Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Livery Stable Blues

Livery Stable Blues

The Original Dixieland Jass Band's 1917 recording of "Livery Stable Blues". It was the first released jazz recording.

Appears in Original Dixieland Jass Band and Jazz (at the bottom with other sound samples), as well as in Livery Stable Blues. This is the first commercially released jazz recording and was largely responsible for making jazz into popular music in the United States and worldwide. As such, I think the sound file improves significantly the reader's understanding of both the ODJB and of jazz in general. This is my first FS nomination so I apologize if I did something wrong. Jafeluv (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and support. Jafeluv (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Support Very important historical recording, included in numerous jazz anthology albums. But I note that the frequency balance is poor; I have a 78 of the ODJB recorded (but not released) before this one, and the clarinet is not as shrill as in this transfer. The clarinet upper register is shrill and unpleasant in this version, and it would benefit from some tweaking to sound right. Edison (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... I converted this into .ogg from a MP3 file here. Do you think the problems come from the conversion, or is it a problem with the original MP3? Jafeluv (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments—I wonder why "English:" begins the summary description. Three hours and 10 minutes sounds like a very long recording. Is that the right formatting for the duration? Maybe. Tony (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "3 minutes 10 seconds" to make it clear. Removed the "English:" as well. Jafeluv (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "English:" is part of Commons' efforts to encourage internationalisation (it looks a lot better when there's a second language as well). As for duration - it's not really necessary to state it, as the Wiki software automatically states the length anyway. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 200 FCs served} 17:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, prefer edit 2 Excellent find! Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 200 FCs served} 00:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good sound quality, excellent performance. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 1923 public domain cutoff doesn't apply to sound recordings, does it? Follow the link to the Cornell copyright page, and scroll down to the section on sound recordings. As I read it, this recording is not protected by US federal copyright, but may be protected at the state level. I don't know how Wikipedia normally deals with these cases, but I don't think a PD notice is right for the sound recording (as distinct from the musical composition). If I have the wrong end of this, someone should please point me to the appropriate policy. ReverendWayne (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a tag on commons for this, commons:template:PD-US record. Since the copyright is expired on the composition, it appears that this file can be freely used (until such time, if ever, that a court recognizes a common law copyright for 90-year old recordings made in Louisiana). The folks on commons are more knowledgeable about copyright than I, and they have the situation covered, so it looks ok to me. Thatcher 15:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the track was recorded in New York City,^[1] not in Louisiana, so New York common law copyright would apply here, I guess. I'll post a query at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to be sure. Jafeluv (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's where I think the tag is misleading. IANAL, but I have read Capitol v. Naxos, and it pertains to recordings that were made in Europe. The fact that this one was recorded in NY is not, I believe, pertinent. Rather, the distinction to be made is that the recording is protected in New York, and its copyright status in other states has not been adjudicated. ReverendWayne (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Capitol v. Naxos, "we [*19]conclude that New York provides common-law copyright protection to sound recordings not covered by the federal Copyright Act, regardless of the public domain status in the country of origin, if the alleged act of infringement occurred in New York." The issue then is whether the act of infringement is the hosting of the file on the commons servers (which are not in NY state); or is the act of infringement the downloading and listening to the file, in which case any resident of NY who listens is violating the common law copyright. In the second case, the song would not be "free" and would not qualify for Featured Sound. I think we need more expert advice. Thatcher 19:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's free enough for commons, so free enough for a featured sound. Thatcher 14:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also updated the copyright tag to reflect that it is location of the infringement, not the location of the recording, that counts. Thatcher 15:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yay :) By the way, similar sound files like File:Victor Military Band-The Memphis Blues.ogg and File:Mamie Smith, Crazy Blues.ogg have been featured for a while now, and I don't think anyone has objected... (It might be a good idea to tag those with {{PD-US record}} in Commons, though.) Jafeluv (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have done so. Thatcher 15:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thanks to Thatcher for explaining the copyright tags. I think I was confusing the PD tag for the composition with the one that applies to the recording. Anyway, noting Edison's reservation about the equalization, I think the sound is good enough and the importance of this particular recording is clear. ReverendWayne (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2 is my preference, for best frequency balance and general listenability. ReverendWayne (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support A non-classical/opera FS is always good. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment before closing I have put in a request for a low band filter on the file, however if the results are as I expect they will be (due to what I think is a quite high background noise) then this file will be promoted asap. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 23:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did this, it is above. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 205 FCs served} 00:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support either version, I think it's still great. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent initiative. Both versions are appropriate. I find that while the edited version has eliminated some hiss it has also brought the overall tone down a bit. --Jazzeur (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A slight preference for Edit 2. I have a suggestion, for all it is worth: Why not not put the original and Edit 2 versions? Edit 2 version is more pleasant to the ear. However, the original might be the only true representation that we may be left with a few years from now. Just a thought! --Jazzeur (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since even the original version is an ogg (lossy compression) of an mp3 (lossy compression) made from an unknown original on unknown equipment from an unknown source, "true" is relative. (But I understand your point.) Thatcher 22:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I also like the unedited version. The filter is not as aggressive on some old recordings I have heard, that really suck all the life and presence out of the music. This is only a shade less lively, but I slightly prefer the unedited recording. Thatcher 01:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 2 uploaded. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 205 FCs served} 01:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with posters above, Support either original or Edit 2. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I prefer edit 2. Good restoration, clean sound. This is the best version, in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2 is fine. Thatcher 20:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Promote Edit 2 -- Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 00:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]