unstandardised equipment, and sound files are one thing that a lot of users want to be portable, and may well use in such equipment. In particular, I don't think en-dashes are particularly widely supported on older equipment. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right.
        Policy says we should support users on 800x600 screens, so it also makes sense that we should support users that have a need for ASCII-only filenames. Jujutacular ^talk 15:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]

• I'm a bit concerned I wasn't able to find a specific link to this file in the Pandora Repository. Could someone help me out? Jujutacular ^talk 03:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://music.ibiblio.org/pub/multimedia/pandora/vorbis/piano/O_Doan/Liszt%2cStrauss/index.html Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Also, the "licensing info" link: [4] seems to be dead. Jujutacular ^talk 02:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed. Graham87 03:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fantastic piece. Jujutacular ^talk 03:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The start caught me off guard there! The transition to the piano was rough, though I'm not sure if that was the composer's intention or not. Otherwise, it's a marvellous piece. —
  Champagne? • 6:12pm • 07:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support My god it's just fantastic. Now someone go get Guerillero or X! to close this :D
  Wha? 21:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Promoted Richard Strauss - Neal O'Doan - Burleske.ogg None of you could find any major faults with this and neither can I --Guerillero | My Talk 06:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: Handel - messiah - 44 hallelujah.ogg

Pretty much panned by everyone during the roll call. Let's make it official and put it out of its misery. I believe X! says it best with "quality of the sound is crap".

• Nominate for delisting and support delisting.
  Wha? 03:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Suggested replacement: http://www.usarmyband.com/Audio/christmas_with_the_chorus.html It's done all-male, though, and I think they lost at least some of the harmony... maybe not. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Talked myself out of it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. As per comment on roll call. Poor sound quality. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Rather echoey and diffuse. Recording's fault; performance is rather good, from what one can tell. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delis - I feel rather embarrassed, I didn't pay any heed to the quality of the singing moreso the orchestral part of the performance, I suppose I should have done that when I nominated it. The signing reverberates far too much and I can only barely make out the words :S I'm looking for a replacement at the moment and I'll upload if it's freely licensed. —
  Champagne? • 1:55pm • 02:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It was a different featured Sound culture at the time. The flaws are of recording, and that was somewhat ignored then. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demoted Handel - messiah - 44 hallelujah.ogg --Guerillero | My Talk 06:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andante Pastoral and Scherzettino

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support
  Wha? 03:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support impressive --Guerillero | My Talk 01:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Wow, Goldstein on a modern piano! :p Tone is lovely - very nicely done. — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 02:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow, this is pretty good.
  talk) 03:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Promoted Taffanel - Pastoral and Scherzettino.ogg -- Chzz  ►  11:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: Toccata et Fugue BWV565.ogg

Also heavily criticized in the roll call. Apparently not up to standards, and as such an iconic piece, it will be judged harshly as it is.

• Nominate for delisting and support delisting.
  Wha? 03:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support it sounds so electronic and canned. This is shuch a high profile piece that we should expect high standards from it. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I've wavered a bit, but this is probably the right choice. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist To my un-trained ear it just sounds 'wrong' in places... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist It sounds like a sequence of step-entered notes in a MIDI keyboard.Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per all above. — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 22:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted File:Toccata et Fugue BWV565.ogg --Jujutacular ^talk 01:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis

Gorgeous piece, well played. A tiny bit of background noise at the start, but nothing too bad. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Gorgeous performance. Graham87 05:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Sound description page: did Vaughan-Williams make the arrangement? It doesn't say, and must. En dash for one year range, hyphen for another. Please see
  WP:MOSDASH. Tony (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • He must have made the arrangement, since the piece was originally written for a string orchestra. Graham87 15:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fixed the hyphens. I don't think we need to talk about arrangement unless there's been changes from Vaughan Williams' original - and, so far as I know, there haven't been. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fantastic performance, very smooth. I don't think the background noise is much of a problem. —
  Champagne? • 5:50pm • 06:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. omg I love this piece. Very moving, the background noise was overshadowed, I didn't even notice it. -- œ^™ 05:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted U.S. Army Band - Ralph Vaughan Williams - Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis.ogg --MacMed^talk_stalk 00:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poecile Atricapilla

The song of the

• Nominate and support. It's significantly more annoying than my current alarm is, so right after this I'm converting it to .mp3, sticking on a loop, and uploading it to my phone. Still, it's a high quality sound, even if you can hear other birds in the background.
  Wha? 02:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support - High-quality recording performed on authentic instruments. :-) Perhaps the sample could be shortened by ten or twenty seconds, since the call is so monotonous. Graham87 05:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, see this discussion about cropping the file. I'm not too fussed about it, TBH. Graham87 05:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yay! More sounds, finally. Sounds great, I think it is too monotonous as well but I'm not too fussed with leaving it. --haha169 (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • People can always hit "stop" when they've heard enough. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good quality, I thought it was an actual birdsong by that I mean one not performed on instruments. —
  Champagne? • 5:26pm • 06:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It is an actual birdsong, as far as I know. I'm pretty sure Graham87 was referring to the birds when he said "performed on authentic instruments".
    Wha? 20:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I was indeed. Graham87 10:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - When this hits the main page can we please include a picture of the bird like is done on the talk page? I personally think that it helps the listener's understanding of the topic. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Garryowen

HAve to have a bit of Irishness on St. Patrick's Day!

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The pitch of that woodwind almost gave me a migraine, is it supposed to be that high?
  Wha? 23:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Pretty normal for Irish music. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh, bagpipes are starting to seem a lot less annoying now. Irish music comes to it's own with the violin though, the best Irish music I've heard has had some mean violin. Or was it a fiddle. Donno quite the difference. Either way, this piece isn't to my taste, but Support.
      Wha?
      03:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I pulled my support after showing it to an Irish born Bostonian (about as Irish as possible outside of Ireland, I think) who informed me that what I was complaining about with the woodwinds was in fact valid. Yes, they are high, but not searchingly so. Now mind you this change of heart isn't entirely because of him, and he isn't an expert, I also happen to dislike that it gives me migraines, despite the fun tune and good technique, I'd rather avoid giving everyone migraines on a day that some of them will already be drunk on.
        Wha? 05:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Oppose - High performance standards, as always, but clearly an orchestral arrangement with the fiddle and tin whistle (or is it a piccolo?) added as afterthoughts. In any case, not an appropriate setting for traditional Irish music. The high woodwind instrument plays hardly any embellishments that are so characteristic of Celtic music (e.g. grace notes). The only part I really like is the fiddle solo in the middle. I'd be pretty embarrassed if this appeared on the Main Page as "Irish music" for St Patrick's Day, which will occur on a weekend next year. Granted, we don't have many adequate examples IMO ... File:Dancing Willow - Demo-CD 2007 03 - The old grey goose.ogg would be fine if it wasn't for the obtrusive drum kit but maybe File:Dancing Willow - Demo-CD 2007 02 - The foggy dew.ogg would be a bit more acceptable. Graham87 05:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Not perfect: start of second time there are slight ensemble issues. Yes, great performance, but the arrangement is junk ... better for a film score. Tony (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support The piccolo is nothing, it's the arrangement that is disappointing. The piccolo seems to have just been editted over the top of the piece and I noticed that the strings weren't in time during the start, only slightly and the fiddle is a bit loud as is the piccolo Graham has a good point when he says that the fiddle and piccolo were added as afterthoughts... there should be some degree of musical balance in the piece dynamically. —
  Champagne? • 5:42pm • 06:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• neutral: I also find the arrangement to be uninspired, and the relative levels of piccolo relative to strings to be less than desirable. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I am going to go against the general feel here and fully Support this. It sounds like the other Celtic music I have heard. (I will admit that it is a small amount) --Guerillero | My Talk 22:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm not convinced by the arrangement, which does not seem to have the liveliness I would expect from Irish dance music. Played very well as always. Major Bloodnok (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This is clearly not passing, so, to simplify closure, I'm going to Withdraw it.

Withdrawn Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Brown's a-Hanging on a Sour Apple Tree

A high quality version of American folk music on a traditional instrument. Found on the LOC website with no know copyright restrictions. The last few seconds were cut off via Audacity because it was an interview between the musician and the ethnographer.

• Nominate and support. Guerillero | My Talk 02:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The fiddle is out of tune and most notes are screechy, while some are accidentally played (see 0:14). —
  Champagne? • 7:09pm • 08:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose—per AA. And the opening ... has the recording been cut from the middle of a track? Rather closely miked, and more reverb might have helped (as though in a barn with a stone or cement floor). There are surely better recordings around. Also, if it had been a really early recording, it might be a different matter, but it's 1967. Tony (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was certainly higher quality then most of the recordings that the WPA did during the height of the depression. I will go back to looking through the Library of Congress's database --

talk) 18:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I think this is a good example of how folk music was played in practice, and thus valid for consideration on

Appalachian Folk Music, or any other article, making it ineligible. 2. It's cut off far too abruptly at the end. Make it a bit longer, and use a quick fadeout if you must end sooner than ideal. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

This should show why I cut it so close. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for the same reason I opposed the cut version, the fiddle is horribly played, screechy and out of tune. Also at 0:24 the performer slows down (slows down TOO much) and then at 0:29 it speeds up... —
  Champagne? • 8:00pm • 09:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• John Brown's a-Hanging on a Sour Apple Tree.ogg was withdrawn by the nominator. This looks like a
  snow sort of thing and it will be better to free up some space on the main nomations page. I thought the ethnographic qualities of this recording would have made up for the imperfections at first. Thanks for weighing in --Guerillero | My Talk 02:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Dave Niehaus call

Fascinating and interesting piece of sports history featuring a

• Nominate and support.
  Snail 04:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Sorry, but Featured Sounds can only use free use sounds, this item is fair use (copyrighted). Since this submission cannot meet the
    Wha? 05:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]