Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/November 2008

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.

Booker T. Washington, Speech, 1895

I stumbled upon this while setting up the archive stats for September. It was nominated back in May, but failed. However, a big reason for this is that people, quite rightly, thought there was too much hiss. The nominator also didn't really handle the nomination very well, perhaps.

As people probably know by now, I'm pretty good at basic sound editing. Now, I can't remove all the hiss because removing hiss removes information, and past a point, it begins to become more difficult to understand him again. However, this was largely before commercial recording took off, so there presumably is no cleaner copy of this recording available, given the time period, so, if we think that this speech is important, then we can have this or nothing. I also don't think that phonograph cylinders could run more than four minutes at that time, so I'm presuming that the second half of his speech was not recorded. If someone knows differently, I'd be delighted to clean up a second cylinder.

It should probably be mentioned that none of the articles it's in are very well referenced. I don't think that's a problem in itself - one of the few references used is The New Georgia Encyclopedia which says that it is "Considered the definitive statement of what Washington termed the "accommodationist" strategy of black response to southern racial tensions, it is widely regarded as one of the most significant speeches in American history." Clearly, whatever the state of the articles now, they are important, and can and should be improved.

This is quite a lot more commentary than I normally give on a featured sound, but, since it's a repeat of a previous nomination, I thought I had best explain things in full. Thank you.

• Nominate and support. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support-- Following a change in my interpretation of the criteria. Zginder 2008-10-02T03:08Z (UTC)
• Oppose. Despite the reduction in noise, I actually find it quite a bit harder to understand what he was saying in the edited version. Also, the levels of the edited version are much lower than the original (and lower than a typical sound file, it seems to me). I would support the original or an edited version that retained the full clarity of the original.--ragesoss (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdraw - I'm actually becoming suspicious that this was a reconstruction a few years later. By Booker T. Washington, but not the original speech as claimed. Until it's figured out which, it's not worth featuring. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Mikado

Obviously, there's some static, and, though this can be decreased - which it has, have a listen to Image:1914 - Edison Light Opera Company - Favorite airs from The Mikado (unrestored).ogg] - this cylinder was not in the best condition to start with, and some had to remain.

Whatever happens here, this is going to be part of the articles it's in for some time, barring us discovering other, better preserved cylinders of similar quality. However, I think that the early date, interesting features like the performance of Tit-Willow - a very typical performance in early recordings, and completely different from how it's done now - and some fine performances make this worthy of featured sound despite its flaws. You may disagree, and, if so, Well! I'll just have to do even better next time. But do have a listen and decide for yourself =)

Used in W. S. Gilbert, Gilbert and Sullivan, Arthur Sullivan, and The Mikado

• Nominate and support. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. --Kleinzach 03:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. It might be the sound in the worst quality among the currently nominated files.--Caspian blue (talk) 04:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair comment, though I've done the best I could. With early cylinders, the restorer really is constrained by the quality of what's available, not a theoretical best, unless they are doing the work professionally, and thus have the resources of a major company behind them. I do think, though, that the performances are quite good, even if noone would ever sing Tit-Willow like that anymore. The restoration of a rather degraded cylinder has a cost, but I don't think the cost was excessive. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC) [Edited: edits italicised. I had used "you" where I didn't mean "the person reading", but just that generic you that people use when talking about hypotheticals].

  You ask me to edit the sound file before complaining the quality in spite of the careful reminder on the historical value and technical problems above? Yes, you have spent a lot of you time having finding, nominating and sometimes editing sound files to become FS. However, I don't want to do so because I'm not the nominator. I only say my opinion from readers/listeners' stance. I thought I have tough ears to endure bad quality sounds (I have quite fair amount of historical LPs), but obviously I don't. Yesterday, I think I tortured my ears to listen to 5 files here. I was very disappointed at a fs after listening to it and wondered "how could this be a "featured sound"? So I would continue to leave my honest opinion on sounds.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, that wasn't clear - the "you" is simply a rhetorical substitute for "the person doing the editing". I'll edit it, italicizing the edits =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. The audio quality is very good for the period. Despite the obvious hiss, the performance comes through very clearly throughout the recording, which is unusual and delightful for audio from the era. Vassyana (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

---

• Comment: I'm going to leave this open for another few days with the hope that more people weigh in here. If a few more days pass without comment, I'll close this discussion. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • To MZMcBride: Please don't ignore opposition and pass this recording as you did with {{Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Le trompeur trompé}} and {{Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Hunters' Chorus from ''The Lily of Killarney''}}. That devalues the process. I am supporting this nomination but it should not pass without a positive consensus. --Kleinzach 00:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose it is only extracts of the opera. Zginder 2008-10-12T17:17Z (UTC)
  • Well, yes, but we can't always get a complete one, and I think it's a useful quick overview. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

---

I thought I'd try to tweak this one a bit - I only started doing sound restorations a couple months ago, so this month-old one seemed ripe for another try (as, alas, do several of the other ones I've done. Ah, well, I'll get through them in time. Anyway, try this one. The first few seconds are the same - that part was much more heavily degreaded - but I think the rest - particularly Three Little Maids - comes off a lot better.

Nominate and support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, any objections if I withdraw this, and put the new restoration up to the top? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Not promoted (1914 - Edison Light Opera Company - Favorite airs from The Mikado (restored).ogg). Feel free to re-list a new version. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Crazy Blues

I believe this is of obvious historical importance, and excellent quality. Also, while we've had some blues-leaning compositions before, I think this is a much better representation of the genre.

• Nominate and support. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, indeed . . . --Kleinzach 01:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Nice song. Notable performer. Important historical recording. Vassyana (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Solid.--ragesoss (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Very historically important, and a good recording to boot. I'm crazy for this recording. Don't make me blue by not promoting it! Support ++Lar: t/c 19:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Mamie_Smith,_Crazy_Blues.ogg. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Gershwin - Swanee

This is George Gershwin's first hit, and, I believe, the only major song of Gershwin's in the public domain. Better still, this is the recording that popularised it and made it a hit, which is also out of copyright.

One thing that must be addressed: While I'm told that the term "mammy" now has racist connotations, I believe it only meant "nursemaid" at the time, gaining the negative connotations through increasingly-exaggerated portrayals of black nursemaids and similar. I obviously have no desire to support racism in this nomination, but feel that this song, where the singer is simply looking forwards to seeing his mammy again, probably was not intended as racist. Certainly, Gershwin went on to write Porgy and Bess and other such works, and is usually considered a major promoter of black culture.

As the only major song of Gershwin we could possibly have on Wikipedia for the next... what is it, twenty-five years? I feel this piece is too important not to at least consider for featured sounds, particularly as I believe the sound fidelity is far better than phonograph cylinders normally achieved. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support As this is the recording that made it famous. Zginder 2008-10-18T18:53Z (UTC)
• Support even though the noise does not please me, but I like the tune. :) Off the topic, could you get a file of Rhapsody in Blue in PD?--Caspian blue 00:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. Basically, Wikipedia's an American corporation, Gershwin's American, and American copyright law is really ridiculous. For instance, nothing more will come out of copyright in America for the next 15 years. So, basically, we can use Pre-1923 American works, a few things that didn't have copyright renewed, and that's it.

Almost all of Gershwin's work is after 1923, including Rhapsody in Blue. Barring the copyright holders having acted foolishly - forgetting to renew copyright, say - or copyright reform, this is the only reasonably well-known Gershwin work we'll be able to use until 2033.

Obviously, this is presuming you live in America. If you don't, everything above still applies to Wikipedia (servers n America) but may not apply personally to you. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'll see if I can get any more noise removed, but there is a balancing act to run between removing noise and keeping the richness of the voice. But if I find any more pops or clicks I'll zap them, and I'll play with the balance a bit. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I mistakenly thought that the US copyright law applies to materials in pre-1932 something; 23 is reversed The work was composed and performed in 1924 and you brought this up here, so I assumed we can have a same chance on the most famous piece by him. I also forgot about my failed attempt to add a score image to Die tote Stadt for the nick of time (just one year gap!) Anyway, thank you for the reply and hard work--Caspian blue 01:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what's the problem with Die tote Stadt? It'd have to be uploaded here, not on commons, but it's from 1920, and English Wikipedia allows PD-US foreign works. Great opera, byt he way. I have a recording. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I mean the score was published in Germany 1920, but in Chicago, 1924. Therefore, I could not upload the image to Commons (because I wanted to add it to other language wikipedias) As for the recording, do you have a pre-1923 recording of the opera? @.@ --Caspian blue 01:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

God, I wish. Just a modern one. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Why 1933? I thought it was 95 years not 110. Zginder 2008-10-19T02:28Z (UTC)

From death, I fear: Gershwin died in 1937, and copyright expires at the start of the next year, so 1938 + 95 = 2033. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

From death only applies to works published after 1978, before that 95 years for publication is what all works that were renewed follow. If it was from the death of the author all his works would have been in the PD on 01-01-1988 as it was 50 years after death until the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. Zginder 2008-10-19T18:57Z (UTC)

That's confusing, but, well, let's see if it gets extended at the end of those 95 years. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support But I've heard this recording (and I do mean this recording) with a 'brighter' sound. Difficult? --Kleinzach 01:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It's probably possible, but I think that this is more accurate. Making it sound brighter would presumably be done with equalization. I could have a go if you want, as an alternate? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. An important and interesting recording. The other side of Gershwin being "a major promoter of black culture" is the argument that his work contributed to negative stereotypes of black culture. We don't have to defend Gershwin's motives or the politics of the work to appreciate its encyclopedic value.--ragesoss (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Agree with Ragesoss, we don't have to defend motives to recognise encyclopedic value. ++Lar: t/c 19:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Al Jolson, George Gershwin, Irving Caesar, Swanee 1920.ogg. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That Mysterious Rag

I find this tune particularly catchy (the chorus, anyway) and the performer is notable. There is one odd recording choice - the nearly inaudible voices, probably meant as a low-tech way of creating mysteriousness. Still, I think this an excellent performance of the song.

There is still a little static, but removing any more damages the voices. Ah, well! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Does not inspire as a feature sound should. Truthanado (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I love Irving Berlin, but this file has really terrible sound. It's distorted. I admit, it's possible to add it to the Billy Murray article, but not as a featured sound. Sorry. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Eh, you're probably right. Sorry, after working with a file too long it's quite possible to lose objectivity, as you've learned to fill in the missing parts. Withdraw. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Not promoted: The nominator withdrew the nomination --Dendodge Talk^Contribs 10:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The Lost Chord (1913)

Outside of his operas, this is probably Sullivan's second-best-known work (after "Onward, Christian Soldiers"). Though we have an 1888 recording of this, that recording is notable because if its historic importance, not as a demonstration of the song. In that one, the song is abridged, it's an instrumental recording, and it cuts off before the end of the song. This one, however, displays the song itself to good effect.

• Nominate and support. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Oh dear . . . once again Shoemaker's Holiday is nominating a singer with no article and no home for the file. There is a famous version of this recorded by Caruso in 1912 [1], (He mangles the English but the 'grand amen' climax is magnificent. Listen!) --Kleinzach 23:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. "The Lost Chord" article specifically mentions Caruso. --Kleinzach 09:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The mangling of the English is too much for a song being nominated at least in part because of the lyrics. However, we have an article on "The Lost Chord". This song very much does have a home, and I'm rather concerned about this "singer must be notable" thing, which explicitly excludes all Wikipedian-made recordings. Forgive me, Kleinzach, I respect you a lot, but my goal is to illustrate composers and compositions, and, so long as I'm satisfied as to the singer's quality, I'm not at all concerned about the singers themselves. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Re early vocal recordings, it's important to remember that for technical reasons they represent the efforts of the individual performer far better than they represent groups - let alone an orchestra. If your goal is to "illustrate composers and compositions" you should be looking elsewhere. --Kleinzach 09:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think it matters much with The Lost Chord. It's almost always performed with orchestra in recordings and the like, but the original is voice and piano. Anyway, I've tried modern compositions, but all modern sources for opera have gone over like a lead balloon here. I'd rather use archaic recordings, and hope that this lures in modern performers at some future time, than to abandon my passions completely. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Clean sound considering the recorded period. --Caspian blue 23:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support: For 1913, this is a good-quality recording. I don't care who sang it, Sullivan's second-best-known non-opera deserves to be a featured sound. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 10:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment Dendodge, this is not the assessment of the Sullivan´s composition and its popularity. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Arthur Sullivan, The Lost Chord, Reed Miller 1913 (restored 1).ogg. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)