August 28

hi, im looking for something online that will convert 'piano music' in 'letter form' into guitar tabs.....a quick google search turned up nothing that will do exactly that, which is what i need, any ideas?...thanks--81.77.90.101 (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problenm as I see it is that they are very different instruments, on a piano, the right hand plays the treble while the left plays the bass, thus in theory playing two scales at once. This is not possible on a guitar. Therefore I doubt such a program exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also most piano music is vastly more complex than a sequence of chords. If you have sheet music that is merely a sequence of chords, then in principle a computer program could tell you what the chords are, and could even suggest guitar tabs. However, it might be quicker and more educational to learn the figure out the chords for yourself.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But

^{talk email} 13:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

True, but arranging piano for guitar is a bit of an art since the constraints are different. The result is often surprisingly good if the arranger knows what they're doing but there's a lot of choices involved I wouldn't trust a machine to at this point. Let's just say it'd have to be a very well written (and probably not free) program. -LambaJan (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

There seems to be a lot of chat now with British boxers (as their was with Amir Khan 4 years ago) about whether they want to go for gold at the next olympics or make millions on the professional circuit. So assuming all olympians are amateurs, how to people like Federer and Nadal get to compete? I can understand how it doesn't count if you are sponsored (like, presumably, they all are) but these guys earn thousands from playing a game. How come its allowed?

Thanks, 82.22.4.63 (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Olympics once were amateur-only (hence the Jim Thorpe quarrel in 1912, for instance), but haven't been for a long time now. Basketball, for instance, allowed NBA professionals from 1992. Olympic figure skaters often turned pro and lost the right to participate, but were allowed back from 1992 or 1994, I think. Association football also was for amateurs only, but has now changed to age limitations. I think boxing may now very well be the only amateur-only sport in the Olympics (and I'm not sure how "amateur" they have to be, as long as they don't fight for the professional titles with the professional boxing rules).

The tennis analogy is interesting. Tennis re-entered the Olympic programme in 1988, which would probably have been unthinkable if professional players were banned. And another typically professional sport, golf, still isn't there. And in any case, even though the players in the Olympics may now be professional, there's never any prize money in the actual Games. I don't think Federer and Nadal care much about this, though.

For more of this, see Olympic Games#Amateurism and professionalism. -- Jao (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting that article As of 2004, the only sports in which no professionals compete is boxing (though even this requires a definition of amateurism based on fight rules rather than on payment, as some boxers receive cash prizes from their National Olympic Committees); in men's football (soccer), the number of players over 23 years of age is limited to three per team.. I.e. the era of amateurism is completely over for the Olympics. In the case of boxing the case is fairly clear cut as amateur and pro boxing are essentially two different sports, and in the football case it is a matter of the FIFA's interest in keeping the Olympic football tournament at a status level that does not rival the championships they organize themselves. They're probably right, if there were a major world-wide football championship every two years the overload in the media would be even worse than it already is./Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get to New York inexspensively by the morning of the 6th of September. Anyone know the best(cheapest) way to do that other than hitchhiking? Elatanatari (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't post to multiple desks. Misc is the best place for this; let's keep it there. Algebraist 00:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KElatanatari (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to give a bit more information than that. How far away are you? Do you have a car? Is it good on gas? Are you near a big airport? Paragon¹²³²¹ 03:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As was already pointed out, this is also posted to the Misc. desk. And the conversation there is bigger. Dismas|^(talk) 03:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is the Entertainment desk, Yoooooou must Take the "A" Train.....--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, you have to already be in New York to catch that train! And since this isn't the Language desk, I can't point out that when New Yorkers use the expression "New York", they may mean "Manhattan", making the answer correct after all. --Anonymous, 23:20 UTC, August 29, 2008.

Detroit69.246.23.58 (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]