Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/May 2011

< Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates

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.

Ave Maria (Bruckner) edit

"Ave Maria"
One of Anton Bruckner's three arrangements of "Ave Maria" performed by the United States Navy Band's Sea Chanters ensemble

There already exists a version of Ave Maria at FS (see File:Schola Gregoriana-Ave Maria.ogg). However, we already have at least one song with multiple versions at FS (see File:Sousa's Band - Stars and Stripes Forever.ogg and File:USMC stars stripes forever.ogg). Additionally, the Hail Mary (Ave Maria) article mentions that Bruckner published at three arrangements of this song and it is probably good for WP to have an example of one such arrangement. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

  • Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Beautiful. Good dynamic control, partially thanks to the small ensemble. The high note at 01:20 sounds a bit strained, but that's the only thing I could find to complain about. There's nothing wrong with having multiple settings of the same text as featured sounds. Graham87 12:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support, with reservations about the performance and the SDP. The male voices are wonderfully warm, particularly in the lowest registers. Graham is right: dynamic control is excellent. But the glaring fault, in such a simple, stylistically conservative, and exposed piece, shows up in the onsets of phrases. 20 s is a little titchy; 1:03–1:07 is very bad; around 1:10, at the start of that glorious cycle of fifths, there are tuning problems among the women; 1:35 the women's running out of breath is palpable; 1:39, onset tuning problems again; 2:13, movement down a tone is rough, and 2:44 movement up tone (by the men) is forced, after a passage in which the men are under-balanced. A few seconds could have been cropped at the end. It's a difficult gig to bring this piece off with the beauty it demands, but until a better performance of it comes up, I'll support this one. (I've been looking for a performance of this for ages, unsuccessfully.) I've fixed the SDP at Commons: is "Date" for the composer's dates of birth and death (in which case, better after his name, and not "1824-1826", but "1824–96"). Does "Date", then, refer to the date of composition or the date of recording? It's blank now. I'd not refer to this movement as an "arrangement", since that has a specific meaning in this context. "Setting" is fine, as at the SDP. But it should be mentioned that it's the first of Bruckner's "Motets". Tony (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • It says: "length 3m 14s, 113kbps". The symbol for minute is 'min', not 'm' the symbol for metre. The symbol for kilobit per second is 'kbit/s', not 'kbps'. There should be a space between the numeric value and the unit symbol. Thus it should be 'length 3 min 14 s, 113 kbit/s'.

Hope that helps. I looked at one other candidate and noticed it had similar unit errors. Perhaps all candidates have overlooked/copied this error and need reviewing. Lightmouse (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Those measurements get automatically attached to any .ogg or .ogv upload. I did not enter them as an uploader. They were added by commons essentially and not me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lightmouse, I'm glad you raised that. I've already complained about the lack of spacing between value and unit; I know it's Commons and not en.WP, and thus not subject to our MOSNUM, but really, ISO says to do it too. And you're right, it should not be "m". We need to approach Commons about this. John Vandenberg is an admin there; I'll ask him about what to do. Tony (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, more because of the importance of the piece than its performance. My attention was drawn not to the dynamic control (praised by Graham, above) but to the choice of dynamic range. The quiet passages were evanescent and wan. While the contrast between these and Bruckner's trademark swelling forte is important, it is here overdone, so that coherence and momentum are compromised. Still, valuable in the collection. (We need "Os justi"!) NoeticaTea? 23:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Ave Maria (USNB).ogg —James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:19pm • 07:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debussy L 103, No. 1 & 2, Danses Sacrée et Profane edit

 
Danse Sacrée L 103, No. 1
Danse Profane L 103, No. 2
Debussy's L 103, No. 1 & 2, Danses Sacrée et Profane, performed by the United States Marine Corps Band Chamber Orchestra. This is a common chamber orchestra arrangement of the Chamber music piece scored for string quintet of violin, viola, cello, double bass, and cross-strung harp.
Problems playing these files? See media help.

At the turn of the 20th century, Claude Debussy helped revolutionize the tonality of music. These pieces are chamber music arranged for the harp and strings instruments. This is a common chamber orchestra arrangement of the piece scored for string quintet of violin, viola, cello, double bass, and cross-strung harp. I am of the impression that this is the very common modern arrangement of this piece. These files both add significantly to the following articles:


P.S. These files are not without flaws. This is a live performance instead of a studio, AFAIK. There is a lot of background distractions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concerned about the arrangements issue, the file name issue, the sound description page issue, and the encyclopedic value issue. Tony (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at the Classical Music Project is grossly misrepresented by Kleinzach; it was to do with brass band arrangements. This is nothing more than having a few extra copies of the right instruments. Further, putting this in Orchestra was an appallingly bad suggestion; I've removed it.
It is far, far better to leave our readers with some idea of what a work is like, even if we have minor quibbles, than to try and describe the work in text alone. The changes must, of course, be clearly documented, and should a more accurate performance appear, that should likely replace. But, so long as the work being an arrangement is carefully documented, it's downright insane to claim that we better serve our listeners by refusing them the right to hear any version of the work at all, particularly when compared to such a minor rearrangement as this one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Far, far better". I do not agree. Arrangements are sometimes of interest in themselves, can give a representation of the original, but are often misrepresentations—even perversions—of the original. It does not matter whether it's a large-band or orchestral rendition of what was a Scott Joplin piano rag, or an arrangement that superficially sounds like the original, as here. In fact, I quite enjoyed this recording of the Debussy arrangement, but it is unsuitable as an example in most related articles (perhaps in the article on musical arrangements, but how big should that gallery be?). Just as we don't normally update the language of our 19th-century linguistic quotations into that of the 21st-century—at least not without good reason, and by drawing attention to the morphing—nor is it desirable to illustrate Debussy's style or the work in question with an arrangement. In fact, the intimacy of the chamber original with one instrument per part is lost to a richness, a sonority, that was not intended by the composer. The balance with the harp (not necessary to say "cross-stringed harp", BTW) has been compensated by the audio-engineering, which says it all. I believe reviewers should compare a good recording of the original with this file.

Now, it's a different argument about whether this should be deleted: clearly not. But in promoting files to featured status, we need to see these matters in the context of how the file is used in articles. Tony (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that's really my point, Tony. We could argue about it not being good enough for FS, and there you might have a point. I'd have to listen to a few more traditional recordings to decide. But far more than that is happening: It's being forced out of the article on the composition, leaving no sort of recording of any sort in said article. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably not inappropriate in the article as long as it's tagged as an arrangement for a larger ensemble. But it would be best not highlighted. Sometimes no file is better than an misleading one or a bad performance. This is a case-by-case call. Tony (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - No consensus, it's been ignored for the ~3 weeks it's be up here for. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:35pm • 07:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White Noise edit

White Noise
An example of white noise covering all frequencies of sound.
  • Nominate and support. In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 20:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral The recording passes my tests for "noisiness", but I am concerned about the low bit rate. Lossy compression like vorbis are designed to be used for non-noise audio. I would think that the highest bit rate possible should be used for noise. Zginder 2011-04-23T22:21Z (UTC)
  • What is the difference between white noise and static?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Unless someone can tell me why this file is clever in some way; that is, was it hard to produce? A file of white noise certainly has EV, but why does this exemplify "our very best work"? Tony (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support After a lot of reflection, I think that this is an important sound file for WP. There is an elaborate article on this subject, for which this has high EV.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The feature criteria do not require this to be our best work, just as good as it can be. Zginder 2011-04-24T17:54Z (UTC)
  • Support —James (Talk • Contribs) • 12:15pm • 02:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Promoted Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drum cadences edit

 
Drum - Cadence A
Drum - Cadence B
Drum - Four Flams
Snare drum cadences performed by the United States Navy Band
Problems playing these files? See media help.

The fact that the United States Navy refers to the first two of these as Drum Cadence A and Drum Cadence B, leads me to believe that they are the most basic of military march drum cadences. I am guessing these are the ABCs of drumming. The files add significantly to the following articles:

Cadences A & B
Four Flams

Promoted all --Guerillero | My Talk 22:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kitten on the Keys edit

1921 - Kitten on the Keys
Zez Confrey's first hit, performed by him.

An excellent recording.

  • Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, can you get rid of the clicking around the 2 minute mark and between 2:45 and 3:05? Also, love the name of the song. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I spent hours trying to do so. They're fairly subtle clicks, not very well-isolated from the performance. I'll keep poking at it off and on while it runs here, but I doubt I'll have much more success than I have. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good for its age, I didn't notice the clicks until I played it second time 'round. Bugger these older recordings require so much effort to improve. :S —James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:13am • 01:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—I'm not so concerned about the audio quality; it's the very uncomfortable instability in tempo at places such as 20 s and 37 s that are negatives. The genre needs a rock-solid pulse. Fluctuations in tempo are important to mark out the phrase structure, the cadences, but not at random, as in a few places. Some wrong notes. Much of it is excellent, but the flaws make me wonder whether that is that enough for a featured sound, as opposed to a sound file that is just used in the appropriate articles? Tony (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, it's performed by the composer. If the composer wants to do that, it's his composition to do it to. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No, no, no. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between composers and performers. Do I need to provide examples? Most composers of orchestral music, with a few notable exceptions, have been incompetent conductors. It does not mean you let them onto the stage. Just because a composer writes a violin (or trumpet) concerto does not mean he can play those instruments. Just because this composer was a painist (he's quite a good one in his own style) does not mean that the performance is uniformly good. When I point out passages in which he uncomfortably pushes the tempo, I do that because it is most inappropriate for him to have done so. It is not a matter of his interpretation in particular: it is a technical and artistic glitch (rather like putting your finger on the vinyl disk and pushing it forward a little for a few seconds, and would be recognised as such by any competent musician. However, whether these two passages I noticed with a wince are bad enough to oppose is another matter. I was suggesting that if there are better examples of rag playing, whether by their composer or someone else, then this would be pipped at the post by them.

Please remember that this is not a AfD—these nominations will all remain WP or Commons files and used in articles. Here, we are scrutinising them carefully for technical and artistic excellence. The standards need to be reasonably high. If a rag composer wants to have a drink or two before a recording is made, fine, but the consequences are disappointing where we are being fussy. If you don't want to be fussy, this process is for the bin I'm afraid. Tony (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really, really fail to think that you understand Encyclopedic value. It must be an awful world you live in as well, where the smallest flaw in a recording makes it impossible for you to listen to it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I am on cloud nine. But that doesn't stop me examining content under a microscope. People will disagree with how much digression from some notion of perfection is acceptable for promotion. The US military ensembles often present close to perfect performances, IMO. I would like people to advise more on how EV can be defined. It seems to work well for featured pics, but sounds present a different challenge; it seems to be a very important issue for this process. Tony (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It must be an awful world you live in as well..."—what a horrid thing to say, and you (Adam Cuerden) should assume good faith when you debate on a talk page. As Tony1 states, he is not suggesting that the piece be nominated for deletion, rather whether (with tempo issues noted by more than one editor, and even "some wrong notes") this piece is representative of the best WP has to offer. Regarding your "I really, really fail to think...", it's not whether the piece has "Encyclopedic value" (something no one has denied), it's how the piece is used in an encyclopaedia that concerns this page. Exactly which part of Tony1's lucid comments led you to the conclusion that this was a piece to which Tony1 found it "impossible to listen"?  GFHandel.   21:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should read the only phrase you haven't commented on, which I think makes the point clear. I think Tony can be incredibly picky about these things, to the point of rejecting things as good or better than many commercial recordings I have owned. It's a major division in classical music, particularly vocal: The difference between note-perfect but lifeless, or somewhat deviating from the score, but full of character. John Reed, for instance, is often wildly inaccurate compared to the score, but noted for his ability to get character across, which is considered by his fans to make up for it. In opposition, compare the 2004 Hyperion commercial recording of Contrabandista (opera), which is note-perfect but completely lifeless, yet other people seem to like it, even though I find it removes from the piece anything that makes it worthwhile. Tony is very strongly on the note-perfect side; I bear somewhat towards the overall effect side, and this is fairly irreconcilable. However, he has a tendency to look down his nose superciliously, and all but call anyone who disagrees with him an idiot. This is constant, and there's no point saying "AGF" when this is about the 50th time he's acted this way. You obviously don't know the situiation, GFHandel, because this is your first comment on FSC ever. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Every thread must stand on its own at WP. A simple apology from you for your "awful world" comment would have sufficed.  GFHandel.   22:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're assuming bad faith about my statement, while encouraging me to assume Tony does not have ridiculously high standards that are of a type on the complete opposite side of the spectrum to mine? Adam Cuerden (talk)
Thanks, but I don't agree to the collapsing of this box. Now, your role as one of the four FSC directors is not to bully reviewers, but to make sure the mechanics work and to do other good things. You do those things, so please stop squabbling with the reviewers. No one has to agree with anything I say, but you seem to be trying to censor me in the first place. Tony (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not assuming anything as your introduction of "It must be an awful world you live in as well..." into a debate is abhorrent and against the spirit of Wikipedia. If you don't agree with Tony1's assessment of the efficacy of the piece for FSC, then say so—with on-topic debate (not with personal supposition).  GFHandel.   20:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sounds good for its age. The clicks don't concern me overly as it's part of the nature of the type of recording. The recording itself it notable too, despite some wayward tempo in places.Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Impressive actually for its age.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support It is poor quality even for its age. It sounds like the original was fairly soft. The noise floor of the medium is about the same, originally, for all well made recordings. When it was transferred the same signal to noise ratio was maintained. The performance is not very good; however, if available, I think that a performance by the composer always has EV and the trumps criterion 2. Zginder 2011-05-01T03:13Z (UTC)

Promoted Zez Confrey - Kitten_on_the_Keys.ogg --Guerillero | My Talk 22:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sunflower Slow Drag edit

1901 - Sunflower Slow Drag
"Sunflower Slow Drag", which was co-written by Scott Joplin and Scott Hayden. It was Hayden's most important work. This version performed by the United States Marine Corps Band is a brass band arrangement of a piano original score.

I am nominating this because it adds significantly to several articles that were devoid of musical samples. I am aware that ragtime is not orchestral, but this nom may be a quickfail anyways since the band has no piano, which may be essential to ragtime. Let me know and I will withdraw this nomination if it is problematic in that regard. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

  • Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wary. Pluses are (1) very nice arrangement for its genre (although, ahem, does it say here that it's an arrangement?). (2) Lovely performance. (3) The acoustics work very well and the audio-engineering is professionally done. Minuses are (1) that it is an arrangement, so I wonder about the encyclopedic value to an article on Scott Joplin; in my view, it should not be used in that article—Joplin(/Haydn) was a piano composer. (4) It loses a lot by being taken out of the piano genre in which it was conceived; specifically, Joplin's textures are quintessentially percussive, punchy, pianistic; they have a unique left-hand pattern that is sort of translatable to an orchestra, but it's a shadow of its real self. Some would say a falsehood. It's not to say I wouldn't have arranged it for the band if I'd worked for them—it's a socially/professionally constructed issue. But should WP be marking it as among our best and using it to exemplify Joplin? Tony (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I was going to say, before it got withdrawn, ragtime was indisputably played by bands at the time, often in arrangements such as this. I don't think that fact is controversial. Hence, while we don't want a lot of such arrangements, I do think it's worth having at least one, to recognise the ways the performances were used. Obviously, with careful notes about it being an arrangement, and contextualising.
It's very easy to forget that the popular genres of the early 20th century were generally performed in various arrangements; and the best performers often took liberties far beyond the exact published score, because the scores are written for someone of average talent, and they were better than that and could add all the tricks back in. As I understand it, the original published score to Tiger Rag was nothing like what it was when Louis Armstrong was done with it. But (were he out of copyright) Armstrong's performance would be far preferred. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On account of this being unwithdrawn, I've unarchived it. If we do promote it, it really must be supported by text per the irregularity of it, even if it's only two sentences saying that sometimes ragtime pieces were later adapted to band setups. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support Sounds great - as long as it is made clear that this is an arrangement of a piano original. BTW, Ragtime originated in Sousa-style marches, so I don't think it's a problem that this Rag has been played by a band. Major Bloodnok (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support Needle Nardle Noo - I mean, per Bloodnok. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ying tong iddle I po Major Bloodnok (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


If the condition for Bloodnok's and Adam's supports are not fulfilled by the 9th I will close this as not promoted --Guerillero | My Talk 22:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It already says "performed as a brass band arrangement of a piano original" on the description page. I will rearrange it and make it look more clear, but I am not sure what else you want me to do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also both articles say "This is a brass band arrangement of a piano original ". What am I missing?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Scott Joplin's "Sunflower Slow Drag" performed by the United States Marine Band.oga --Guerillero | My Talk 00:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anchors Aweigh 1929 edit

1906 - "Anchors Aweigh" (1929 recording)
The United States Navy Band performs "Anchors Aweigh"

There already exists a version of "Anchors Aweigh" at FS (see File:AnchorsAweigh.ogg). However, we already have at least one song with multiple versions at FS (see File:Sousa's Band - Stars and Stripes Forever.ogg and File:USMC stars stripes forever.ogg). This song is the fight song of the United States Naval Academy, which makes it fairly important. The file adds significantly to the following articles:

  • Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think that this is an example of something that is not high fidelity. Zginder 2011-04-27T06:57Z (UTC)
  • Support Rather different than the way it's played now, which gives it historical interest, since this song is so iconic to the U.S. Navy. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Uhhh Zginder... Hi-fi equipment began to be used post-WWII and for a recording of its age its quality is quite good, the notes and sung parts can be clearly discerned. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:55pm • 07:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that it may be good for its age, but does the recording itself show something that can not be replicated today with modern recording? Short of that it should not be promoted. Zginder 2011-05-06T05:02Z (UTC)

Promoted Anchors Aweigh 1929 recording.ogg It pases the .667 super-majority --Guerillero | My Talk 01:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States Navy Band - Het Wilhelmus edit

1574 - Het Wilhelmus
The Dutch national anthem, Het Wilhelmus, played by the United States Navy Band. The anthem itself dates back to 1568 where it was sung on official occasions and important events such as the Siege of Haarlem in 1573, the melody was first written down in 1574. The current melody was recorded by Dutch composer Adriaen Valerius in his "Nederlantsche Gedenck-clanck" in 1626. The history of the lyrics is unknown though a French translation appeared around 1582. There are legends surrounding performances of the anthem, such as in the torture of Balthasar Gérard (William of Orange's assassin) where the guards sought to overpower Gérard's screams boiling pig fat was poured over him. To which Gérard allegedly responded, "Sing! Dutch sinners! Sing! But know that soon I shall be sung of!"

One of the rare occasions where the US Navy Band played a piece intended for a brass instrument, or at least that's what I'm getting from the article, "Trumpets played the Wilhelmus when Prince Maurits visited Breda, and again when he was received in state in Amsterdam in May 1618" ... "the church bells are said to have played the Wilhelmus continuously." Nothing much is said about the original instruments that played Wilhelmus except that, unless we can find a better organ and choir to sing it :P

Promoted United States Navy Band - Het Wilhelmus.ogg --Guerillero | My Talk 01:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

President Obama on Death of Osama bin Laden edit

2011 - President Obama on Death of Osama bin Laden (9:28)
U.S. President Barack Obama addresses America and the world that Osama bin Laden has been killed by U.S. forces.

This is for sure going to be a historic announcement. This is free for sure. I am just not sure if it fulfills FS criteria on the technical side, so hopefully someone can comment on that.

  • Nominate and support. —Chris!c/t 05:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support High quality, historically significant and important announcement. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:19pm • 06:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – the sound is very good, so am happy to support in that regard. However, there is a 720p version on YouTube, so surely that version would be the best video to use? NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the one on Youtube of the same or higher quality? A larger version of the video would, however, be most welcome and if it is of similar quality, feel free to upload over this version. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:59pm • 11:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The YouTube version as provided by the public domain download button was originally 26 MB and became 33.2 MB upon conversion. The HD version at WH.gov is 333 MB, and I don't expect that its conversion would result in a file under Commons' 100 MB size limit. Does Wikipedia allow for uploads in excess of 100 MB? If it does, would it be benficial to the encyclopedia to use the higher-resolution version instead of this one? — Fourthords | =/\= | 17:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realise that HD video files were so large – probably best, as others have said, to keep this version for the sake of conserving bandwidth. As an aside, it would be nice to have the HD version on Wikimedia Commons at some point, since if bandwidth/storage continue getting cheaper, in a few years 300mb will be a trivially small file size. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's 100MB globally, unfortunately :( —James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:09pm • 08:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be uploaded in three or four parts? Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Even if it is only a few hours old, it is still hugely significant historically, and good quality. Anoldtreeok (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sounds good, looks good and is a valuable addition to WP for EV and notability reasons. The size of the image on the file page is bigger, and of higher quality than on this page. We could make that of an even higher quality by increasing the file size to closer to 100MB. I'm not sure we should though given the demands on WP bandwidth - 100MB is a limit, not a goal. The MP4 file on the White House page is 300MB or so. Major Bloodnok (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nicolas M. Perrault 23:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - User:Fourthords download and upload this. I did not do it myself.—Chris!c/t 18:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was talking bets on how fast this would be nomed :P (I would !vote but I am waiting to get to close this) --Guerillero | My Talk 04:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would ITN be willing to use this as the image on the main page? --Guerillero | My Talk 04:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can the timed text be competed? I should have cropped version at 4 by 3 with 720p, 480p, 360p, and 240p uploaded tomorrow. But that should not change the result here. Zginder 2011-05-03T04:35Z (UTC)
  • Support per comments above, this is really high quality, Sadads (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment shouldn't this file be included in other articles such as Presidency of Barack Obama and Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama (2011).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Landmark announcement of historical significance. With respect to all the other nominations, I think this one should take precedence. It is timely and is of global interest. Rubywine (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to ignore the 7 day wait period and snow close this. At 9 supports there is little reason to keep this going for two more days and miss the signpost for this week --Guerillero | My Talk 02:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Othello, Act I, scene iii edit

Othello, Act I, scene iii (5:05)
James Earl Jones performs a soliloquy by Othello from Act I, scene iii of Shakespeare's Othello at the White House Evening of Poetry, Music, and the Spoken Word on May 12, 2009.

This is a file made by Whitehouse.gov of a work in the public domain. The only issue is whether the file has any personality rights. The description at Whitehouse.gov claims here that this performance is in the public domain. Note that 1 minute and 9 seconds of oral introduction have been trimmed from this file from the original Whitehouse.gov posting. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

Promoted 20090512 James Earl Jones - Othello (I. iii) at the White House (trimmed).ogv —James (Talk • Contribs) • 12:41pm • 02:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boccherini's Sonata for Two Cellos in C Major edit

Boccherini's Sonata for Two Cellos in C Major, 1st movement Allegro moderato (3:18)
Luigi Boccherini's Sonata for Two Cellos in C Major, 1st movement: Allegro moderato performed by Alisa Weilerstein and 8 year-old Sujari Britt at the White House Evening of Classical Music on November 4, 2009.

Whitehouse.gov posted eight videos from the November 4, 2009 White House Evening of Classical Music. I have put 6 of them on wikipedia. My guess is that entertainers chosen to perform at the White House put on a performance that represents a quality level sufficient to be described as among the best work on wikipedia. This file adds significantly to the following articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While I was first a bit skeptical about a nine-year-old's technical abilities on the cello, seeing Britt's performance assuaged my concerns. Weilerstein doesn't have the best bow hold (looks sort of awkward at times, although not quite so glaringly obvious in this performance) and sometimes I get the feeling that her left hand fingers are weak, but it's amazing how she gets around that. The resolution of this video is quite nice, and overall, I think it's FS-quality. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I hope if the young girl's abilities are sufficient for our President and his guests that they are sufficient for our readers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good, is notable for several reasons, and sounds good on the whole, although to my ears there seemed to be a couple of moments of some wayward tuning (doubtless Tony1 would be able to comment with greater depth). Both performers were responding to eachother well, and at full resolution this is more obvious than in the thumb-nail. On the whole FS status though. Major Bloodnok (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted 20091104 Alisa Weilerstein and Sujari Britt - Boccherini's Sonata for Two Cellos in C Major, 1st movement Allegro moderato.theora.ogv. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 12:47pm • 02:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overture di ballo edit

1870 – Overture di Ballo
Overture di Ballo, which predates all of Arthur Sullivan's collaborations with W. S. Gilbert, is regarded as Sullivan most successful orchestral work. This is a military band arrangement, performed by the U.S. Marine Band.

As stated above, Overture di Ballo, which predates all of Arthur Sullivan's collaborations with W. S. Gilbert, is regarded as Sullivan most successful orchestral work. This piece is part of the band's 1991 recording, Overtures. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

  • Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My God! I've worked on most of the G&S articles on Wikiepdia, and would never have expected to find this. =) Will give a review tomorrow, when I've had time to run it against the score. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Description page issues - What does trans. mean, anyway? I've been presuming transcribed, but it could be transposed or several other things. It'd be useful to know. Other than that, Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • My experience with the word comes from having had a cousin (who was my roommate at the time) who transcribed Jelly Roll Morton recordings and such for Wynton Marsalis and Lincoln Center when he was in graduate school. Basically it means to put the audio into written form. Lincoln Center has tons of recordings, that have never been put into sheet music form. Suppose the audio was a recording of a twelve piece band. My cousin would listen to the audio and write the respective sheet music for each of the twelve pieces. So he would sit there and write note for note all the trumpet music, then all the piano music, then all the alto sax music, etc. Eventually, he would have the sheet music for an entire recording of twelve pieces. He would then give this to his boss (Marsalis) who might then arrange it for his Lincoln Center band that may or may not be a 12 piece band. Alternatively, Marsalis just might have his band play almost exactly what my cousin transcribed. I don't remember if the Lincoln Center band arranged the music or just played what my cousin transcribed. I was just excited to go watch them play all the stuff my cousin use to sit in my living room writing on paper. P.S. once my cousin took me with him to Wynton's apartment for gumbo after a Lincoln Center performance. I am pretty sure eating gumbo has nothing to do with transcribing or arranging, however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, I see that the Richard Wagner booklet you link above says "transcribed" in full. I suspect, given that a full score was published for this, that it's just crediting the person who did the slightly less difficult, but just as arduous task of transcribing a set of parts from the full score - which means this is the original, and that's wonderful. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Just ran this up against the full score. Some of the repeats are meant to be for strings, but strings don't appear, so this is a military band arrangement. That needs mentioned, but it's otherwise very good. Given there's whole sections of this which are woodwind and brass alone, that's less of a problem than it might be. So long as it's noted, this is well worth featuring. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—The SDP says "transcribed", but I suspect it had to be arranged (that is, the notes changed, redistributed, rather than just cut and pasted for performance by non-string instruments of equivalent pitch-range. Does the caption say it's an arrangement in the articles in which it appears? Tony (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sullivan's scores were generally published in many arrangements; I'd presume this is one of these arrangements, which someone turned into band parts for them. I believe the arrangements were generally done by the publisher, though no arranger is generally credited. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Arrangements can have their own copyright, so even through the original composition is in the Public Domain does not mean this arrangement is. Zginder 2011-05-01T02:44Z (UTC)
        • But anonymous 1870s arrangements are (and that's presuming it wasn't done in house by the army). I can't actually find any publication details for such an arrangement, so, as we know that the Army does things in house, we should probably presume this was one of these. Most military bands that have been around a long time have whole libraries of hand-written arrangements by long-gone band members, for which no credit could ever be assigned by now (I've sung with the British Navy's band occasionally). Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sounds good, played well, and notable. The only thing which would concern me is the nature of this arrangement; Adam's comments have reassured me on this point. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Overture di ballo.ogg —James (Talk • Contribs) • 12:57pm • 02:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joy to the World (3 variations) edit

1839 - Joy to the World
Joy to the World played on piano by User:Orthologist
1839 - Joy to the World
Joy to the World as a congregational arrangement
1839 - Joy to the World
Joy to the World sung by the United States Army Chorus, without accompaniment


Good quality performances of Joy to the World. They all add to the article and are of good EV. The chorus would probably be better with backing music, but alas I couldn't find any on the US Army Choir's website, TTT's been uploading some good files! :)

  • Nominate and support all. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:28pm • 11:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: None of these present the piece in both high enough quality, and the straight-forwards, standard arrangement (Is the Navy Band version in 7/8? It has the feel of a truncated rhythm.) needed for the encyclopedic value requirement, unfortunately. In particular, strong oppose #3. 1 is the best of these, but it's badly overmic'd. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1 & 3--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not that confident with Audacity, else I'd do some volume reduction. I had my volume bar set at 10 and even then it was quite dominating... —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:55pm • 11:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That, unfortunately, is a recording issue. Microphone was badly positioned, with too much amplification. Once that's been done, there's no way to undo it in post production. =/ Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you wrote "Joy to the World sung by the United States Army Chorus, without music". You meant "without accompaniment", I believe. Without music would make this sound a lot like 4'33". Or possibly rap. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops :P Thanks for picking that up! How silly of me. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:58pm • 07:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Joy to the World.ogg (the piano version). This was a hard decision to come to. The US army chorus version has the technical quorum to pass but Adam's strong oppose based on EV issues was a strong deterrent against promoting it. Also, all voters agreed that this was the best or one of the best out of the whole group. Personally, I think that this may be on the table to be delisted some time in the future. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How Great Thou Art edit

In a preliminary question I asked whether a performer like Ms. Adams counts as a government employee to determine PD eligibility. I later realized that the relevant issue is whether the person filming Ms. Adams is a government employee, which is the case. This file presents our first example of the possibilities of using White House entertainer performances for featured sounds. Looking at this file, I think this is a promising possibility. This file significantly ads to the following pages:

  • Comment We have confirmed the file is Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, according to the whitehouse.gov copyright page. (The hymn is PD-old-100, the performance is CC-BY-3.0, the recording is PD-USGov.)
  • We may want to promote both of these files.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either the video or the audio only or both or whatever; this is an awesome rendition of the song. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Fetch. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:05pm • 08:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted both --Guerillero | My Talk 05:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air on the G String edit

"Air on the G String"
"Air on the G String" performed by the United States Air Force Band

"Air on the G String" is a popular adaptation by August Wilhelmj of the Air, the second movement from Johann Sebastian Bach's Orchestral Suite No. 3 in D major, BWV 1068. It is very common for this Bach work to be rearranged and here we present a 21-piece string orchestra arrangement. This file adds significantly to the following article:

  • Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is neither the original, nor the popular arrangement for violin solo. If it at least had a violin soloist, sure, but as it is, no. Also, I don't think this arrangement is particularly artistic; it feels a bit flat. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm not sure about the arrangement issue, but it does sound quite flat and soupy. Major Bloodnok (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted —James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:24pm • 08:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel Train edit

"The Gospel Train"
"The Gospel Train", an African-American spiritual, being performed by The United States Navy Band's Sea Chanters ensemble

"The Gospel Train", was an African-American spiritual, that was first published by the Fisk Jubilee Singers in 1872. African-American spirituals are underrepresented at FS, so this should be welcome. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

  • Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Queries—What does "Fisk Jubilee Singers, MU1 William F. Edwards, III" mean on the SDP, in response to "Author"? Is this an arrangement? A date is given (1872), but it's unclear what it refers to. This is not a traditional African American spiritual, I can assure you of that. I'm concerned that it has been used in the article on Spiritual (music) without explaining this. Tony (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In all honesty, I could use come help interpreting The Sea Chanters Section here. Not sure what it means. It seems to me that sometimes they have a composer underneath and sometimes they have an arranger or arrangement notes. As far as AA spiritual goes, the fact that this white-looking and -sounding group performed it does not mean it is not a spiritual.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm no expert on this style, but I'm pretty sure the traditional spiritual came out of the fields and into the churches with a melody line supported by a pretty plain homophonic (chordal) accompaniment in the lower voices. This arrangement is much more elaborate, so EV is going to involve pointing this out (if it is indeed the case ... I'm in the dark). Someone needs to read the article(s), and I haven't got time with the deadline coming up for The Signpost. Tony (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't buy this as a 19th-century arrangement, without more proof, nor is it in the standard genre. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Adam. It sounds great as ever with the Navy Band, but I am conscious of the EV of it; as Tony1 points out it is an elaborate arrangement of the much simpler original. I don't think it passes muster, and nor do I think it should be seen as an example of the genre - it most certainly isn't (cf the soundtrack to "O Brother Where Art Thou?"). Major Bloodnok (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:04am • 01:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three Navy Band march songs edit

The following are all marches performed by the United States Navy Band. The latter continues to be the authorized march of The King's Own Calgary Regiment (RCAC) of the Canadian Forces and is widely used in popular culture.. The first two were written by John Philips Sousa.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1908 - "Fairest of the Fair"
For a John Philips Sousa march, "Fairest of the Fair" is on the fringe of military marches.
1899 - "Hands Across the Sea"
John Philips Sousa, "Hands Across the Sea" continues to be a popular military march.
1914 - "Colonel Bogey March"
"Colonel Bogey March" is a widely recognized march even beyond its role as the authorized march of The King's Own Calgary Regiment (RCAC) of the Canadian Forces.

The images contribute to the following articles:

Fairest of the Fair
Hands Across the Sea
Colonel Bogey March


Promoted all --Guerillero | My Talk 01:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Susanna edit

"Oh! Susanna"
Stephen Foster's "Oh! Susanna" is performed by the United States Navy Band.

"Oh! Susanna" is commonly associated with the California Gold Rush. This file significantly adds to the following articles:

  • Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Brings back memories. Zginder 2011-04-27T06:58Z (UTC)
  • Support I was worried about the fact it is an arrangement, but then I considered that this song would have been played on all sorts of instruments in the 1840s and beyond. I thought it sounded great. Major Bloodnok (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Oh Susanna.ogg —James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:42pm • 07:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ham radio digital modes edit

Morse Code at 13 WPM
"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." sent as Morse Code at 13 WPM.
RTTY
"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." sent with RTTY.
PSK31
"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." sent with PSK31.
AMTOR
"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." sent with AMTOR.
MT63
"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." sent with MT63.
OLIVIA 16/500
"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." sent with Olivia 16/500.
OLIVIA 32/1000
"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." sent with Olivia 62/1000.

A gallery of digital Ham radio modes. Each sample is used in the article discussing its mode. When I nominated The North American Dial Tone, I was told a gallery would be better than individual samples, also after the promotion of Dial up modem noises I believe this has president. Zginder 2011-04-27T06:34Z (UTC)


  • Nominate and support. Zginder 2011-04-27T06:34Z (UTC)
  • Support all Good quality, high EV. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:25pm • 10:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forgot one. Adding it here because Ancient Apparition did not seen it when !voting. Zginder 2011-04-28T00:46Z (UTC)
Hellschreiber
"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." sent with Hellschreiber.
  • I really like the morris code but I am unsure about the others. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am going to restare my !vote: Support morris code, Oppose Hellschreiber and RTTY, Indifferent about the rest --Guerillero | My Talk 04:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all except RTTY RTTY makes my whole computer freeze up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all Recorded well, good EV. Major Bloodnok (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note/Oppose two of these Came across these from doing NPP of the file namespace. Hellschreiber and RTTY do not play for me using the Wikipedia default settings. They do play with Cortado (Java) player. That means that the encoding might be FLAC, or the issue could something else entirely, but either way, a file that cannot be played with the built in support that most users will rely on should not be promoted. Consider my oppose null if the files can be fixed. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



La Bayamesa edit

1902 - La Bayamesa
La Bayamesa performed by the United States Navy Band. La Bayamesa is the national anthem of Cuba. It was first performed during the Battle of Bayamo in 1868 but adopted 1902. Perucho Figueredo, who took part in the battle, wrote and composed the song. Antonio Rodríguez Ferrer wrote the introductary notes for the anthem.

The song is in the infobox of the main article, La Bayamesa, giving it high Ev. It is very good quality just as expected by the navy band.


I will officially promote this tomorrow --Guerillero | My Talk 03:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted La Bayamesa --Guerillero | My Talk 00:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serenade for Strings - Elgar Op. 20 mv 1 edit

1892 Serenade for Strings - Elgar Op. 20 mv 1
Edward Elgar's Serenade for Strings (Op. 20 mv 1), which was written for a String orchestra, is performed by the United States Army Band's United States Army Strings ensemble.

As a reworking of an earlier composition, this is regarded as the earliest of Edward Elgar's compositions to have survived into the standard repertoire. This file adds significantly to the following articles:


  • Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—Good find, TTT. Tony (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    PS Interesting that it's after 1922, the cut-off for public domain WRT the printed scores. I wonder who owns them—possibly Boosey and Hawkes? Tony (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it was published in 1892.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose The static is a big turn-off for me, the performance is good but I can't handle the static and clicking (the latter being predominantly at the start of the piece). —James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:03pm • 09:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Fantastic performance. The static sounds like tape hiss, and doesn't bother me. Graham87 07:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sounds good to me. Major Bloodnok (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Serenade for Strings -mvt-1- Elgar.ogg --Guerillero | My Talk 00:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be Ye Men of Valour edit

1940 - Be Ye Men of Valour
Radio recording of the original speech made by the former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill released by the British Broadcasting Corporation, here entitled Be Ye Men of Valour.

This is free because it is in the public domain, and has historical significance as one of the greatest speeches in World War II. It is used primarily to support the following articles:

It needs a much more specific tag, explaining why it's out of copyright in Britain. It's not clear at present. For example, are we presuming Crown copyright on the speech itself?
It's particularly important to document meticulously in this case, as, apparently, there's a widespread copyfraud situation surrounding Winston Churchill's wartime speeches. Crown copyright, as Churchill was acting as a British government official, should cover it, but we really need to document this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can a PD-1923 tag work on a speech from 1940--Guerillero | My Talk 10:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is pretty much my point. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suspended pending resolution of copyright content. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:21pm • 08:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Crow copyright only lasts for 50 years post publication I think --Guerillero | My Talk 00:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, you're right I slapped a {{PD-BritishGov}} on the Commons file desc and will unsuspend the nominations. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:31pm • 08:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • With this unsuspension the voting period has been restarted. Also, I support. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:15pm • 09:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sounds good for the age. Great Ev. I'd like to see more of these, but we should be careful only to use the speeches he made during the war, not the re-recorded ones sometime later. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The Swan edit

"Le cygne" (The Swan) (2:56)
Alisa Weilerstein and Jason Yoder perform Camille Saint-Saëns' Le cygne at the White House Evening of Classical Music on November 4, 2009.

Le cygne is the thirteenth and most notable of the fourteen movements of Camille Saint-Saëns' The Carnival of the Animals. It was written as a cello solo with accompaniment of a piano. This is a slight variation on that arrangement. Since this is a video of a White House performance, I assume it is very high caliber. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

 
For comparison: the piece as originally scored.
Performed by John Michel.
Problems playing this file? See media help.

Not promoted —James (Talk • Contribs) • 12:38pm • 02:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arirang edit

 
"Arirang"
The romanized version of Arirang performed by the United States Army Band Strings ensemble.
"Arirang"
The romanized version of Arirang performed by the United States Army Band Chorus.
Problems playing these files? See media help.

This is an unofficiall national anthem of Korea. It adds significantly to the following articles:

  • Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, especially the first one (which includes a tenor soloist). Graham87 08:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • On further reflection, they both do ... but the first recording is far more beautiful. I just *love* the way the singer softly floats up to the high G near the end of the first recording. Graham87 08:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC) Modified Graham87 15:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great stuff. Major Bloodnok (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Bach’s Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor, BWV 582 edit

 
Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor, BWV 582 (11:59)
Concert pianist Awadagin Pratt performs Johann Sebastian Bach's Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor at the White House Evening of Classical Music on November 4, 2009. This is an organ composition transcribed for piano. In addition from 11:22 to 11:27, he salutes United States President Barack Obama with a few bars of "Hail to the Chief".
Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor, BWV 582
Audio only version
Problems playing these files? See media help.

This is the first of multiple nominations for this performer. Although this is an organ composition transcribed for piano, I think such transcriptions are common and this may even get the support of some purists. I am nominating both the audio and the video. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

  • Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suspended pending the outcome of this discussion. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:01pm • 07:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisted - voting restarted. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 1:27pm • 03:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, I still nominate and support.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoops, I meant the voting time period was restarted! Sorry! —James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:53pm • 06:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is played very well and has great EV. Good recording too. A few quibbles; it may just be because of the compression, but some of the very rapid sections sound fairly blurry and undefined. Mind you they are very rapid and complex parts of the piece, so I think it can be excepted. A more major issue is that he interpolates a few bars of the Toccata and Fugue in D Minor at the end, as well as, erm, "Hail to the Chief". I think it can be excused given where it was played, but this is highly inauthentic and limits the EV. I'll support if the additions are noted in the caption and the file description. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - sounds rushed and sloppy, especially after 02:35 in the passacaglia and overall in the fugue. It is played in a Romantic style which is thoroughly inappropriate for modern performances of Baroque works. Also, it loses a lot in the transcription, especially in terms of the organ's tone colours. Graham87 07:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not promoted. This did not pass the required support threshold --Guerillero | My Talk 20:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Postscript: who transcribed it, and why does the filename not specify that it's not the original? Tony (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming The Lakers To The White House (1-25-10) Barack Obama edit

Welcoming The Lakers To The White House (8:49)
The 2009 NBA Finals champion Los Angeles Lakers visited the White House the following season during Barack Obama's second year in office.

I am experimenting with the FS process with regard to this file. Every year there are probably 7 or 8 notable championship visits to the White House. I believe all the 4 major pro sports, several notable college sports, and maybe the MLS all visit. I decided to upload this one to commons and test the water here. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

  • Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical Oppose Everything is of a great quality and all but the audio does not seem to be the most important part. I think this may be better suited for FP or better yet the eventual FV process. --Guerillero | My Talk 12:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose for the same reasons as Guerillero; in addition I think the image is in 4:3 when it should be in 16:9 (I know President Obama is thin, but not that thin...) I've just checked, and the playback on another machine shows 16:9. Not sure what I was looking at before. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:14am • 00:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasia in F minor edit

1828 - Fantasia in F minor, 1st and 4th movements
Awadagin Pratt performs the 1st and 4th movements of Franz Schubert's Fantasia in F minor, which is one of the more notable Piano four hands compositions with a young accompanist at the November 4, 2009 White House Classical Music Student Workshop Concert.


Reason
Aside from the usual Whitehouse.gov audio file clicking, this file is a superb sound file with respect to Wikipedia:Featured sound criteria.
Composed by
Franz Schubert
Creator
Whitehouse.gov
Articles in which this recording appears
Fantasia in F minor (Schubert), Awadagin Pratt, Piano four hands
  • Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Not complete, as it does not contain the second and third movements, which are basically the meat of the work. It sounds frankly jarring because the start of the 1st and 4th movements are identical. This performance is the equivalent of a 400-page novel with pages 101–300 cut out. Graham87 06:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before I even saw Graham's post, I'd decided to make a similar comment. I want to know why we only have two movements? Surely they recorded all four ... mysterious. On a broader note, is this a matter that should be dealt with in the criteria? I believe single movements from multi-movement works have been promoted before. Should this be discouraged? I ask without having formed a clear opinion. The Bruckner motet, for example, was promoted as a stand-alone two weeks ago; he wrote a whole batch of them. Tony (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the video at the source. It looks continuous to me. This is a small part of a 1 hour workshop concert. It is an abridged performance. If I knew enough about the music to chop this into two pieces and nominated them separately, I think they would be considered. If someone could tell me the time when the first movement ends. I could chop this into two files, which might seem more appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it wouldn't be in this case, because the Fantasia is meant to contain four movements played without a break. See the full recording in the external links section. I think the promotion of single movements is more acceptable when there's generally a break between those movements in a standard performance. Graham87 15:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not understand what full recording you are instructing me to look at.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's the second link in the external links section of the article Fantasia in F minor (Schubert). The trio of the 3rd movement (starting from 10:45 in that recording) is one of my very favourite musical passages of all time! Graham87 02:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have just listened to the original recording; they only play the 1st and 4th movements. I think Tony1 is right that we should have a discussion elsewhere about the issue of parts of artistic works being assessed separately from the whole, but unless it is usual for the 1st and 4th movements to be played in this way omitting the 2nd and 3rd mvts then I have to oppose on EV grounds since this recording cannot usefully illustrate the article. The clicking is terribly annoying, although I managed to remove it with Sound Forge while wondering whether I should support or not. Major Bloodnok (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:40pm • 07:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey in the Straw edit

"Turkey in the Straw"
"Turkey in the Straw" performed by the United States Air Force Strings

This song is an early 19th century American folk song. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

  • Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the temp feels to fast in several sections of this song. All versions of this song that I have ever heard the temp is steady. I will listen tonight to the version on The Sting and the other versions I own to make sure this is true --Guerillero | My Talk 04:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Played well with good EV. A good way of illustrating the tune although a very precise string band is probably not what folk music sounded like in the late 19th century. It'd be great to find an old folk recording of this. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Turkey in the Straw.ogg —James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:06am • 01:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Étude Op. 8 No. 12 edit

1894 -Étude Op. 8 No. 12
Alexander Scriabin's 1894 Étude Op. 8 No. 12 performed by Awadagin Pratt at the White House Classical Music Student Workshop Concert on November 4, 2009.
Reason
This is a technically demanding piece performed by one of the world's leading concert pianists. It adheres to all of the Wikipedia:Featured sound criteria except for the possible clicks courtesy of Whitehouse.gov.
Composed by
Alexander Scriabin
Creator
Whitehouse.gov
Articles in which this recording appears
Étude Op. 8 No. 12 (Scriabin), Alexander Scriabin, Awadagin Pratt, and Étude
1894 -Étude Op. 8 No. 12 edit1
Alexander Scriabin's 1894 Étude Op. 8 No. 12 performed by Awadagin Pratt at the White House Classical Music Student Workshop Concert on November 4, 2009. Clicks removed and fade out added by Major Bloodnok.
  • Support Edit 1 a fine job of click removal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 18:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 1 per Tony. I know that This piece is quite intricate, and isn't as immediately accessible as some of Chopin's études, which is why I added the other sound file to the Étude article (unfortunately not eligible for FSC because we don't know the date of recording). Graham87 00:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted 20091104 Awadagin Pratt - Scriabin, Étude Op. 8 No. 12 edit1.ogg --Guerillero | My Talk 04:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell of Slavianka edit

1912 - Farewell of Slavianka
Vasily Agapkin's 1912 "Farewell of Slavianka" performed by the United States Coast Guard Band.


Reason
This is a high EV file because of the notability. It is said to be the most famous of all Russian military marches. Admittedly, the recording is not the highest quality because I recorded it from my laptop microphone. Its EV may make up for quality deficiencies.
Composed by
Vasily Agapkin
Creator
United States Coast Guard Band
Articles in which this recording appears
Farewell of Slavianka, Vasily Agapkin

Clear Version edit

1912 - Farewell of Slavianka -edit1
Vasily Agapkin's 1912 "Farewell of Slavianka" performed by the United States Coast Guard Band.
  • There are audible hitches in the above file. I have gotten on my old XP laptop to use Audacity sound capture from the sound card and have produced the file below,--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1912 - Farewell of Slavianka -edit2
Vasily Agapkin's 1912 "Farewell of Slavianka" performed by the United States Coast Guard Band.
    • I just noticed that the above technique seems to use one track. I have created another that uses both Audacity tracks (possibly being stereo) using the digital-audio-digital technique of jacking the earphone into the microphone. You finely tuned ears may hear a difference.
1912 - Farewell of Slavianka -edit3
Vasily Agapkin's 1912 "Farewell of Slavianka" performed by the United States Coast Guard Band.

Promoted Farewell of Slavianka (stereo).ogg. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:49pm • 06:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Dance number 5 edit

"Danza No. 5"
Sharon Isbin performs Enrique Granados' "Danza No. 5" at the White House Classical Music Student Workshop Concer

This file suffers from the same click as most Whitehouse.gov audio only files, some of which have been promoted. Of the 12 Danzas Españolas for piano, this is the one most famous for transcription to classical guitar as presented here. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

"Danza No. 5 edit 1"
Sharon Isbin performs Enrique Granados' "Danza No. 5" at the White House Classical Music Student Workshop Concer
  • Support edit 1 fine job of restoration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 1 - nice work. Graham87 00:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit1. Unlike some of the rush of nominations recently from the White House Student Workshop – in particular the Scriabin from last week, which I'll be putting up for delisting after a while (it's poorly audio engineered, and yet another wildly difficult piano piece not well played) – this is very nice. I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable that two supports plus a nominator's (obvious) support get a file promoted. Tony (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will close this latter tonight. I think we should have a RFC on tony's point later --Guerillero | My Talk 23:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promoted 20091104 Sharon Isbin - Enrique Granados, Spanish Dance number 5 of 12, 1890 edit 1.ogg --Guerillero | My Talk 03:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_sound_candidates/May_2011&oldid=431767978"