Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/February 2011

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Cello Suite 1 in G Prelude by J S Bach

[edit]
Bach's Cello Suite #1 (Bwv1007), 1st movement - Prelude
Performed by John Michel
Bach's Cello Suite #1 (Bwv1007), 2nd movement - Allemande
Performed by John Michel
Bach's Cello Suite #1 (Bwv1007), 3rd movement - Courante
Performed by John Michel
Bach's Cello Suite #1 (Bwv1007), 4th movement - Sarabande
Performed by John Michel
Bach's Cello Suite #1 (Bwv1007), 5th movement - Minuets
Performed by John Michel
Bach's Cello Suite #1 (Bwv1007), 6th movement - Gigue
Performed by John Michel
Problems playing these files? See media help.

This is a recording by John Michel of J. S. Bach's Cello Suite 1 in G Prelude. It was suggested for nomination by Raul654, who handled the OTRS ticket for this and several other pieces performed by John Michel. This file is already a featured sound on Spanish Wikipedia, was a Commons media of the day, and is used in the articles Cello and Cello Suites (Bach) on English Wikipedia. Without further ado...

Promoted all —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 00:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Satie - Gnossienne

[edit]
Satie_-_Gnossienne_1.ogg
Satie's first Gnossienne, performed by the uploader, La Pianista
Gnossienne 2 (Satie).ogg
Satie's second Gnossienne, performed by the uploader, La Pianista
Gnossienne 3 (Satie).ogg
Satie's third Gnossienne, performed by the uploader, La Pianista

It sounds good, appears in Gnossiennes (Satie), and was uploaded by La Pianista.

  • Nominate and support. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All As with just about everything I've heard of La Pianista, this is excellent on the quality front. As to the encyclopedic value, these headline the article, not surprisingly, on the Gnossiennes. My one concern is with volume, but that is a minor concern since I test at 50% volume and could hear everything. It's just not quite as loud as other noms. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All as uploader. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 05:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural issue: I believe for the performer herself to vote "Support" involves a significant conflict of interest. Such a vote should be struck, and indeed we need to write into the instructions that this will always be the case. And I have never thought the nominator's vote should count in the perilously small requirement of three votes. Having said that, I will support this nomination (weakly). I have no score of the work in front of me, but I'm wondering whether there are pedal markings. There seems to be a lot of pedalling, and I'm unsure the composer anticipated the amount of blurring that results. I note, also, that the room acoustic is pretty live, which doesn't help (just a little drier would be my choice—certainly for the Beethoven on your user page). In a few places the effect is a little harsh and the dream-like quality is lost to a hard-edged sound; the piano itself is on the wooden side. (What type of piano is it?) You might experiment next time with miking that is not quite so close; a less boomy environment would make this easier. Some of the files have a second or two of noise at the beginning, which would not have been too hard to edit out ... or is this a carry-over artefact of splitting a single rendition into multiple files? Let's hear more from La Pianista, but the tweaking of the audio-engineering and careful attention to touch and pedalling would be good. Tony (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: A discussion on this issue has been raised in the talk page of FSC. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all. Great performance, thank you for your contribution La Pianista. A bit of extraneous noise, but not enough for me to oppose. Is that the click of the pedal on the floor I keep hearing? If so, you may try a small rug or something underneath. But overall, great work. Jujutacular talk 22:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1-3 and Oppose 4-7 - I think the quality meets requirements, but 4- 7 where published between 1923 and 2003 and are therefore copyrighted in the USA. Zginder 2011-01-08T18:15Z (UTC)
    • I saw that too, except for the fact that these are found works. They might have only been recently discovered and published, but clearly they were created over 100 years ago. The person that released them has no possible legal claim to them, as the works themselves became public domain. I'll try to find a page with policy to clear this up, but I believe all seven are PD. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I the USA until 1976 unpublished works had infinite common law/state law copyright. When congress extended copyright to unpublished works they gave until 2003 for these works to be published and for those that were copyright does not expire until 2048. Zginder 2011-01-09T05:40Z (UTC)
        • Well, my reading of the laws is terribly confusing. It seems to me that because this was composed in France, federal law supersedes state law in this case, however the federal laws are conflicting. Commons says "If published before 1978, the work is subject to the rules for works published before 1978. Because the common law copyright on unpublished works was perpetual, there were no unpublished works in the public domain back then, and thus the work was eligible to copyright when published." and refers me to another section that says that if it was published without a copyright notice "From 1923 to 1977: in the public domain" but with a copyright notice "From 1964 to 1977: not in the public domain for some time to come; copyright expires 95 years after the original publication." The issue is that there is no indication of which one applies. Someone needs to figure out if copyrights were appied for in 1968 when 4-6 were released. 7 was released in 2001, so that is out regardless. Sigh what a mess. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretfully, I must inform you all that Gnossiennes 4-7 are unequivicobally not within the public domain. They exist in a legal web of competing copyright laws, and had they been discovered a few years later, they would be PD, but sadly, they are under copyright at the moment. Strangely, there is no one with a valid legal claim to them that I can find, but I'm sure that the collector that found the music and the publishers that reproduced and distributed the sheet music would argue that point. Therefore, I leave a not to the closers below. I wish it were not so. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all Well played and the sound is excellent. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closers: Gnossiennes 1, 2, and 3 can be promoted. Gnossiennes 4, 5, 6, and 7 are ineligible for promotion.



Promoted all (That is, 1-3) --Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elfentanz by David Popper

[edit]
1881 – Elfentanz
Elfentanz (Dance of the Elves), Op. 39, by composer David Popper. Performed by Hans Goldstein (cello) and Mellicia Straaf (piano)

This is rather interesting piece, composed by David Popper, which I am led to believe is a perpetuum mobile using the spiccato technique for the cello. It appears in all four of the articles I just linked to, and is well executed, free use, and... well... just sounds fun.

The Pandora Records site also accepts similarly-licensed works by others. According to http://pan.zipcon.net/NEWS-FEB26-10.html 2010 is correct, and it was apparently performed in Illinois Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted --Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Flute Overture

[edit]
Magic Flute Overture
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's The Magic Flute, performed live by the 2006 Bangkok Opera

Tony brought this to my attention, and I do believe he found a gem in the rough in this one. It's a high quality recording, appears in The Magic Flute and Bangkok Opera, and shockingly enough, it's free use. Without further ado, I present this FSC.

  • Nominate and Support: Sven Manguard Wha? 03:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - gorgeous sound quality, acoustic, and especial kudos to the strings' articulation. A few tuning issues for the brass in the beginning (I may be simply hearing things), but overall, a beautiful performance. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 03:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Jujutacular talk 03:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments. (In view of my strong stand about conflict of interest, since I brought this file to Sven's attention I won't formally vote.) La Pianista's concern had already struck me. Yes, damn pity they don't strike the chords with the precision they deserve; yep, the brass and winds are almost in tune. But what impressed me were the fast, fugal sections: it's brave to take them this fast, and again they're let down in a few places by the lack of brass ensemble (only one noticeably bum chord, and regrettably they're too loud for the strings in couple of places; heck, their parts are easy by comparison—those players deserved a punishment rehearsal by themselves before the big night). The string and wind parts are challenging to play, so the combined work of the players and the conductor should be congratulated. Clearly there are some good string players in Thailand. Let's remember, also, that this was a live performance—no luxury of multiple takes. [Aside: Please note that the last of those quick repeated notes in the fast fugue subject—the sforzando (stabbed loud suddenly, sticks out)—represents evil. No one else has worked this out, he boasts. After the curtain opens, the off-beat stabbed notes, now crotchets, represent the swishing of the dragon's tail as it pursues the hero Tamino; when the three ladies are singing, Mozart gives us the first hint that they're not the saviours they purport to be by bringing back this off-beat sforzando in the accompanimental texture for about 10 seconds. Cute.] Tony (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but I have to go on the record here and say that seems a tad absurd. If you didn't support it, you wouldn't have brought it to my attention. It's common practice for the nominator's support to be counted as a support, especially since you had no part in the creation or restoration of this, it's a "found" nomination. In short, I fail to see any conflict of interest here. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sven, that is completely not the point: this process, sadly, promotes on the numbers. When two people are implicated in the nomination process, their two votes overwhelm the rather small requirement for numbers. I do not think nominators should vote, although the rules currently encourage this. Tony (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose good quality recording and a fine performance undermined for me by the brass section (I agree with Tony, they should have had a punishment rehearsal before the big night). I've been thinking about how to judge musical performance as part of an FSC process, and on this occasion I feel I have to jump in this direction. A shame. Support Changed my mind as per talk page - performance is good overall, and that while the brass is a bit of a worry I don't think this should be denied featured status for that. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This is miles above other symphonic works available under a free licence, and hence is amongst Wikipedia's best audio material. Getting too hung up over relatively minor flaws, when the performance overall is this good, is counterproductive, in my opinion. Further, since the brass (as a whole) is relatively low compared to at least the top couple parts of the string sections, it might even be possible to do a subtle digital rebalance of the brass and strings where needed, if someone has appropriate software (Audacity won't cut it here, methinks). Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Magic Flute Overture.ogg --(X! · talk)  · @899  ·  20:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swansong by Josh Woodward

[edit]
2009 – Swansong
"Swansong", the winning song in the Ubuntu 10.10 Free Culture Showcase, written and performed by Josh Woodward.

The Ashes nomination was withdrawn until the article itself could be beefed up with sources and content. This song, however, appears on the article for Josh Woodward himself, and achieved notability by being selected as part of the Ubuntu 10.10 Free Culture Showcase.

I have used Ubuntu in the past, although I didn't know about this competition they were running. It seems to be a big deal (at least in terms of linux OSes) and notable for that reason. I'd be wary of adding any more tracks by this artist until he became more notable for other reasons (a hit single, major signing to a record label, etc).Major Bloodnok (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd certainly say that the songs should be uploaded and used in articles on the albums. I agree we should be cautions about over-promoting one artist of relatively low notability, but I would say if any of his songs end up illustrating articles not related to him - for instance, ones on a certain style of music - and remained stable there, that those songs would be featurable. Also, if he does covers of any public domain songs, those might be featurable as well. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Making it to the Ubuntu 10.10 Free Culture Showcase is no small feat. Add to the fact that (correct me if I'm wrong) little to no featured sounds of this genre (or any freely licensed songs for that matter), this is definitely a good pick. --haha169 (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Josh Woodward - Swansong.ogg --(X! · talk)  · @138  ·  02:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grace and Beauty

[edit]
1909 – Grace and Beauty
Grace and Beauty, by ragtime composer James Scott. Performed by Adam Cuerden on a synthesized piano.
Alt
New piano sound by Jujutacular from Adam's MIDI sequence

I think this came out quite well, in the end. It's synthesized, but that has the advantage that I could edit the performance and make sure it's note-perfect, while making sure it still sounded like an actual human performance. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are some tricks you can use, though I'm not sure I could explain them, at least without the scores. They're just the things that sound right to me. Maybe I should put up the edited score for Frog Legs Rag when I finish the revision of it.
Suffice it to say, while you can humanize a MIDI, it takes about four or five times longer than just inputting the score. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Promoted James Scott, Grace and Beauty 2.ogg --Sven Manguard Wha? 04:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Mozart - Piano Sonata No. 14.ogg

[edit]
Mozart - Molto Allegro from Piano Sonata No. 14, K. 457
First movement of the C minor piano sonata by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, composed in 1784 and performed in 2010 by Wikipedia user La Pianista

Recorded the same day as the Chopin nomination below. Unfortunately the second and third movements are lost - I recorded those in a separate session. Hopefully a single movement from the work still has a shot at FS.

  • Nominate and support. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 06:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose—Sorry, there are some very good things about this performance, and it's probably good enough to include in an article for the time being. Good tempo. Some nice articulation. Pedal almost too much in a few fast passages. But why don't you re-record it? It's so close. Here are some points.
  1. 5 s: why is the subsequent diminished 7th chord softer (much softer) than the opening tonic chord in the previous part of the bar? The dim 7 chord is the first departure, more unstable harmonically. Just because it ends a phrase doesn't mean it should be softer; I'd be inclined to treat it similarly to i. This issue is repeated at the end of the second phrase, where there's actually a return to i. Lower volume is counter to the circular harmonic scheme here, I believe. (In the recap, this dynamic issue is less obvious; in the same places, though, you hold onto the last chord of each phrase, where I think your initial treatment of effortlessly clipping them was more natural.) More generally, in a few places your dynamic control zooms in and out in a distracting way. Perhaps it's that I'm used to hearing music of this period played without dynamic fuss.
  2. Around 18–22 s: more rhythmic control needed in the placement of the chords. And more generally, sometimes you start a new phrase/idea just a little prematurely, which gives a nervous feel to it (2:34.5 s is one obvious example: we trip over it).
  3. 24.5 s: wrong note. (Just a tech. point: is it nowadays easy to graft the right note on from a different take?)
  4. Some lovely lyrical bits in the recap before 3 m.
  5. The ending, after 4 m, is lovely. Except that IMO your second-last chord could have been given appropriate weight by coming just a teensy weensy later.

Finally, I'm going to be very rude and make a specific technical suggestion, since I'd really like you to make us proud by being able to showcase WPians' work. Your left hand is weaker than your right hand; in particular, you need to focus on avoiding the occasional lack of coordination between the hands (I've noticed this elsewhere, too). One good exercise is to play a C major contrary motion scale, but not the usual way: instead, make the hands ever so slightly out of phase with each other (try right-hand notes coming a little before, and make the disjuncture exactly the same throughout). Record it after a while and look at the fine control on the ogg diagram. PS ensure that you have a high degree of muscular relaxation as you play such an exercise: the brain must lead, not the muscles.

Admirable and promising, all the same. Tony (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, Tony. And I also anticipated such comments - I wasn't all too sure that this was FS material, either. But I've at the same time felt the impulse to at least respond to your comments.
I'm not capable of re-recording these because the hall is tightly scheduled, and I don't really have the time to polish up old rep, since I have lots of new repertoire and competitions coming up this semester.
  1. As much as I respect your personal opinion, how does this point relate to FS? I understand your issue with pedaling and coordination, but don't you think dynamic treatment in Mozart is more up to personal taste? I would better accept your argument if, for example, I had made some huge stylistic error, like using exaggerated rubato or pedaling. But this style of Classicism isn't quite as unorthodox; imho, it makes for a more colorful and lively Mozart.
I see no difference between this and exaggerated rubato or pedalling. To me, it's a matter of harmonic and periodic logic. The departure from the tonic requires at least as much emphasis as the stable tonic itself. This is the reasoning behind giving greater emphasis to a suspension than to its resolution (which at first seemed counterintuitive to me). Tony (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I completely agree. I cringe every time I hear them.
  2. I know it's easy, but I have an ethical issue with it. I refrain from any post-recording editing, period. I love the audience and hate the sterility of recording; this is one of the few times that I've uploaded a recording that wasn't live.
  3. Again, how does this relate to FS? From my perspective, playing the chord in time only emphasizes the suddenness of the last c minor chord, like the last twitches of a freshly dead corpse well, it's descriptive :p.
Withdrawing my comment about the second-last chord, on relistening. Tony (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My technique has improved since then - or, at least, I hope it has. I was fifteen years old at the time and very nervous. If you listen to the Beethoven, which is a little more recent, you'll hear that the quality of coordination has improved. I am familiar with relaxation and basic piano technique and do make use of them regularly. Unfortunately, I'm only human. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 08:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Responses on La Pianista's talk page. Tony (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. I've read the comments above and while I can hear the odd mis-phrase I'm not convinced that this is enough to prevent it from being FS. I don't think the fact it's only one movement affects that either, at least for the moment. Very well played (especially given La Pianista's age when recording it) and a great demonstration of a piece by a very well-known composer. Therefore Support. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My focus is a bit different from Tony's - his is on perfection, but, coming at this from a singing background, I've known far too many recordings that are note-perfect, and completely lacking in any life or understanding of the feel of the piece. While there are flaws, I think that they're minor and do not detract unduly, but the expression and feel of the piece are there. While I can sense a bit of nervousness in the performance, it fits the piece's mood. Hence, I feel I can Support. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Withdrawn —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 15:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalleria Rusticana

[edit]
1890 – Cavalleria rusticana: Intermezzo Sinfonico
An orchestral piece from "Cavalleria rusticana", a one-act opera by Pietro Mascagni. Performed by the Fulda Symphonic Orchestra in 2002.

I've listened to this a couple times, and, although the applause was hugely indulgent of them to leave in (3 minutes of applause in a 6 minute recording?!), it's a very good recording, with good balance and, although I'm not an expert on Cavalleria rusticana, I don't hear any really obvious problems, though I found a few minor quibbles when I really went searching for them (a chair noise near the start, that sort of thing). An excellent recording of the emotional music of verisimo opera.

If someone can losslessly trim oggs, I'd suggest that trimming right before the start of the applause (you always want to let instruments "ring" for a couple seconds) would probably be wise.



Promoted Pietro Mascagni - Cavalleria Rusticana - Intermezzo Sinfonico.ogg --(X! · talk)  · @132  ·  02:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

La plus que lente

[edit]
1910 – La plus que lente
Claude Debussy's La plus que lente, his parody and epitome of the slow waltz. Performed by Wikipedian La Pianista in 2010.

It's a superb performance by a Wikipedian. Exactly what Featured sounds should celebrate. =)



Promoted File:La Plus Que Lente.ogg --(X! · talk)  · @147  ·  02:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Till We Meet Again

[edit]
Till We Meet Again
A 1919 performance by the Nicholas Orlandos Orchestra of the 1918 song Till We Meet Again, written by Richard A. Whiting with lyrics by Raymond B. Egan.

Found this in the good old Internet Archives, sounded rather good, and not like anything else I remember from FS (although I haven't listened to every FS, so it is possible there are similar things around.) This was, at the time, considered popular music, which we don't have much of on Wikipedia. I donno, maybe this is FS quality, maybe it isn't. I certainly can't hear anything wrong with it, however as we all know, that doesn't say much.

--Withdrawn and thus Not Promoted Sven Manguard Wha? 04:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take Me Out to the Ball Game

[edit]
1908 – Take Me Out to the Ball Game
"Take Me Out to the Ball Game", by Jack Norworth and Albert Von Tilzer, is a Tin Pan Alley waltz song which became the unofficial anthem of baseball. This version was sung by Edward Meeker for Edison Records in September 1908, and is one of the first recordings of the song.

Very obvious historical significance, at least from an American standpoint. Best quality possible from a recording from that time period, ripped from a 78 RPM gramophone recording.

Is this really a 78RPM gramophone, though? I thought Edison Records were all phonograph cylinders. This site says it was a cylinder. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the source of the file says. Actually, I traced the file all the way back to [2], which calls it a "78 RPMs & Cylinder Recordings". --haha169 (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edison Records only released cylinders before 1912. Edison_Records#Edison_disc_records. It's a phonograph cylinder =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These sources obviously cannot be trusted. :P Thanks for pointing that out, I will change it. --haha169 (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've worked with cylinders a lot, and this is a particularly good one, but we want it properly documented. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • N.B. Made some tweaks to get it ready for use on WP:FS, should it pass (which it should). Also - a little off topic, but the article on this song, while not terrible, is a horribly disorganised mess. For example, let's say you wanted to know the year it was written and the composer of the music. See how long it takes you to find them in that article. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A great period recording, and an interesting find, especially given its source. Major Bloodnok (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • N.B. I've done a little work dstributing it to articles. In addition to Take Me Out to the Ball Game, it now appears in: Jack Norworth, Albert Von Tilzer, and Edward Meeker. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I did a little noise removal on this file and found that the result was rather nice. --haha169 (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Thanks for the info digging Adam and Haha. Looks like we've got some good knowledge of this recording now and I'm happy to support a great find. Jujutacular talk 07:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but if fixed, count this as a comment—Description page problems: No links for the artists or publisher in the summary. I see we have an article at least on the first-named. Why not put more of the info from the original site in the description page summary? The performance and recording are good for the day. --Tony1
    • If you're going to oppose things solely on the basis of description pages, there are two options that I would steer you to for the future. 1) Fix the issues yourself, or 2) Make the request for me to fix it at User talk:Sven Manguard/Sandbox. I posted in Talk:FSC that you should just list the description pages that need work there when you see them from now on, I'm good at fixing those. I would certainly hope though that if you believe the performances themselves are up to standard, you'd remove the opposes when the file descriptions are fixed. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did some linking and expansion of the description. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sven, we went through this at FAC about four years ago ... reviewers were sometimes told to fix things themselves and not complain. Fortunately, it was made clear that reviewers review. I do believe it's up to nominators to fix the SDP. The exception to reviewer collaboration might be if a reviewer is skilled at cleaning up files, just as they help out at featured pics occasionally. But it's only if they want to. Tony (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's all well and good except for two things. First, most people don't really know how to do a good FDP, and second, I would hope that if a reviewer's only reason for opposing something is that the FDP is bad, that that reviewer will at the very least strike the oppose when the FDP is fixed. I don't know about FAC, but I know that at GAN the reviewer will list things that need fixing, then give it time for them to be fixed. If everything is fixed, the reviewer passes it, "well it started off wrong so it'll fail even though what was wrong was fixed." If there's anything that is easily fixable during the course of a nomination, its an FDS.
          • TLDR You have the right to say "Oppose: FDS is wrong, go fix it." I have the right, even if I'm not the nominator, to fix it myself. I would hope that once I do so, you would reconsider the oppose vote. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Indeed, on the FAC as well, it is considered bad etiquette to leave suggestions and not come back to re-consider once the critique has been addressed. Your suggestions were valid, of course, and prompted me to seek out the composer to find more information and for Sven to surf Jamendo to clean out the description table. If you still don't like it, it would be nice to know what needs fixing. --haha169 (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is considered bad etiquette to leave suggestions and not come back to re-consider once the critique has been addressed"—a bit strong. Tony (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted MeekerBallGame.ogg --Sven Manguard Wha? 00:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


A Long Way to Tipperary

[edit]

Delist nomination

A Long Way to Tipperary
Just not good enough for featured sounds...
A Long Way to Tipperary - unedited file.
The unedited file has life and spirit to it.


This one is over-processed. I suspect what happened is that noise reduction was applied using Audacity, but Audacity has very aggressive noise reduction, which only sounds at all good if you mix in the unedited file at a lower volume, to put back the otherwise completely missing frequencies. Restoring older files is very difficult; but I think we could and have done better than this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Delisted AlbertFarrington-ItsaLongLongWaytoTipperary1915b.ogg,
Promoted AlbertFarrington-ItsaLongLongWaytoTipperary1915a.ogg
--Sven Manguard Wha? 22:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven - 32 Variations in C Minor, WoO 80

[edit]
Beethoven - 32 Variations in C Minor, WoO 80
Composed by Ludwig van Beethoven in 1806, performed by Wikipedia user La Pianista in 2010.

Annnnd the low-volume mic strikes again. :) However, I'm quite happy with the performance here, although the tempo in the theme is a bit brisk. Nevertheless, the bass in the 31st variation is chilling, if I may say so myself. credit the Steinway D I had the luxury of playing, not me :3

Promoted Beethoven - 32 Variations in C Minor, WoO 80.ogg --Sven Manguard Wha? 06:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chopin - Scherzo No. 3

[edit]
Chopin - Scherzo No. 3
Composed by Frédéric Chopin in 1839, performed by Wikipedia user La Pianista in 2010

Sound quality is hopefully better than the others - I was able to get the mics upped just a little more than usual that day. Unfortunately I was nervous as hell - hopefully the slip-ups aren't too intrusive. :) —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 05:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Promoted Chopin - Scherzo No. 3.ogg --Sven Manguard Wha? 06:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_sound_candidates/February_2011&oldid=416167955"