Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2009 March 23

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 23

Key Characteristics of Keys

Musically speaking, when writing a song, what should make me decide in what key to write it? I know it changes the notes to use depending on the key and the number of flats or sharps but what difference does it make, aside from that, if I write it in D major or A major or Gb major or anything. I do know that the mood of the song is affected depending if the song is in a minor or major key or using some mode but lets consider I'm asking only about major keys. Thanks for the help in advance! PabloClark (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Since modern instruments are usually are tuned to just intonation, which has perfect ratios between notes, it makes no difference musically which key you choose. Generally, keys are chosen to suit the singer or instrumentalist in terms of ease of play, for example some instruments have natural keys they play better in, like guitar which is easier to play in certain keys (AKA the CAGED system). Assuming, however, a song written for voice and piano, there is almost no musical reason to choose one key over another, since the keys are perfectly transposable in just intonation, and only someone with perfect pitch will be able to pick out a semitone difference in keys, such as A major vs. Gb major. Under older tuning systems, like meantone temperament, keys were NOT transposable, since the spacing of the notes was not in perfect ratios. This meant that a piece written in one "key" had a different feel than another, since there was a unique spacing of notes for each key. Under equal temperament systems like just intonation, every key features the same ratio between its notes, so the piece "feels" the same in any key. There may be a reason you want a song to be "lower" or "higher", but mostly it will come down to making the piece easy to play for your singers and instrumentalists. In terms of major vs. minor keys, that WILL have a big effect on the feel of the piece, since those keys DO have difference between the spacing of the notes, but since you stated you wanted to choose a major key, there should not be much of a difference. Find a key that works for your instrumentation and singer, and go with it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, just intonation (JI) is not a form of equal temperament (ET). And modern instruments are tuned to ET not JI. JI does involve "perfect ratios" between pitches (a "rational" system), but this inevitably results in a wide variety of differing pitch interval sizes that often do not "add up" to one another. In ET the pitch difference between each note is identical ("equal"), so no matter how you "add up" pitch intervals you always end up on one of the 12 notes per octave. But the interval between any one note and another is irrational, mathematically speaking. For example a standard "half step", or semitone, in JI is a pitch interval of 16/15, or 1.06666.... In other words given a pitch like, say, 440 hertz, one JI semitone higher would be 440 * (16/15) = 469.3333... hz. In ET there are twelve equally spaced semitones per octave (an octave being 2/1), so the pitch difference is the twelfth root of two, or approximately 1.05946309435929 (the number is irrational). And yes, this does mean that 12 consecutive JI semitones span more than an octave. Anyway, this is beyond the OP's question. I just wanted to point out the difference between the two systems. Art meets math. In I think the pages on JI and ET explain this fairly well. Otherwise, Jayron is quite right! Key doesn't much matter in ET, except for ease of playing on one instrument or another, or ease of singing for a particular person. Pfly (talk) 07:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I got my terms a bit confused. But my point was that using modern tunings (equal temperament was what I probably should have gone with), there is no difference sonicly between two different keys. Thanks for correcting my errors. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I can't help but reply on this topic! And the WP pages are not all that easy to read, I now see. Anyway, any excuse to talk about tuning math. :-) Pfly (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that is what I wanted to know basically. Thanks for the help!PabloClark (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Late thoughts. All the above might suggest that composers might choose a key they're happy with and only ever compose in that key. For example, a composer in the classical tradition might write 10 symphonies, all in C major. But in general, they don't do that. Many of the composers of the 19th-20th centuries, long after ET came into use, had quite definite ideas about what each of the keys "meant". F minor, for example, was often chosen to represent doom, fate etc, when such a piece would sound much the same to anyone who didn't have perfect pitch if written on any other minor key. Many of them were also synaesthetes, and different keys were strongly associated with different colours, although the colours varied from person to person. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And here's something I discovered yesterday while searching for something quite unrelated. Joachim Raff wrote a piece in 4 movements, in the keys F minor, A major, C minor and F major. But then he thought that FACF was too boring, so he rewrote the 3rd movement in C-sharp minor. Avoidance of boredom would be a strong factor in why composers choose varied keys to write in. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Old Computer Game

I remember playing this computer game a few years ago. All I remember about the game was that it was related to Number Munchers, it took place in high school called Shady Hawkins, it had a world called "the Great Gobble Desert" and that the opening sequence showed the number muncher solving a math problem, which asked how long it would take for a person traveling a certain speed to get to his destination, before he (the Muncher) gets abducted. I was wondering if anyone knew the name. Thanks in advance.

Americanfreedom (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Troggle Trouble Math. Kahran042 (talk) 07:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Songs from an unusual perspective

Dido's "Don't Leave Home" is written from the point of view of a drug that someone is addicted to. They Might Be Giants' "Birdhouse in Your Soul" is written from the point of view of a nightlight. Are there any other songs that are written from an unusual perspective or view point such as these? Dismas|^(talk) 10:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What about "I'm Just a Bill" from Schoolhouse Rock? Also:

Johnnie Fedora was lonely and stranded

in the window of the department store.

When lo and behold he was suddenly sold

and his heart became gay once more

Johnnie sang out like a robin,

too-ra-lay, too-ra-lye, too-ra-loo!

To strangers he'd come up a-bobbin'

"Oh! I thought you were someone I knew."

--"Johnnie Fedora and Alice Blue Bonnet" Pepso2 (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Judas Priest's "Electric Eye" seems to be written from the point of view of a spy satellite. It's always stuck out at me as a strange way to write a song. ~ mazca ^t|c 15:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Sex Pistols song "Bodies" has a chorus sung from the point of view of an aborted fetus talking to its mother. It probably doesn't get much better (or worse, depending on your POV) than that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Master of Puppets (song) is also written from the point of view of a drug (At least, the first, fast part is ("You're dedicated to how I'm killing you"). The second part ("Master, Master. Where're the dreams that I've been after?") isn't) --Evan ¤ Seeds 01:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In the same vein as "Bodies", The Decemberists' "Leslie Anne Levine" is from the point of view of a prematurely born child (or rather, her ghost) who apparently killed her mother in the same unfortunate event. Pink Floyd's "Welcome to the Machine" is from the point of view of the music industry. (Our article claims that it's a music industry executive, but honestly, that's kind of missing the point.) The next track, "Have a Cigar", follows in the same vein. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin (Chicago, IL April 4th)

I hear there is a concert on the 4th of April in Chicago with Led Zeppelin.... which members are going to be there; or is this a fake rumor.

Wyrmme (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've done SEVERAL searches on Google News, and found no information on a Led Zeppelin concert next week in Chicago. The band does not appear to have ANY tour plans in the immediate future, so this is likely either a false report, or you were confused between the actual Led Zeppelin and one of their hundreds of tribute bands that are out there. Maybe it was Dread Zeppelin you heard about? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Here you go...April 4th is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony. Jimmy Page is listed as a presenter, and these yearly ceremonies always involve some live performances. However, the hall is in Cleveland, Ohio, so I would probably rule out any Chicago activities. read about it here:[1] cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

U.S. failure in the World Baseball Classic

The United States has once again failed to win the World Baseball Classic. This is a surprise to me as in the UK people generally have the idea that baseball is only played in the United States (which is not true I know). However the U.S. has the largest league, the most amateur and professional players, and the highest population of the countries where baseball is popular. So why doesn't it dominate the competition? Possible reasons:

• The best Americans don't play (I can only name one current player, so I can't easily check this myself).
• American baseball players aren't actually the best in any case: for some reason, despite its scale and wealth the American baseball system doesn't develop talent as well as that in some other countries.
• The Americans don't feel as much pride in playing for their country as other players / aren't able to gel with unfamiliar teammates as quickly as their rivals / don't take the competition seriously / are the only team whose motivation is not enhanced by the opportunity to bring the United States down a peg or two.

Is the answer any or all of the above, or something else? Mowsbury (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The tournament structure may be partly blame. Although 16 teams were in the tournament, 3 of the U.S.'s 8 games were against Venezuela (which certainly has national pride motivation versus the U.S.) Also, one game the U.S. lost was against Puerto Rico, a part of the U.S. I notice that Canada which is also has teams in Major League Baseball had zero wins. Rmhermen (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. roster certainly included some big name players. Although the U.S. "has once again failed to win", the sample size at only two events is rather small. I also notice that every team except Cuba has at least one player and often the majority of their players playing in MLB major or farm teams. Rmhermen (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Mostly the third reason. Americans don't take the World Baseball Classic seriously. Many Americans think the WBC is a pointless waste of time. The only thing that really matters to us are official Major League baseball games and winning the World Series. To a lot of Americans, the WBC is just a silly little exhibition series where our number one priority is that nobody gets injured for when the real games start.

Also, the American Major Leagues already employ the best baseball players in the world. If doesn't matter if you're Japanese or from the Dominican Republic, if you can play, we will pay you millions of dollars and make you rich if you come to our leagues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems to me to encapsulate American attitudes: probably only an American could think that the fact that a player plays his "franchise" baseball in his (the American's) country makes that player's performances for his national team less significant. It's not an attitude I have ever heard expressed with regard to international footballers who play their club football/soccer in England. Mowsbury (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

probably only an American could think that... Well, that theory didn't last too long [2]. I take it you don't follow baseball too closely? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Canadian was not making the same point at all, he was simply disparaging the tournament itself, which is legitimate if the top players didn't all take part. Mowsbury (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That attitude is not expressed for England necessarily, but it is for Europe in general - for example, David Beckham was a curiosity, playing in LA with a bunch of crappy players, and it makes more sense when he plays with the best in Europe. (I think European players have this attitude too, which is why they never seem to take the game seriously when they are playing an exhibition against a North American team.) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As with the above, you are making a completely invalid analogy. It is Beckham's club performances that were disparaged while he was playing in a second rate league, not his national team performances that were disparaged while he was playing in the top league. Mowsbury (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone happen to know if Canadians (or least Toronto residents) feel the WBC is as pointless as we do? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we do, especially since some of the best Canadians were not allowed to, or chose not to, play. It was surprising that Canada lost to Italy, but otherwise everyone expected them to lose to Venezuela anyway. There was some excitement about the game against the US, which was better baseball than the Blue Jays usually play (and the Skydome had many more spectators than usual), but otherwise no one really cares. Another problem is the odd rules of the WBC - pitchers are allowed to throw only a certain number of pitches per game, for example, and there are some other rules that differ from the MLB standard. (This is in contrast to world hockey, where IIHF and NHL rules differ, but we take both very seriously!) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the US, and, while not a fan of professional sports, I think I would have at least heard about the WBC if it was considered important in the US. It obviously isn't. StuRat (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As someone who follows sports and has followed the 2009 World Baseball Classic, I feel it is appropriate to comment.

• Although the U.S. has the most recognized league, many players come from the / Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Japan, etc. Please see José Reyes (shortstop), Hanley Ramirez, Felix Hernandez, Bobby Abreu, and Daisuke Matsuzaka. / These players are considered as some of the best in Major League Baseball, and chose to play for their own national teams. / Many of the best players in the MLB are not american.
• Thus, the U.S. lost to Venezuela (by the mercy rule) and then / to Japan, who has many good players from their league and the MLB.
• Also, all 30 MLB teams have already started spring training, so, because / all the players on the U.S. national team are from the MLB, / they must be given permission by their own team to play for the U.S. / One example of this is Jeremy Guthrie, / who was asked by the Baltimore Orioles to return so he could get ready for the season.

Those are the primary reasons. The Reader who Writes (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Another thing to keep in mind is that despite the name, "World Baseball Classic", this is only the second time they've held this tournament. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I also am in the US and follow baseball very closely. It's only my opinion, but I and many of my baseball fan friends agree that the WBC is a waste of time. First of all, it is played during Spring Training for MLB. Regardless of where you are FROM, if you are part of a MLB team, there are many players who opted out of the WBC so they could focus on preparing for the upcoming MLB season. I realize that baseball is played very well and is popular in many parts of the world (predominantly Japan and Latin America). However, since many players at the top of their game in those areas still end up playing in MLB (for money or competition), many put the long MLB season ahead of a 2 week exhibition. Again, IMO, if people want world competition in baseball, they should state their case to the IOC.Brewfangrb (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the problems is the huge length of MBL season. MLB begins with a two month pre-season, a grueling 162 game regular season, an All Star Game and 2 rounds of playoffs and the World Series. As it stands, the WBC overlaps with the MLB pre-season and many players would rather get ready for the regular season with their regular teams than play in exhibition games. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The other issue is that many of the players that play in MLB are not American. To help Brits with understanding this, you could say "why does Britain have one of the best football league competitions in the world, yet can't seem to win a World Cup?" DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

One other key point: the Americans are not really a team, but just a collection of players, some stars, some not. They play with a lack of cohesion that is very noticeable when compared to the Japanese or Koreans, whose players have played together many times in other competitions. Because individual match-ups are so prominent in baseball, people tend to forget that it's a team sport, but the team aspect comes through clearly in a competition like the World Baseball Classic where highly-cohesive teams like the Dutch and the Koreans outperform expectations, and collections of stars like the Americans, Dominicans (and to some extent) the Canadians, whose roster construction is aphazard and who have not had time to train together, disappoint. That said, the tournament's TV ratings were up compared to 2006 and there's hope that it will grow in popularity, especially if the Americans make it a national priority to win the thing for once. --Xuxl (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious: where, precisely, in the WBC did the "lack of cohesion" come into play? Baseball is almost exclusively a series of individual exercises, and what team collaborations exist (turning double plays, for example) are ingrained and ritualized behavior to the extent that I doubt the competitive advantage lies there. — Lomn 20:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Double plays don't just happen; they need to be practiced, and the various infield members knowing one another well helps a lot. Same thing for a lot of other defensive plays, where, for example, an outfielder needs to know where his cutoff man will be, how the outfielder playing next to him will back him up, etc, etc. These are the sorts of things that practicing together help to establish. On offense, putting on plays like the hit and run, sacrifice bunt, stolen bases, etc also require teammates to know eachother well. Because the Americans had hardly ever played together, they were at a disadvantage in these phases of the game and played a very passive style. Roster construction was another critical matter: the US team was full of one-position players, which greatly reduced mangerial flexibility; as a result, the one versatile player they had, Mark DeRosa, had to be used in all sorts of critical situations in which he would not necessarily have been the best choice, and in another case catcher Brian McCann had to play the outfield. Another example: the US pitching staff had four starters and a bunch of short relievers - closers and set-up men - who could only pitch one inning. No long relievers, no swingmen. That's a big disadvantage in a tournament where strict pitch counts are in effect. None of these things by themselves are huge, but taken together, against top caliber opposition, it puts the US at a disadvantage in spite of the high level of talent on the team. --Xuxl (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Those aren't the examples I requested:

• Double plays take practice, yes -- but they're largely similar. Did the US commit significantly more errors than other teams in the execution of double plays? If not, it's not an issue of team chemistry.
• Knowing when to back up a player -- same thing. It's effectively set in stone. Did poor execution force significantly more errors, or did it not?
• Hit-and-runs, etc, are generally signaled, not executed spontaneously. At that point, either the batter hits the ball or he does not. The baserunner need not "gel" nor anything else. Unless the team repeatedly missed signals (and who can say?), this is not evidence of lack of cohesion.
• Roster construction is not a matter of team cohesion. Bad team assembly, perhaps, but no (reasonable) amount of practice will fix this. A team of all first basemen will perform badly whether they practice for a day or for a year.

So again, team cohesion? Where it mattered? I don't buy it. — Lomn 22:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)