Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2013 May 29

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.

May 29

At which tempo should a (classical) piano piece be played if it does not include a tempo indication?

For example, the Aria of the Goldberg Variations. Wilhelm Kempff played this at 80 BPM, while Kimiko Ishizaka played at 40 BPM. At which tempo am I supposed to play the above mentioned piece? 60 BPM? Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a very broad and complex question, one for which there is no one-size-fits-all answer.

In Bach's time, composers did not generally provide any tempo indications on their scores. Tempo was governed by the performer's personal concept of the piece, subject to certain understood conventions. For example, in The Well-Tempered Clavier, he specifies Andante and Largo for Prelude and Fugue No. 24 of Book I, [Edit: and Allegro for Prelude No. 24 of Book II - thanks to User:Double sharp] but afaik for all the other 47 46 preludes and fugues it's up to the performer [Edit: as guided by the editor]. And even Andante and Largo are hardly metronomically rigorous instructions - there's a spectrum of possibilities within each expression. Musicians were given far more licence to interpret and embellish the music than was the case in later eras - in fact, they were expected to provide their own embellishments and variations within a piece, in a way that later came to be frowned upon (although the "historically informed performance practice" movement has made much headway of recent times). This explains the wide discrepancy between Kempff's and Ishizaka's tempi.

As for the Aria of the Goldbergs, something like this may be of interest, but it costs $ to access more than the front page.

For what it's worth, in my edition of the Goldbergs, by Ralph Kirkpatrick, he provides suggested tempi for all the variations, and he indicates 56 for the Aria. But he also says of his suggestions:

• "These may vary, however, according to the instrument and acoustical conditions, and of course according to the phrasing chosen - even, I fear, according to the metronome! The tempo should be maintained very strictly within each variation. ... For slow movements we should make some exceptions to the above remarks, because there the expression frequently depends upon a certain flexibility of small notes within the frame of the main beats. However, one of the greatest dangers in tempo rubato is that slight rhythmic fluctuations which were originally sincere and inspired by perfect taste, in the course of the successive imitations which a professional performer is likely to make of his first good conception and performance become mannered and exaggerated, having lost some of their original significance, resembling the affected movements of a bad dancer. ... The metronome is only a mechanical means of assistance and can in no way take the place of real feeling for tempo, which is a constant inner sense of the rhythmical relationship of each part to the whole. The acquisition of such a sense of tempo may be aided in practice by singing a rhythmic motive from one part of a piece while playing another". And much more in similar vein.

I hope that's of some help. A music teacher should be able to tell you much more, but each teacher will have their own ideas of the tempo of any given piece. What's Allegro to one teacher may sound like Vivace to another.

My only personal advice it to let your own concept of the feeling of the music guide your interpretation. Also, Kirkpatrick was on the money about singing the music. Actually sing or hum the melodies of your pieces out loud, with feeling, and this will give you a very accurate idea of the emotional framework that works for you, and that will tell you how fast or slow to play them. This will vary from day to day as your moods change and ideas mature; no performance is ever identical to another, not even by the same performer, and there's no point in trying. The performer is the agent through which the music is expressed; but s/he is not a machine or a computer, s/he is a human, and humans change continuously. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Prelude 24 of Book II of the WTC is Allegro, BTW. Double sharp (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Quite so. I've amended my post. Thanks-- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If you google on the topic you can find many studies, theories, essays, etc. Googling Bach "unmarked tempo" (perhaps not the best search terms!) quickly turned up book-length study, On Bach's Rhythm and Tempo. Chapter 7 focuses on the Goldberg Variations, or at least uses it as a means to study more general tempo questions—tempo markings are absent from most music from and before the Baroque era, I believe. I've heard wildly different tempo interpretations of many of Bach's works, and other Baroque-and-earlier works (Handel's Water Music comes to mind). That studied I linked gives two tempo suggestions for the Goldberg Aria (as part of the study) both of which closely agree with Kirkpatrick (57.6 and 60 bpm). Personally, I like playing the Goldbergs (at least the easier variations!), and tend to play at tempos reflecting my mood—sometimes quite slow, sometimes fast (JackofOz said something like this too). One of the things I love about Bach is how well his music "works" over a wide range of tempos. I think in some recordings of the Goldbergs the "first" Aria is played a bit faster and more upbeat than the final ending repeat of it. When I play the "whole work" (that is, the 20-30% of it I can manage to struggle through) I tend to do the same thing. It always feels like the final Aria should be a bit slower and somehow tender. Pfly (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The famous movie star who had a totally different career before?

I am trying to transfer my career within the same company.

While I am preparing the interview, I would like to give an example of famous movie star who had a totally different career before.

Could you give me some expaples with the conditions below?

1. One who is very famous so everybody can recongnise just by hearing his/her name. 2. One who had shown excellent performance recently(Academy Awards, Box Office, etc) 3. One who had a successful career before — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeonjhy (talk • contribs) 04:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

C. Aubrey Smith might have qualified, in his time period. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

John Houseman had a successful career as a producer and writer and then he had a second career as an award winning actor. MarnetteD | Talk 05:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Harrison Ford was a failed actor and carpenter when he was "discovered" by George Lucas while working on his home. Not a movie star, but Rod Stewart apparently had some promise as a football (soccer) player, and pursued a professional career as an athlete before becoming a musician. Ben Stein was a successful lawyer and speechwriter before becoming an actor. John Hughes specifically cast him as the boring teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off because he had no acting experience and was boring as hell; exactly what the role called for. He parlayed that into a rather successful acting career. R. Lee Ermey had a successful military career as a Marine drill sergeant, before a few bit parts as military-types brought him to the attention of Stanley Kubrick, who cast him as a Marine drill sergeant in Full Metal Jacket; a long film career followed. Fred Thompson is a very recognizable character actor who has also had a parallel career in law and politics, switching between the two over the years. James Cagney was a successful amateur boxer and minor league baseball player before making the jump to acting. Just some that jumped into my head. --Jayron32 05:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Other examples: Gene Hackman and Alan Rickman. Or you could switch it up and invoke Ronald Reagan. --Lockley (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

What did Gene Hackman do? Other than the fairly normal (for his generation) post High School tour in the military, it looks like he's always been an actor. --Jayron32 11:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Phil Hartman designed several album covers before his acting career. Dismas|^(talk) 07:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

O. J. Simpson, Jim Brown, Steven Seagal and Bruce Lee. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Johnny Weissmuller; Chuck Connors; Johnny Berardino; Sonja Henie --Xuxl (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has changed careers 3 times and been very successful in each. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Lexington Steele. Perfect reference for a job interview, I promise. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

And his brother, Remington Steele ? StuRat (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Some more (and some already mentioned) under late bloomer, subsection "Acting". Another one, perhaps not a "star", but a face that absolutely needed to be put on screen, was Joe Viterelli. --- Sluzzelin talk 14:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Audie Murphy had a moderately successful movie and singing career, but is perhaps better known as one of the most famous and decorated American combat soldiers of World War II. Astronaut (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Tag scenes in two episodes of The Brady Bunch

I noticed that the first episode of the series, "The Honeymoon", and the episode "Greg Gets Grounded", do not have a tag scene. But I have heard some say they remember seeing tag scenes, but they got lost when different edits were made for syndication. I have heard some claim that the tag scene of "The Honeymoon" had Carol and Mike talking to each other in their hotel room, and "Greg Gets Grounded" having Bobby and Peter messing around watching their frogs jump. I do not remember tag scenes in those episodes and do not believe they had them, just like the article says. Can anyone confirm whether these scenes existed or not? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Was there an epilogue or did these people remember incorrectly? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't directly answer, but wasn't "The Honeymoon" the series pilot ? If so, that seemed to be made well in advance of the rest of the series, judging by the ages of the kids, and it's quite common for them to rework the pilot for later syndication, which might include changing the title sequence, credits, etc., and also editing it down a bit (even if the slot was the same length in each case, they would likely be able to fill it with more ads once it was a "proven commodity"). StuRat (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"The Honeymoon" was the pilot. I heard someone claim the alleged epilogue in "The Honeymoon" supposedly has Carol and Mike in their hotel room talking about the wedding and new things to come. The one that supposedly was in "Greg Gets Grounded" has Bobby and Peter watching their frogs jump in their back yard and talking about how poorly their frogs did in the contest. I am not sure if these claims that epilogues existed in these two episodes are true. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The New Adventures of Speed Racer - The Mutants

I remember watching The New Adventures of Speed Racer cartoon series years ago when I was little, but I can't remember much of it now. From what I can remember there was a story about mutants who lived in a big city in the future that travelled back in time. Does anyone know anymore about that storyline or about the mutants, the mutant city, etc. 194.74.238.137 (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There appears to have been a three-episode arc in at the end of the only season of New Adventures of Speed Racer in 1993: "Dawn of the Mutants", "Return to the Future" and "Attack from the Future". Someone has uploaded all the episodes to YouTube, but they are dubbed in Russian so I can't work out much of the story. --Canley (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I Am A Gamer

In the viral video "I Am A Gamer" [1], what is TheGamersCave referring to when he says "pawning my limbs to afford an 18 hour car ride?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.136.229 (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The context is a video of someone explaining why they find gaming in many ways more satisfying and liberating than real life, which he portrays in the video as expensive, demanding and restricting. The full quote is I've always enjoyed an adventure, but I hated pawning my limbs... etc. He appears to be saying that real-life adventures involve painful expense and arduous travel, compared to the cheap instant gratification of adventures in the gaming world. "Pawning my limbs" is hyperbole. This is only my interpretation, and a better-sourced explanation may come along. - Karenjc 19:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That'd be my interpretation as well, a variant of "I'd give my right arm" (left for the more sinister among us). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd think a gamer would be afraid that giving his right arm would negatively affect his dexterity. :-) StuRat (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I've also heard the variation "I'd give an arm and a leg to be able to ...". StuRat (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"18 hour car ride" is a very peculiar choice of words. I wondered whether it was a video game or other sort of pop culture reference. An 18 hour car ride does not strike me as any sort of adventure. 205.156.136.229 (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the car ride itself is the adventure; the idea is that you must travel long distances to remote places to access real-life adventures, whereas gaming offers instant access to adventure without the travel. 18-hour car ride (or plane trip, indeed) is probably more hyperbole; it certainly is an odd figure to choose but maybe the idea is that you travel from first light until you fall into bed exhausted? I did wonder about a pop culture reference, but I can't find one. - Karenjc 19:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Lucas Oil Stadium field dimensions

Indoor stadiums such as the Metrodome in Minnesota and the Louisiana Superdome have accommodated both baseball and football. The new Vikings stadium is supposed to serve those two sports, also. If all the seating possible were pushed back at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis, could a baseball field with dimensions of 300 feet down the lines and 390 to center be fitted? And, knowing that some other indoor stadiums also include baseball, is there any possibility of damage to Lucas Oil from playing baseball there?

John D. Ferry <email redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.20.23.2 (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I've removed your email address to protect it from spammers; per the guidelines at the top of the page, off-Wiki contact details should not be published here and all replies to your question will appear on this page. - Karenjc 19:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Define "damage". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Why would the new Vikings stadium be designed to accommodate baseball when Target Field is only three years old? The trend is for sport-specific stadiums, not for stadiums that accommodate both sports. O.co Coliseum is the only remaining stadium that hosts both baseball and football. RNealK (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AFAIK, Vikings Stadium is not configurable for baseball. The Minnesota Twins already play in Target Field, which is only 3 years old. Multipurpose stadiums are an historical artifact of the 1960s-70s. They simply don't build them any more. While a handful of baseball/football stadiums still exist, only O.co Coliseum and the Rogers Centre are still used for two sports. The remaining "white ashtray" stadiums left are only still used for football, and most are being replaced: Candlestick Park is being replaced in 2014, The Murph has no firm date to be replaced, but discussions are under way to replace it with a New Chargers Stadium. Sun Life Stadium was originally a football only stadium, reconfigured as a two-sport stadium, and has returned to football only use. Other than some oddball events, like when they try to shoehorn a football field into an MLB stadium for the odd college bowl game, there just is no more sharing of stadiums by baseball and football teams, and there are no plans to do so. The AAA Indianapolis Indians play in Victory Field. If Indianapolis got an MLB team, they would either expand that stadium or build a new baseball-only stadium. --Jayron32 22:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It's possible they've included a baseball layout for a number of reasons, one of which would be to accommodate the Gophers, who often play games in March, which would typically not be practical at Target Field or at their own outdoor field, Siebert Field (which is being rebuilt). The Gophers played a game or two at Target Field when it first opened, but most of their games have been at the Metrodome for several years now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I had a long response written about the problems with configuring a football-only stadium for baseball, but it looks like the stadium WILL be configurable for baseball. See [2] which states that it will be exactly that, expressly to host NCAA baseball events. To be fair, baseball has been put into football stadiums (and visa-versa) for a long time. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, Exhibition Stadium, etc. For various reasons, a football stadium is a crappy place to watch a baseball game (the seats are mostly oriented wrong), but it's been done many times before, and it's not really impossible. --Jayron32 02:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The LA Coliseum was a special worst-case scenario. It's hard to believe MLB put up with that abomination for four seasons. But as Danny Kaye indicates in his song about the Dodgers, it was about money. Going the other direction, Wrigley Field had a football field shoehorned into it for 50 years, with a special ground rule slicing off a corner of the south end zone, as the dugout got in the way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I never understood why the Bears played in Wrigley Field all of those years; Soldier Field is nearly as old as Wrigley, and was just sitting there. It became the de-facto big game home stadium for Notre Dame football, but it seems really incongruous that the Bears would choose to wedge themselves in a stadium that couldn't even accommodate a regulation football field, when the city already had a stadium that could. And the Cardinals played at Commiskey Park over that same time period. A city with two football teams, a perfectly good football stadium, and neither used it for 30+ years. --Jayron32 03:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably because of a very favorable rental deal. In fact, what forced the Bears to move was that the NFL passed a rule that every stadium had to seat at least 50,000, and even with the east stand and extra folding chairs in the box seats area, the Bears could only squeeze about 47 or 48,000 in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The Patriots were forced to build Foxboro Stadium for the same reason. The Boston Metro area had no stadiums that had the proper seating capacity; the team was something of a vagabond during its AFL (and first NFL) season; playing games at various venues around Boston from year to year, including 5 years at Fenway Park. When the league instituted its rule in 1970, the Pats had a stadium deal in Boston ready to go, with Mayor Kevin White on board, but the City Council nuked it, and the Pats were forced to build a barebones stadium in some swampland halfway to Providence to keep the team in New England and meet the league's new minimum requirements (technically, I believe that the Yale Bowl was big enough, but the team never seriously considered leaving the Boston Metro area at the time). The team was so upset at the Boston City Council that they dropped the "Boston" from their name. --Jayron32 05:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

My Little Pony Equestria Girls

1.Is My Little Pony Equestria Girls for children like My Little Pony Friendship is Magic and what is this movie rated?184.20.209.241 (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

A search of the MPAA website does not indicate a film by this name. Either the film has yet to be rated, or it may be released without a rating. I would presume the target audience for the film is the same for the series upon which it is based, meaning young girls and college-age men. --McDoobAU93 23:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Both Wikipedia and IMDB have articles about the film: My Little Pony: Equestria Girls for the Wikipedia article and Here for the IMDB article. The film has not yet been assigned a rating by the MPAA, or as far as I can tell, any other national film rating agency. You can read either of those pages to decide for yourself whether or not the film would be appropriate for your children. --Jayron32 00:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't this show it is rated G? www.marketstreetcinema.net/?p=movie&id=My_Little_Pony_Equestria_Girls184.20.209.241 (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I assume you can read that link as well as the rest of us. --Jayron32 13:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

So the movie is rated G right?169.244.49.209 (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No one can add any knowledge to answer your question that has not already been provided by the links above, as well as the link you yourself have given us. --Jayron32 18:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there's no reason to believe that it won't be; and there is absolutely no reliable evidence to suggest that it will not be rated G. --Yellow1996 (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)