Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 July 13

< July 12	July 14 >

July 13

Riff from Iron Man (song)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Consensus for its use on Iron Man (song) since the riff is the subject of critical commentary. No consensus for its use on riff, but since it's not going to be deleted, that option can be figured out through talk page discussion. — Wug·a·po·des 01:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently used at "

WP:FREER. George Ho (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

What would be your suggestion for a CC licensed song with a killer riff in it? If you give me an example I can Lilypond it up. —Keenan Pepper 15:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Found freer files at c:Category:Riffs, though I'm not sure whether those are free. Well, you can create your own riff, regardless of originality, by recording the guitar performance or something else, like a midi. --George Ho (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also found Tribe of Noise. Certain songs are released under CC-BY, but an account is required to retrieve info about every song and licensing. --George Ho (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Delete things when we have real problems, not when we just have questions. I support the attempt to avoid copyright infringement on Wikipedia as a whole, but I'd recommend that editors discuss what the definition, meaning, or implementation of licenses and policies/guidlines used on Wikipedia would be on the talk pages (
WP:CITE. B) any riff that was verifiably a riff would be supported by a citation and therefore copyrighted, except if a source may be found which asserts that a piece of music that is old enough to no longer be copyrighted (pre-1925, in the US) contains a riff and specifies that riff, or if the author specifies that the image of a riff that they composed is free to use by anyone for anything or otherwise specifies a license allowing use under certain conditions (such as crediting the author). Hyacinth (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Part of sourced critical commentary in both articles. Both necessitate seeing and hearing the riff in order to follow that discussion. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, replaceable by either an image of a riff composed and released into the public domain, or if you're going to claim that's original research, a riff from a song whose copyright is expired. Stifle (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it does serve to provide critical commentary on the articles it is linked to. Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 17:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The purpose of this clip is to explain what a riff is. So, are there any riffs in the public domain? Note that the source for the statement “this is a riff” (required to avoid
CC-BY-SA) but the supporting source need not be. 108.48.171.29 (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Riff from "You Really Got Me"

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Only use is on riff, and there is no consensus that it meets the NFCC for that purpose. Participants point out that It is not the subject of critical commentary, and that a "riff" could be demonstrated by existing or created free content. — Wug·a·po·des 01:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both currently used at "

WP:FREER. If that's the case, then those files should either belong at "You Really Got Me", from where the note and the midi were taken, or be deleted. George Ho (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

What source could possibly be used to verify that music I composed is actually a riff? Why would we want content on Wikipedia that is not verifiable in any way? Hyacinth (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're wary of boldly uploading an audio clip of your own riff, then you may want to send your email to OTRS. They can verify that you made your own riff, not copied from other songs. BTW, mp3 is currently allowed since patents have expired for a few years. George Ho (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, we need to prove that a file presented in an article as an example of a "riff" actually meets the definition of a "riff" according to the author of a citeable source. I can give you a horse and call it a unicorn but that doesn't make it a unicorn. Hyacinth (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck suggestion of using own work per

WP:OR, especially if common knowledge isn't enough. Found one 1923 song "Charleston", which contains a "two-note riff". The song is now in PD since last year, 95 years after first publication. George Ho (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@George Ho: So, the rhythm is depicted in files on Charleston_(song), but the notes are not. Can you find notation? The piece is from October 29, 1923, so {{PD-US}} applies, but only in the US. Which license do you have in mind? Also, what does the author mean by "two note" (the song opens with a succession of seventh chords, which have four pitch classes each)? Should I depict two notes (melody and rhythm), or should I depict a reduction of a score (melody, rhythm, and harmony) if I can find one that isn't a copyrighted piano arrangement) or does File:Charleston rhythm.png suffice? I thank you for finding this example, especially so quickly. Hyacinth (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We'll end up running in circles as verifiable examples are deleted and unverifiable examples are added, then the unverifiable examples will be marked as needing citations and removed, and then verifiable examples will be added, then deleted. Perhaps these files should be moved to the English Wikipedia and marked as fair use. Hyacinth (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But what about the musical notation of the 1923 song, "The Charleston"? George Ho (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Show me the musical notation of the 1923 song, "The Charleston", I'll gladly make an image of the riff. Hyacinth (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyacinth: One copy from musicnotes.com; the link I showed you is on sale. The other copy is probably a reprint, but it appears to be (re-)pubished in 1930s or 1940s. Can’t be sure whether one from musescore.com is the one we want. IMO The most likely to be used should be the digitally scanned copy from pre-1940s print. George Ho (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not part of sourced critical commentary, unlike Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 July 13#Riff from Iron Man (song). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Same comment as under “Riff from Iron Man (song).” Purpose of inclusion is to demonstrate what a riff is. Not sure what this means from a copyright perspective, but are there any freely-sourced sound recordings of riffs where there is also a reliable source (may be some other source, can be of any copyright status) that says that it is a riff? 108.48.171.29 (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.