Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/March 2009

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 '''Promoted Example.ogg''' --~~~~ to the bottom of the entry, replacing Example.ogg with the file that was promoted.
• For entries not promoted, add '''Not promoted''' --~~~~ to the bottom of the entry.
• For entries demoted, add '''Demoted Example.ogg''' --~~~~ to the bottom of the entry.

Use variants as appropriate, e.g. with a large set of files, all of which pass, '''Promoted all''' is fine, but if one of them didn't pass for some reason, make sure that's clear.

Fitzwilliam Sonatas

This is a series of high-quality recordings of a sonata set by one of the great composers, performed well by Alex Murray (flute) and Martha Goldstein (harpsichord). These files are put to good use illustrating the George Frideric Handel article, and I am about to create an article on the sonatas themselves, which will - of course - also include these created the Fitzwilliam Sonatas article, which also included these. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 16:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 16:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support Sounds good. Nice technique. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support Very good quality. I played the harpsichord part on piano a few years ago so I'm familiar with the piece. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• I own this recording, Frans Brüggen plays No. III. Furioso from HWV 367a (No. 3, 5:30 here). He plays the recorder and the sound is more lively. Here is a part of recording of HWV 377 and HWV 367a played by Frode Thorsen, recorder again, for comparison. The difference in interpretation is apparent. I like more the sound of recorder in this composition, but I'll support also the Alex Murray's version, it's professional and the sound quality is sufficent for Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

@Dendodge, is it possible to add the titles of movements of Fitzwilliam Sonatas to the article? --Vejvančický (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "titles"? The names of the works are already in there, but I wasn't aware the movements had titles too (I'm more familiar with more modern music, TBH). Where can I find said titles? Dendodge Talk^Contribs 17:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see.. No problem, I'll try to add the movements by myself. --Vejvančický (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose (weakly). This recording, made in the early 1970s, is badly out of date, though I have to concede I do not know what Wikipedia's standards about such things may be. Technically it is fairly clean (Alex Murray misses a few notes, especially in the first movement of "No. 2"), but the style is anachronistic to Handel and the overall character is rather affected and mincing. This is not my chief objection to these recordings, however. Rather, it is to promoting the now long-discredited 1948 edition by Thurston Dart, who broke the single D minor sonata into two unequal pieces, using the last two of its seven movements (reversed in order) as the first two of his "Sonata No. 2", and adding an unrelated minuet at the end. (See the revisions I have just made to the new Fitzwilliam Sonatas article.) There is in fact a third "Fitzwilliam" sonata, not included here or in Dart's edition. It is in G major, HWV 358, and there is dispute about the intended instrument. Terence Best tentatively assigns it to the violin in the Hallische Händel-Ausgabe (iv/18, 3), though the range is peculiar for Handel's violin writing and editions for recorder have been published both by Klaus Hofmann (Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hänssler, 1974) and Winfried Michel (2nd ed., Münster: Mieroprint, 1992), that work best on an alto in G rather than the usual F instrument. The problem with using these recordings as illustrations is that so much of the two articles' content will necessarily have to explain why the sound files do not correspond to facts which are by now extremely well-established.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for your input - you're obviously far more knowledgeable than me. I don't, however, see how a '70s recording can be considered "out of date" when the work was arranged in '48 (we have FSs recorded on wax cylinders - surely they're even more out of date). The missing of notes is something I did not notice - well done for spotting it. Surely Dart's arrangement was anachronistic to Handel, so this performance should get away with being equally so. We are not attempting to promote Dart's arrangement, simply depict it, and I wasn't aware of the 4th sonata - please, feel free to add a mention of it to the article. (Thanks for your contributions to the article, BTW). In what way do the recordings not correspond to the facts? They seem to show the arrangement quite well (to an uneducated pleb like me). If you have a better version, under a suitable licence, please upload it and nominate it - I think these sonatas deserve representation as featured sounds, simply for their EV. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 17:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - See the related discussion also here --Vejvančický (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to Dendodge. You should understand that, in the HIP (or "Early Music Performance") world, ten years is a long time. When Alex Murray and Martha Goldstein made that recording, the truth about these sonatas had not yet surfaced, or was only in the process of surfacing. It is true enough to the Dart arrangement, and in terms of performance practice is a lot closer to 1948 than to 1975. So, if the subject really is Dart's arrangement, then I agree this recording suits admirably. The problem is that so much water has flowed under the bridge in the last thirty (or sixty) years that we are today less likely to accept such editorial interference in matters Handelian. FWIW, I should mention in Dart's favor that he was amongst the first to recognize the correct relationship between the manuscript "Fitzwilliam" Oboe Sonata, HWV 357, and its corruption as a violin sonata in Walsh's op. 1 collection. As to the "fourth" sonata, it was published by Hofmann as "Fitzwilliam Sonata No. 3" (with the B-flat major as no. 1 and the complete D minor as no. 2), and this is complicated by the publication of at least three other "Fitzwilliam" sonatas by various editors (who did not assign numbers) in subsequent years. (See the discussion mentioned by Vejvančický.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• It is really interesting to observe the changes in interpretation. I´ve checked a lot of recordings of the Fitzwilliam Sonatas on internet and I´ve also found again my tapes and CD´s with Händel´s recorder music (I didn´t know before, that the cycle is called F. S.!) The modern interpretations are more free, sometimes almost improvisational, "jazz-like", with colourful ornamentation. On the other hand, I know the recording of Händel´s Oboe Concerto in G minor, HWV 287 from 1955, with the Czech Philharmonic and Václav Talich, and it´s also very good, even though absolutely out of date. I like historically informed interpretations of baroque music, but I think, it´s possible to award also the older versions. They´re an important evidence of musical development. The facts must be clarified. This is a good example. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Promoted all Xclamation point 00:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle Hymn of the Republic

A surprisingly complete recording - all five of the verses originally published. The quality degrades a bit near the end, as it often does on cylinder recordings, but not excessively, and what we end up with is a stirring professional recording. I doubt me that we'd get such a lavish recording - and this is lavish, with all the interludes showing off interesting variations on the tune - today, or in any other recording we could expect to find.

• Nominate and support. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support: A great quality recording, considering its age, of a historically and culturally significant song. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 00:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not know what makes this recording historically significant. This is not a good recording of the song as it is too old. I would switch my vote if it can be argued as to why this performance is historical or that something better could never be made today. Zginder 2009-02-24T04:41Z (UTC)

Too old. That's you're only objection to a recording of a American Civil War Song. Because I'm sure that later recordings are far more authentic than ones in living memory of the Civil War. And I'm sure that these modern, perfctly authentic recordings are neither in copyrighted arrangements, include all the verses, and aren't extremely rare because lengthy five-verse religious songs are sung all the time in high-quality recordings. Can we use a little common sense here, please? And unless you intend to pay for your theoretical free-licensed modern recording, not attack a recording merely for being in the public domain as is required. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The criteria say that the quality can be lower only for historical reasons. In other words, the recording itself is significant e.g. File:Enrico Caruso, Titta Ruffo, Giuseppe Verdi, Sì, pel ciel marmoreo giuro! (Otello).ogg, for some other reason a better recording could not be made. I do not believe this is a historical recording and this song is still preformed today in the U.S. My objection is not that it is to old but that the quality to not good enough for no reason. This is Featured sounds not a listing of all recordings on the wiki. Zginder 2009-02-24T16:13Z (UTC)

Except they don't say what you say they say. When we start getting large amounts of content creation, then your suggestion would be reasonable to add, but at the moment, it's just rejecting high-quality recordings because they're from a timeperiod suitable to being public domain, based solely on fame of the singers, not quality. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Zginder --Vejvančický (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Per Shoemaker's Holiday and Dendodge. It is historic by virtue of its age and professionalism. It was recorded for sale at the time, so it gives a window into the patriotic spirit of America 100 years age. Do you consider daguerreotypes "too old" because newer photos are available? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I would can a daguerreotype too old if it is replaceable with a current photo. If it was historical I would not object. The question here is not rather it is too old or not, but rather it is historic and age does not matter. Zginder 2009-02-26T22:28Z (UTC)
    • Maybe not "historical" in whatever context that is meant, but in the world of music such recordings are valued and are usually hard to come by. I do not know where this one came from, by many are cleaned up by specialty record/DVD companies and cost extra to buy because of their "historical" value to the music collector. I have later recordings that are considered "collector's items". —Mattisse (Talk) 00:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support I do not see why its age should preclude this nomination. It's a fine recording with excellent encyclopedic value, and I have no issues at all about it being featured. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: My objection is not that it is too old but that the quality is not good enough for no reason. (slightly modified sentence by User:Zginder). This is the reason of my opposing. Historically non-significant recording, moreover with bad sound. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Promoted Battle Hymn of the Republic, Frank C. Stanley, Elise Stevenson.ogg --Xclamation point 00:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)