Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/March 2011

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.

Johannes Brahms, String Quintet No. 1, Op. 88

Johannes Brahms - String Quintet No. 1, Op. 88 (1882)

Johannes Brahms String Quintet No. 1, Op. 88, was one of Brahms' least popular chamber works; however, he described it to his friend Clara Schumann as "one of my finest works", and told his publisher that "You have never before had such a beautiful work from me."

Performed by Roxana Pavel Goldstein, Elizabeth Choi, violins; Elias Goldstein, Sally Chisholm, violas; and Jocelyn Butler, cello in 2009.

A fine performance of an unusually modernist work. I can see why it wasn't popular at the time, but it does use discordances and other unusual harmonic structures to very interesting effect. I like it a lot. Our article on it is a bit of an embarassment, but, eh, the state of articles isn't part of Featured Sounds (though if anyone knows a Brahms expert, can you nudge them that way?) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Well played; it's great to find a string quintet on Wikipedia. The recording is done well too. Major Bloodnok (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support (note: I uploaded it along with other music by Pandora Records, and I created the article about the work as a placeholder; it's not my best article, but I think it's a reasonable start ... but any help expanding it would be greatly appreciated!) I can't find too many flaws in the actual performance, unless one counts the portamento at 00:12 of the 1st movement, which is quite appropriate for the period! It's one of Brahms' less accessible works IMO, but definitely worth a listen. Graham87 10:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The article's pretty well written, but the sourcing could be better. It'd be nice to have a somewhat better article to link to in the likely event of this going onto the main page. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support—but "modernist"? Tony (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Not all of it, obviously, but there are sections that use discordances in ways that go well beyond what is normal for Romantic-period music. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Promoted all (3 Files) --Sven Manguard Wha? 21:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Star Spangled Banner instrumental

The The Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem of one of the largest countries in the world. This recording seems to be very high quality and is in the public domain.

• Nominate and support. Guerillero | My Talk 03:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support There actually is another FS of the Star Spangled Banner already, sung by President Wilson's daughter, however that version is sufficinently different from this one (historical, with gramaphone damage, and sung vs modern, no damage, instrumental) that I don't see an issue here. We have a precedent in this with the two versions of Maple Leaf Rag. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Yep, they're just excellent, as usual. Tony (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Sounds good to me. I'm not worried at this stage about having more than one version a piece - they should be on our featured list because of their own merit. We can look again at that situation should we get multiple excellent versions of many pieces of music. Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There is even the option of having both versions of a piece share a day. I'd like to do that with the rag, because of the history behind the different versions. Donno about this though. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support I'm surprised this wasn't found sooner. Haven't pretty much all of the world's countries' national anthems been performed by the navy band? --haha169 (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

They have and I may nominate a few others --Guerillero | My Talk 14:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Star Spangled Banner instrumental.ogg Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Orfeo

Sadly, it looks like we're going to end up delisting Trisdee's other work, however when I went to her page, I stumbled upon this piece. It seems to be of a high performance standard, and I can't find any flaws with it. It's used on the featured article L'Orfeo, and it has a well built and informative information page.

• Nominate and support. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support—It's meant to be a rustic scene when the curtain opens, so a certain rude, uneven tone is fine. It's a bit unrelentingly robotic, against what might otherwise have been just a little give and take; but since it's all on the tonic triad over a (rustic) pedal-point, I don't think this is too much of an issue. PS, isn't it 1607, not 1807? Tony (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment—There are several flaws in this performance, most of which can be forgiven since it's part of a rustic scene. However, I'm more concerned about the sloppiness with the rhythms:
  • The first trumpeter does not hit the f-sharp correctly at 00:20
  • The violin screeches on the "E" at 00:45
  • At 00:50, the violinist does not execute what is apparently two consecutive eighth notes correctly; it sounds sloppy
  • At around 01:11–01:12, the first trumpeter again doesn't execute the set of four consecutive semiquavers correctly
  • At 01:15/01:16, the lower trumpeter comes in late ... it sounds like the trumpet is playing triplets where it should be three consecutive eighth-notes
  • At 01:18, when both trumpets are playing an A at the same time, one of them is rather sharp. Graham87 09:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support I listened to this looking at Graham87's comments. While I agree that the performance is not without its flaws, its a fine recording of Monteverdi, and I think its less than perfect parts can be forgiven. Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Promoted File:Orfeo - Toccata.ogg

Over the Northern Mountains

A beautiful fanfare for the GPL game Battle for Wesnoth. This piece is representative of modern orchestral style (is blog mentions this), as well a blend of fantasy-style music like Lord of the Rings. (This last assertion is only mine, although he does discuss a little bit about this at the Wesnoth forums [1]). I know, unorthodox sources, words directly from the composer's keyboard is good enough, yes?

• Nominate and support. haha169 (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be very wary of using this as an example of modern orchestral style, unless there is a source stating this which is stronger than the blog of the composer (or a web-forum). If this was from a notable game, then I suppose it would be useful and notable to illustrate that - how notable is this game? The Wiki page doesn't seem to indicate how popular / downloaded / installed / etc it is, and the reviews on the page don't seem to indicate a widly positive set of reviews. The piece sounds good, albeit as performed by electronic synth orchestra rather than the real thing. I'm undecided about it at the moment. Major Bloodnok (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the game is fairly notable for a freeware game. Maybe about the level of Iji or (before it got a commercial release) Cave Story. If you don't know those, that probably means that, unlike me, you aren't a geek. =P That said, it's not aanywhere near the levels of notability found in a commercial release. The description is maybe a little hyperbolic, though; I don't think anything can be "highly representative" of such a diverse field. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, "highly representative" among free music. That could be changed, though. --haha169 (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

In response to Major, I will have to say that Battle for Wesnoth, the article, is a complete mess. This is mostly because, in its nature, open source is community oriented so WP:V compliant references are hard to come by. But it is generally seen as the best open-source game out there, on par with some of the earlier 2000s-decade games. --haha169 (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support (see below) I am most certainly a nerd, but I don't really play free online games. That irrelevancy aside, it's an excellent piece of synth orchestra, and does the pages it's in (Video game music, Fanfare, The Battle for Wesnoth) a good service. Sure, when it comes to video game music, there are better scores, (Jeremy Soule uses a full orchestra and just does fantastic work, especially with the Elder Scrolls series,) but this is the best free musical score I've heard to date. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, this marks the first time I've ever been edit conflicted in a featured sounds related page. This is a proud moment for me (it means there's activity in the area) and I'd like to thank Adam for ECing my post. A toast, to many more edit conflicts! Sven Manguard Wha? 21:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I've already had two, in one day. --haha169 (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Conditional Support [edit: conditions met, now regular support] Tony1's concerns need to be addressed. The summary needs to be rewritten, this isn't modern orchestra, it's modern video game music at best. Play on the fanfare aspect, it's the strongest thing to place in the definition statement. Also, is this MIDI or was there an orchestra, it needs to be stated. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I would really like to see at least some kind of mention of the music of the game at The Battle for Wesnoth. Right now this file isn't adding that much. Jujutacular ^talk 07:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll try. The file's main purpose is still to enhance the fanfare article, but I'll see what I can dig up about music in Wesnoth and create a new section. --haha169 (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Done --haha169 (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The performance and engineering are quite good (frankly, it's a pretty easy style to play). In what way is this "representative of modern orchestral music"? Performers were who? That is, the orchestra and the conductor? Preferably, where and when, too. Should italics and/or quotes be used in the file name and the description? Please see WP:MOS (music). Tony (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Not sure if Mattius Westlund is listed in the phone book...but most likely it was synthesized in his garage on his laptop or something like that. There really isn't much information to give on that subject. As for your other statement, "it is representative of modern orchestral music" because it is modern orchestral music. This is similar to how The Simpsons is representative of adult cartoons. Not representative of all, but a representative of the genre. (Does this make sense?) However, I concede that the wording may be a bit confusing. You have any suggestions? Not sure what you mean by the italics and quotes?--haha169 (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I propose: A fanfare piece composed by Mattias Westlund for the video game The Battle for Wesnoth. The Battle for Wesnoth has no budget, so the piece is entirely synthesized. Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 08:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • By the way, I just overhauled the description page. It now has dates, makes the fact that it's synthesized explicit, and links to the article for the game. You all might know the technical aspects of music, but I can whip up one mean description page. :) Sven Manguard Wha? 08:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Haha, yes you can. Mattius Westlund's email is up on his blog I have a wesnoth forums account, so I'm going to inquire about the exact technical specifications on how he produced this piece of work, in order to make the description page even better. :) --haha169 (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. On reflection, and the change in the file description, I'd be happy to accept this as a featured sound because it is from a notable game (or so Sven indicates - I thought I was a bit geeky, but I hadn't hear of it!) and uses modern technology. I'd be wary about accepting more than this one file as a FS, unless they became notable. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Northern mountains.ogg Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Delist: Buxtehude BuxWV 104 – Was frag ich nach der Welt

Choked start: Sven cropped it 0.25 s further in yesterday, which does make it slightly more acceptable. My 1.8 s crop might have saved the opening harpsichord note, but diving into the middle of a continuous movement wouldn't pass FSC nowadays. Pity; it's a good performance otherwise. Description page inadequate.

• Nominate and support. Tony (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Reluctant delist - Just too poorly documented, and an extract, while not always a horrible idea, is in the absence of documentation of where it fits in the piece. There's a rather good Buxtehude recording by Makemi, but she didn't credit the harpsichordist and bass, so I don't think that it's documented enough to promote either. Pity, he's a rather good composer. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The uploader is actually User:Trisdee, who last edited in May 2010. The harpsichordist and bassist are credited at the bottom. There is an email, however. Perhaps Trisdee would respond. Since you two actually know what you're talking about, perhaps you guys could send off an email. We might get lucky, and it certainly sounds worth it to try. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• A real shame, since what we have sounds great. I bow to superior knowledge that this is a fragment of a large piece; unless it was written as a separate movement / aria it should be with the large piece. A reluctant delist Major Bloodnok (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Just letting you all know, I refuse to delist this until either Adam or Tony says they sent an email to Trisdee. Even if she does not respond, even if you're lying to make me go away, one of you has to say that you sent the email before we put this to rest. It's worth the effort. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Run that past me again, why a fatal flaw needs an email sent? In featured pics, if someone uncovered an overexposed pic (thus irreparable), would you have to send private emails out to make the delisting legitimate? Tony (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference in my view, in that there seems to be an indication that this was part of a larger whole. If that is the case, and Trisdee is willing to give us a better file with a bit more on the front, we could save the FS. If I am completely wrong in this, well I'm sorry. I just don't want to give up FSes without a fight. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Demoted BuxWV 104 - Was frag ich nach der Welt.ogg Sadly, it must be done. The community has spoken. -- Sven Manguard Wha? 21:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Octet (Schubert)

A fine performance of Schubert's Octet, D. 803, on period instruments. I can't find much to complain about here, except for minor tuning issues, which are to be expected in live recordings involving early 19th-century wind instruments. The whole work is naturally presented in the article Octet (Schubert), and the first movement is used as an example in the chamber music article. My personal favourite movement is the third one ... it sounds like so much fun!

• Nominate and support. Graham87 13:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support—Great find! Tony (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support Excellent masterpieces. ~~Awsome EBE123~~(talk | Contribs) 20:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Great stuff. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support - an impressive cut above the rest, well done. — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 10:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Promoted full set of six files --Sven Manguard Wha? 21:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Piano Sonata No. 7 (Beethoven), First Movement

A superb recording of a gorgeous piece. This has had some very mild noise reduction; a previous nomination failed due to a low-volume hiss.

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Sounds great to me. Excellently played and recorded (as ever). Well done. Major Bloodnok (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Oh, I suppose it would be poor judgement to say "you had me sold at 'performed by La Pianista'" and leave it at that. This is an excellent performance, I don't hear any hissing either. Good to have someone with sound editing skills around, eh? Sven Manguard Wha? 04:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • To complement my unsound editing skills, hm? Come on, you know it was clever. — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 20:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Piano Sonata No. 7 (Beethoven), First Movement 2.ogg --Guerillero | My Talk 14:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

La Campanella

An excellent and beautiful performance, and we lack any Liszt compositions, despite having a few excellent recordings.

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support I can hear pedaling when the speed and intensity picks up towards the latter end of the recording, but that does not sufficiently detract from the performance in my opinion. Of course I can say nothing to the accuracy/technicals of the piece, that is Adam and Tony1's affair. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Oppose—It's a good performance in all respects but for the irritating, brittle, shrill repeated high note. It becomes a problem from 0:19 onwards. In this respect, that Bechstein is most unkind to the piece, and the performer might have compensated for it with a light touch in the upper register. I suppose nothing can be done to the file to minimise this artefact? Tony (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The answer, by the way, is that no, nothing could reasonably be done, and I kind of presumed this was failing anyway, so... =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I have encountered this file before, and would have nominated it myself several months ago if it were not for the stream of wrong notes starting from 04:32. However, it is most certainly *not* performed on a Bechstein piano; it, and all other files on Wikipedia by Romuald Greiss were recorded on an 1850 piano made by the small Polish manufacturer Budynowicz. I have asked Piotrus (talk · contribs) to provide an English translation of the description pages on Commons to clarify this matter. Graham87 13:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Further comment—Yeah, there are wrong notes (not "a stream of them" as Graham said, I don't think). But I think they are just acceptable given that they occur in very very busy passages. On my second listening ... I loathe that piano: it is so brittle and unforgiving. Listen to the RH octave bangings towards the end. I'd certainly us this file in articles, but whether it should be featured is another matter. Tony (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, my "stream of wrong notes" comment was an exaggeration ... but there are several in a short space of time ... maybe a "drizzle" of wrong notes, or something that sounds equally daft. :-) Graham87 13:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not at all sure about this performance; while it does have some merit, the sound of the piano is simply not up to snuff, and the "wrong notes" later in the piece are a real shame given that this should be the climax of the piece. I could forgive one without the other, but not both. I would think more kindly on the sound of the piano itself if it were a notable type / maker of pianos. Unfortunately I can't read Polish and until there is clarity here, with an explanation why the use of the piano is notable, then I have to oppose. Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  Info - this piano is last one made by pl:Józef Jan Budynowicz which was reconstructed and is able to play (remaining ones are broken beyond repair). A.J. (talk) 09:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I agree with Major Bloodnok above; I could take a subpar piano with a pristine performance, and a flawed performance on pristine piano, but not both former elements together. I can tell that the pianist is doing is best, and his tempo choice is actually growing on me (although I was taken aback by it initially). But it's just not quite featured-status for me. — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 10:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Closed as withdrawn - Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

  As an uploader, I'm quite supprised and glad that someone noticed this recording in vast Commons resource pool and nominated it. Thanks anyway! A.J. (talk) 09:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Bartok - Sonatina

Appears in Sonatina (Bartók) and Béla Bartók. I pondered separating the track into three, one for each movement, but it's a rather short piece, anyways. :)

• Nominate and support. — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 23:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support I suppose I can afford to vote on this one since Adam and X! also do closings. Let's see. It annoys me how at times the composer seems to be running two performances on top of each other, however the performer pretty much said that that's the magic of Bartok. Meh, so I'm not a fan of Bartok. The performance itself is still pretty damn good. I'll even throw in a summary cleanup for free. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wait, for free? Was I supposed to pay you earlier? :o — La Pianista ♫ ♪ 01:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Well, normally I'd charge heavily for my services, but in light of your contributions, perhaps you could buy yourself a New York Steinway Fazioli Bosendorfer with my fee instead? Sven Manguard Wha? 04:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC) I'd go into debt paying for it, get involved with shady deals in the alley behind the corner store to make up for it, get gunned down in an alley because of such tangled dealings, but die happy with a Bosie in my house. — La Pianista ♫ ♪ 05:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Oh god the images in my head... but seriously... you'd leave your house if it had a Bosendorfer in it? Sven Manguard Wha? 05:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Hmm...I suppose it was rash of me to assume that. Indeed, I would not. I would stay at home and have a few choice and dashing naked men feed me grapes as I played Debussy day after day. Well, and some Schubert, too. — La Pianista ♫ ♪ 05:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Another great performance by La Pianista! --haha169 (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Another"? There was a first one? And yes, yes, no self-depreciation in front of Sven. But...this is not overtly in front of Sven. It is in front of...the interwebs. And it's funnnn. — La Pianista ♫ ♪ 05:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC) At this point you have to be doing it on purpose... Sven Manguard Wha? 06:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC) This point? It's been going on for a while now. Fun game, this challenging of compliments; especially when it bothers the Sven. ^.^ — La Pianista ♫ ♪ 07:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC) ...I am the Sven, hmm? I AM THE SVEN, RULER OF THE UNIVERSE, AND I DEMAND THAT LA PIANISTA STOP TREATING HERSELF SO POORLY AND ADMIT THAT SHE'S AWESOME. ALSO PIE WOULD BE NICE. APPLE, WITH CINNAMON ICE CREAM. SO SAYETH THE SVEN... Sven Manguard Wha? 07:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC) This is getting out of hand, yes? Save it for the IRC, yes? Good, good. Moving on... Sven Manguard Wha? 07:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support sounds great --Guerillero | My Talk 05:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Promoted File:Bartok - Sonatina.ogg Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Stars and Stripes Forever

Pretty noteworthy composition, especially in the United States. (Boy, I'm on a patriotic roll here...). I'm aware of the other Edison Records recording, but we have here a modern recording as opposed to a historical recording. Also, a problematic issue here is that I cannot find the date of the recording. Do we go instead with the date of that the piece was composed?

• Nominate and support. haha169 (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• I believe that the U.S. Military Bands tend to cycle things off their webpages after a couple years, so c. 2009 would be a decent estimate of the performance date. For the date it's listed under in the big FS-list, that'd be date of composition, because it's meant to try and roughly classify by era, while not imposing a Western classification scheme on anything non-Western.

By the way, this does mean we want to keep on top of the military stuff; once it's gone, it's going to be very hard to get. A Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm trying to get my hands on the Marine Band's performance of Pines of Rome...can't find it anywhere. These things cycle, and once they're gone...they're gone. --haha169 (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support up to the precision that one should expect from a military band --Guerillero | My Talk 05:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Was holding off as it does simplify things if I can promote, but, what the hell, Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Promote Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Taps - U.S. Army Band

A well recognized and well performed version of Taps, performed by the Army band similar to its performance of Reveille.

• Nominate and support. haha169 (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support this has to be the most famous bugle call in the states. Well done and free --Guerillero | My Talk 05:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• support Well played and recorded too. Major Bloodnok (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Superb performance. I must say I've been around some military programs where this is played somewhat poorly, so it was a pleasure to hear such beautiful musicianship. Jujutacular ^talk 04:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Promote Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ravel's String Quartet, Mvt. 2

Good musicianship. Recording has a couple extraneous sounds towards the end, but overall a high quality recording.

• Nominate and support. Jujutacular ^talk 07:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• I don't suppose the full work is available? It's an excellent recording, but it'd be nice to have all of it, if it exists. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Not as far as I'm aware. You can take a look around the army band website if you'd like. Jujutacular ^talk 11:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I've had this problem before, when the navy band or army band simply play a single movement of a piece. Its a shame, though, this is beautifully performed. --haha169 (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support (see comment above) --haha169 (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Support Superb. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Ravel - String Quartet, mvt 2 - US Army Band.ogg --Sven Manguard Wha? 03:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

James Scott - Frog Legs Rag

Reboot: The original submission has been withdrawn and is about to be replaced with a new version (sometime in the next few days.) Since the new version is the culmination of the discussion from this nomination, I'm just going to suppress it and let the new nomination use the same space, for historical/record-keeping/laziness reasons. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Appears in Frog Legs Rag and James Scott (musician). I'm VERY pleased at how the collaboration with Juju came out. Because of the nature of this, it's tweakable if anyone spots something (and we agree, of course), though try not to rethink everything we've done =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Support as co-nominator. Jujutacular talk 13:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Fundamental query—was this performed live, or were the notes placed in position electronically? My problem is that the performance is completely robotic. There appears to be not a single deviation from a prefabricated tempo, pulse, and rhythm. As such, it is devoid of musical interpretation. Sterile. Even a piano roll of the period (binary code, too) would contain the results of musical interpretation. Tony (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Is that a question or a statement? ;-) Yes the notes were placed digitally, but the fact that you're asking tells me you know that what you're saying is a little off: there are variations in tempo and pulse. If you'd like to propose changes, we're listening. This is ragtime however, which generally is performed quite mechanically. Jujutacular talk 13:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC) There are also hundreds of subtle changes to rhythm and phrasing. There's a big difference between legato, staccato, and everything in between, all of which can be (and is) used to add an interpretation. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Question Why are we using the synthetic piano instead of feeding the MIDI into Juju's piano like your last collaboration. This isn't me saying that the decision is good or bad, only that it's different from how you did your other ragrime collaboration. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC) We used the identical process as last time (Adam' source file, my piano sampler). Jujutacular talk 05:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC) Okay now I'm confused. Piano sampler? So neither of the rags were played by actual pianos? Adam's MIDIs were fed into your computer software? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC) Here's how a piano sampler works: the people that produced it recorded an actual piano playing every note at various volumes, then created software that would play those individual notes when a MIDI file is input. So in a sense, you're listening to an actual piano. This is the exact mechanism you get from a high quality digital piano. Jujutacular talk 11:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC) Strong oppose. Removing my oppose because I don't want to appear to be obstructive, and anyway there's enough support here to gain promotion. I would be pleased to see discussion / careful thought before any more of this genre are nominated. Tony (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Plain unmusical unless it's significantly worked on. Tony (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC) I want a live performance or a MIDI construction that sounds like it. "hundreds of subtle changes to rhythm and phrasing"—Could have fooled me. "This is ragtime however, which generally is performed quite mechanically."—Not that mechanically. You really notice it at the cadences; e.g., 0:19, 0:37, and 0:57. 1:31 is disappointing. There's a bit of tweaking at 1:12, yes. Tony (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC) Which is, of course, why you only opposed after asking if it was based on a live performance. Because you were so easily able to tell. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC) No, I opposed because it's unmusical—it wouldn't have mattered whether it was a live recording or a MIDI construction. I quite like the timbre of the synthesiser, and I have no issue whatsoever with the concept of carefully arranging each not in a MIDI file: on the contrary, I'd love to do this myself. But I find the arrangement of the notes not nearly nuanced enough, even for a motor perpetuum genre like a rag (the thing is, the mechanical nature of the accompanimental motif demands some give and take at the structural joins, or it becomes unrelenting. To me, it sounds as though it's a Finale performance from the notation alone—that is, with utterly no variation from the notation. Listen hard, as I did after your comment, and you can only just make out a bit of fiddling. Not nearly enough, though. Tony (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC) I sought expert opinion of a piano specialist, Mr David Kinney, who is employed by a conservatoire. He says it is totally unsatisfactory on a musical level. Ragtime is not "robotic", he says. He turned it off after three phrases. Tony (talk) 09:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Wow, so a few seconds of the actrual file in question are all he needs to agree with you when you ask him to agree with you. I'm also impressed that, while complaining about how rigid the beat is, and how you can tell in the first few seconds, neither of you noticed that it starts with a gradual accellerando over the first four seconds. I thought I'd give you a little time to notice. And yet, while complaining about how the notation, you didn't notice. There's lots of fiddling, every bar has four or five changes in note length. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC) After reading the comments you attribute to this expert, I'm quite sure he's a quack. No remotely competent expert in any field would render judgment on something after only viewing a fraction of it, period. You've indicated that he's done so twice. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but if this Mr. Kinney really did what you said he did, I wouldn't trust him to even tell me what instrument he's hearing, because it's clear that he lacks the will to put in even a basic amount of effort in assessments and lacks the expertise to know that musical pieces change over the length of their performances. Also, to the video, I have never known a competition musician to use "cheap" instruments. Also, if someone's going to offer their opinions, the need to have their own account and they need to say those opinions themselves. Opinion by proxy is not as credible as matching opinion to a single account. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Quack or not, these kind of comments are also inappropriate because they invite Essjay-style review. Announcing that you have this expert friend is unnecessary, and sets bad precedence. Wikipedia is at risk to this type of problem, and in my opinion Featured Sounds is especially so. If you want to discuss nominations with friends and discuss your findings here, that's fine with me, but they should be given the same treatment as any other user's opinion. I respect your opinion and your friend's, and I actually agree that this file could use a bit more humanization, but announcing a level of expertise has no place here. Jujutacular talk 23:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Oh look, how dare you insult my friend of more than 25 years. You have a hide, both of you. He is a fine musician and an excellent judge. Your problem is that you can tell exactly what the problem is from listening to no more than a few phrases. It's plain boring and unmusical. You should be ashamed of yourselves. And Sven, you don't even have the guts to use your real name on WP; yet you want to take his real name and insult him? (He was fine with my using his real name, but I guess he didn't count on this kind of nastiness.) Tony (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC) I can't speak for Sven, but what do I have to be ashamed of? I told you I respect yours and his opinion, but that announcing a level of expertise has no place here. I could tell you about mine and my friend's musical backgrounds, but you would have to take all that with a grain of salt. If we can't learn from an experience like Essjay, what would it take? I cringe at the thought. Jujutacular talk 13:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC) My not using my real name is irrelevant, as is your friend's using of his. What's reliant is that his method of assessment is totally wrong, the equivalent of looking at the top corner of the Mona Lisa and saying "oh yes, there's some yellows and greens and such but I really don't see the point here" without ever looking at the piece as a whole. If Roger Ebert or any other music critic wrote "the first 7 minutes of the movie were not up to snuff so I walked out of the theater, I give it zero stars" no one would listen to his advice. It's bad practice and everyone knows it's bad practice. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Support on one suggestion - could the right hand accents be just a hair softer? I like how you're highlighting the bass in spots - don't change that. But the right hand accents (you know, on the syncopated chords) get a tad repetitive after a while. Otherwise, lovely rag - better than late-night coffee. Or...early morning coffee. Gosh, I need better study habits... — La Pianista ♫ ♪ 10:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Sure, I'll go through and do a revision. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Ah, I hadn't thought of suggesting changes to it. In that case, may I suggest that a few tweaks could overcome the unrelenting robotic feel. Here are some suggestions for "marking" the periodic structural points, allowing it to "breathe" a little; I wonder how hard it is to implement them in the file (i.e., can you make one note/chord sound a little later and have all of the subsequent events move later to make it work?). 11 s—Just a tiny bit more time before the RH melody comes in after the LH tonic? Either that or a tiny tiny delay in the sounding of the tonic? Or both? I'd like to be able to feel it perceptibly. Same at 29.9 s etc. That phrase is repeated so many times. 18.5 s—the trilly motif in the RH: can you do something with it? Again, what happens if it comes in a teensy bit later. Same at 38 s. I'd be inclined to make those descending octave-doubled notes a bit slower. They are the entree into the next structural unit. Maybe not at 46.5 again, though, since that's ongoing within the structure. But yes at 54.5, please, since that is a major periodic join; but not at 1:06, as before. 26 s—that highest note in the RH ... it is in tune, isn't it? 1:13 s—The isolated RH chord sounds trivial, but it's a nice little idea. It is flicked over without a thought. The transition around 1:37 is so elaborate note-wise that it comes off well metronomically, as you have played it. 2:13 s—Desperately needs pulling back in tempo, momentarily, just enough to mark the change. 2:31 s—Mark it. Then last three chords: choked off, falls off a cliff. Some kind of greater emphasis (a slight rall.) is essential. A boring performance can be turned into something with life if just a few adjustments are made. Otherwise, I still cannot support this nomination. Tony (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Initial changes File:Frog Legs Rag 3.mid - please provide any and all critique. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Comment As is, it needs more reverb, and could definitely use more staccato throughout on the up beats. The common ragtime eighth-note pattern is usually long-short, and I think that's what this piece is going for. I also noticed a lot of notes that were taken too far off-beat to where they sounded almost like mistakes--but that could just be my MIDI player. If these two things are cleaned up, then my vote would be to Support. — trlkly 21:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Staccato on the upbeats sounds off in a lot of sections, as it de-emphasizes the syncopation. However, about a third to half of the notes are already modified in some respect, either stacatto, legato, or detache. Also, can you point to the time of one (or more) of the notes taken too far off-beat? I'll have a look and see what's going on at that point. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Half that reverb would be nice (halfway between it and the previous version). I agree that there wasn't enough. Where I suggested making notes come in a bit later, you've adjusted the placement of only a single note. Thus, the RH melodic phrase begins as though with a 16th note jammed up against the next note. It produces an unintended extreme syncopated effect. What I was suggesting was that the whole texture slow up commensurately—in other words, that every subsequent note in both hands be just that much later to accommodate the slight delay in the entry of the RH melody. This was my initial concern: that having programmed the MIDI file, it might be a huge job to push every single note that much later. Change the temporal location of one note alone won't work. I did suggest this above, when I said "can you make one note/chord sound a little later and have all of the subsequent events move later to make it work?" Later on, the same phenomenon has appeared to produce an actual jarring of notes together. Perhaps my fears are confirmed, that it is not easy to introduce rubato, and what is referred to here as "interpretation" involves only accent, staccato, and volume (none of which have the "domino" effect required when the whole texture is bent slightly slower, as it were, for just an instant. Concerning comments above about sampling part of a performance and commenting on the file, my view is diametrically opposed. The first sip of wine tells me it has been watered down. The first page of a novel can tell me the writing is generally substandard. Finding an editing glitch or two in the first 30 s of a film tells me there are likely to be problems throughout. Examining a tiny corner of the Mona Lisa under a microscope might tell me that it's a fake. You have publicly defamed this man, using his real name. It is shameful. Tony (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC) It's fairy easy to introduce as much slowing on a note or rest as you want - have a listen, for example, to 1:11 (bar 35), where you get exactly the effect you seem to think is impossible to do with MIDI, in a very pronounced way. Since you seem unable to hear tempo changes of which there are about 60 (that's a bit out of date, but gives some idea), I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do. One can't extend rubato indefinitely and still have the piece sound like a ragtime one. At the moment, to give an idea of what's happening, the first six bars start at 106, drop to 104, accellerando to 108, and then ralletando to 106. At bar 12, we go from 106 at the start to 110. then ralletando back to 106. At bar 18 - the join between the first theme and the second - the first note is held a bit longer (90 crotchets per minute), then we speed back up. I don't see how one can do much more than that sort of moderate, but fairly constant tempo tweaks without ending up with something like the delisted Entertainer FS, where too much rubato made it have to be delisted as not being played with the relative metrical regularity of a ragtime piece. And I can't very well put the righthand permanently out of joint with the left hand. You're asking for a lot of things, but when I do them, you seem unable to hear them, and I can only presume that either you want something that I would find hugely excessive, you're listening to the wrong file, or I'm completely misunderstanding you. I'm sorry, Tony, but I need to ask you to be a lot more clear about what you want, because I'm, in the situation where I do what you ask, then you seem to act as if nothing's changed. I am doing rather a lot of work to try and keep this sounding like a coherent whole - Ragtime simply cannot stop dead for more than a split second, while fulfilling your requests for pronounced tempo and phrasing changes at the joins. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC) ETA: Apparently, he was listening to the wrong version. Making some final changes. I'll throw this into "suspended" for the moment. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Withdraw for the moment. So much has changed that this should probably be revoted on. New file in 2-3 days. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think this has had VAST improvements since last time. Let's see what everyone thinks. =)

• Support as nominator Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support as co-nominator. Jujutacular ^talk 07:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support I am enjoying this --Guerillero | My Talk 04:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Promoted. Killiondude (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Faure - Fantasie

A gorgeous piece, professionally recorded and released commercially, but now available to everyone for free.

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Excellent find. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Marvelous --Guerillero | My Talk 05:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support with minor concern about noise artefacts early in the recording... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • There's a tiny bit of crackle, but not anything unusual for a thirty-five year old recording. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Promoted. Killiondude (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Airs Suite No. 1

Suite No. 1 from Ottorino Respighi's Ancient Airs and Dances. It is based on Renaissance lute pieces by Simone Molinaro, Vincenzo Galilei, and other anonymous composers.

I'm not sure how notable Ancient Airs is, but I like this piece and was glad to find that the Marine band played the entire first suite.

• Nominate and support. haha169 (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Wonderful find. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support An excellent performance. Work is somewhat obscure, but fits well in our educational effort. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Promoted. Killiondude (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Zoltan Kodaly

This is an excellent recording of a notable composer. It's not really my preferred type of music - it's a difficult and unsettling modernist composition - but I can appreciate it as being very well performed. The recording greatly adds to the article on Zoltán Kodály, and so, I think that it's quite worthy of Featured Sound status. Would prefer a less abrupt opening, but I can accept it as interpretation.

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Not exactly what I think of when I think of classical, but it's very good nonetheless. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Oh my, that's unique. Very interesting.--haha169 (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The early modernist movement was an interesting flurry of new and unique ideas in music. Not all of them are entirely successful, but sometimes you get something unique and superb, like Duke Bluebeard's Castle. Kodaly's pretty good, though I personally prefer some of the other modernist composers, like Bartok, Luigi Nono, and Schoenberg. But then, I'm an opera fan, and those three did some AMAZING theatrical works. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Promoted. Killiondude (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Johann Joachim Quantz - Sonata Concertate in D.ogg

Fascinating piece, not something we have a lot of. IMO, excellent performance using period pieces and methods.

• Nominate and support - Sven Manguard Wha? 23:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Definitely a valuable recording to have, but I'm not ecstatic about the performance. The flutist has a somewhat timid sound. There seems to be a strange background copy of the song playing, ahead of the main one by a few seconds. It can be heard at the very beginning, and between movements: noticeably at 2:00. Sixteenth runs around 4:15 misses quite a few notes. Sixteenth runs around 6:50 again misses quite a few notes. The harpsichord and flute lose each other there a couple times. The accelerando of the harpsichord immediately following that seems to be a strange interpretation. Overall it was a pleasure to listen to, but these points make me unable to support. Jujutacular ^talk 08:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not sure about this one; I can hear all the problems which Jujutacular highlights, but the use of period instruments is interesting and the recording does usefully illustrate the article about the composer, even if that article is terribly brief. I'm not wild about the performance, especially that accelerando which does seem very out of place, but it is a live performance, and on the whole I think it is of a high artistic standard, so therefore weak support.. Nope, sorry, I've changed my mind; the performance is too ponderous and while I appreciate it's on period instruments there's enough problems in this recording to limit its artistic standard. So therefore Oppose. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not Promoted Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Caprice No. 24

Kyoko Yonemoto playing Niccolò Paganini's Caprice No. 24 in A minor (publ. 1819) at the Michael Hill International Violin Competition 2009. Widely considered one of the most difficult pieces ever written for the solo violin, it requires many highly advanced techniques such as parallel octaves and rapid shifting covering many intervals, extremely fast scales and arpeggios including minor scales in thirds and tenths, left hand pizzicato, high positions, and quick string crossing.

Being able to see how the difficult techniques are performed makes this a particularly useful sound to have video with. It's Paganini - the demon of the violin - one of the most eccentric and difficult composers to play, and it sounds fantastic. It's amazing how many undiscovered treasures we have on Wikipedia.

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support The educational value is certainly undeniable here, I think. Her performance is good, despite a few minor irregularities (although, I'm only an amateur violinist so it's not really my place to judge her!). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support My, what a find. This is really good. --haha169 (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I really like the way she played the high harmonics and the consecutive double-stopped octaves. However the variation with the scales in consecutive 3rds and 10ths did not come out so well, especially on the lower string. But she certainly captured the spirit of the piece and the imperfections are minor, so I must support. Graham87 05:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose:
  • The sense of metre is interrupted again and again in the opening section by the hiatus between each phrase.
  • Tuning problems start of second variation and elsewhere.
  • The double-stopped section is pretty awful.
  • She has a tendency to grate the lower notes. Tony (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Super stuff. Well played and the phrasing sounds fine to me; I have recordings of this with similar delays between phrases (Perlman, Accardo & Rabin), and I'm not worried about the imperfections. Major Bloodnok (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"I'm not worried about the imperfections"—well that is a real problem. This process will be a lost cause if we're aiming so low. Tony (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

We're not aiming "so low." We're aiming for what normal human beings, not Jascha Heifetz or Artur Rubinstein, can do. Let me know when Joshua Bell or Murray Perahia start releasing PD recordings. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 15:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Tony doesn't like the way I phrased it, but I chose to ignore the problems in the performance because on balance I thought it was a performance of "high artistic standard". Was it perfect? No. Did errors in the performance distract from the musicianship shown throughout the performance as a whole? No. I did bring this up on the talk page and there is an obvious disagreement about exactly what we are trying to achieve with musical performances and the FS process. If you are after perfection in the first instance, then I think we have a problem because wikipedia should cater to both the uninformed audience, and to the specialist. Going for perfection at the moment given the state of play with the FS would be a mistake, and has been said elsewhere we can raise the bar in due course when the number of nominees, and the quality increases. We have to draw the line somewhere (I'm not going to upload any of my piano performances thanks) and until there is a consensus about the whereabouts of the line which can be clearly written in the FS criteria, there will be disagreement about it. I will worry about imperfections in the performance when they distract notably from the performance itself. I didn't feel it did here too much, but you obviously did. Fine. Don't start picking on others if they disagree with you. We'd be losing an awful lot of existing FS and possible nominations if we went with your interpretations of the criteria; I don't believe it is the consensus view. Until it is and until nominations become of such high quality that they are note-perfect with a very close reading of the score feeding into their interpretation, I will disregard errors as I see fit.

Some errors in a performance of Bach's 1st Prelude in C Major from the 48 Preludes and Fugues, no matter how well-phrased and interpreted, would not get to Featured status in my view, because it is a relatively simple piece to play. The same number of errors in, say a Chopin or Debussy suite would not necessarily detract from the performance given the relative complexity of the music, and could become a FS in my view, all else equal. It's my view of the guidelines and the way we gauge a FS. Please clarify the criteria if you are unhappy about them. Major Bloodnok (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• • • This is a piece that has been called "ten minutes of hell" and is essentially a loosely knit collected of all of the hardest techniques for the violin in one piece. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Not without its imperfections, but the musicianship is clearly present. The educational value of the video, too, is also worth noting. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 15:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It is sub-professional. I suppose we'll have to go through the same process we did at FAC in raising standards. People griped for more than a year, resentfully, about reviewers who insisted on professional-standard prose, referencing, etc. We won in the end, and now no one even blinks. When someone here says: "Did errors in the performance distract from the musicianship shown throughout the performance as a whole? No.", I quiver. There is no hard-and-fast distinction between artistry and technique. Tony (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, I did actually mention (and I did think it was the core of my message above) that if standards were to improve at some point in the future then obviously we would gauge the pieces by those improved criteria. I am currently operating on the basis of the criteria as they stand now, not upon some standard of my own making independent of that. All the criteria says in relation to this is "Musical performances are of a high artistic standard". This obviously is in the ear of the beholder, and really an inadequate method of assessing pieces of music. By all means lets have a debate about professional technique, how this can be assessed by professional musicians, musos and non-musicians, and how this fits into the ethos of Wikipedia. Let's work out how to move forward and improve the standard of work here, but we also have to bear in mind exactly where the FS is, and how it stands now. Also, if you do quote me and complain about anything I have written, at least do me the courtesy of attributing the quotation. I really do appreciate the knowledge about the pieces you describe and this gives a value to your judgement about the performance. However, if knowledge of how the piece of music should be played, based on exhaustive knowledge of the score, is key to assessing whether or not a muscial recording should be an FS then I think there will be significant problems getting enough knowledgeable souls to assess the pieces, at least until FS becomes more established and well-known. Perhaps that is the goal, but until the assessment criteria discuss this more clearly then I'll continue as I have been thanks.Major Bloodnok (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Not if it's going on the main page. I don't require utter perfection, but I've pointed out a few very obvious problems. Some of the performance is just unpleasant to listent to (the tuning in particular). Ten minutes of hell? For the performer, yeah, not for the listeners, thanks. I'm getting a separate, outside opinion on this. Tony (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Outside opinion, admittedly not of a violinist, but a pianist at a conservatoire: here's what he said on Skype while listening to it:
  • "not good intonation at all ... and the grating lower notes could be the bow or the cheap violin too". Me: "IS it a cheap vln?" Him: "thin sound. Intonation is way off. Fail. Rhythmically wayward also. i've finished heard enuff" Tony (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I commented above in the Frog Legs Rag submission on what I think of the expert, and you should read it there. The TLDR version, however, is that I think he's a lazy quack and that if he's going to offer his opinions he needs to get an account. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support I caught only two errors, and while I'm sure professional ears can find others, this is an exceptionally difficult piece played at a very high level, and it's overall quality is quite impressive. Unless we start getting professional recording studio performances, we're never going to get recordings where every note is perfect and where there is no peddling or occasional cough or movement sound by a performer. As seen in other nominations, when we do have note perfect performances, complaints are raised about them sounding artificial and lacking artistic expression or interpretation. If we do get professional recording studio performances they will have their own problems, I'm sure. In the end we can hope for total perfection, but we cannot vote under the assumption that it is possible. Even the US Navy Band, which we view as a benchmark for certain styles of music, has their problems, and they only do a small selection of pieces. If we convert the grading system of Wikipedia from numbers to letters, an FA would be a high A or an A+, numerically about a 96% or up. Yes, shooting for 100 is always nice, but it's unrealistic to ignore the 97s and 98s that come through the door. This seems very much like a high A to me. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional general statement. We should be excited that main page exposure will soon be upon us. But it is all the more reason to get serious about standards, particularly when nominating "found" material that is already available on the net or elsewhere. After so many decades of commercial recordings, standards are now very very high; we risk looking mediocre if we promote items that are not first-rate, unless they have special interest, such as for many historical recordings. I would be embarrassed to have this exposed on the main page, especially since it's a vid, and for that reason will attract huge numbers of hits. And let's not be lulled into the notion that standards will rise over time, and we can easily delete substandard items then. Tony (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'd pull my support for it, as the more I listen, the more on the fence I am, but at this point, numerically it wouldn't matter. Take heart though, in that plans are underway to overhaul the main page vetting system. Details soon, however it will be very much to your liking, I would think. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Promoted MHVC-KyokoYonemoto-PaganiniCaprice24.ogv The votes are over the margin by only 4%Why was I thinking 3.4 and not 2/3 12%. I suspect that this will come up for reassessment more then once. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

JS Bach - Brandenburg Concerto No 6

Fabulous pieces of music by Bach. They come from the Al Goldstein collection in the Pandora music repository at ibiblio.org. They are recordings by the Advent Chamber orchestra in a live concert for the small record label that has released its work to the public. They are well played with spirit and would make a fine set of FS. They illustrate the Brandenburg Concerto page well. Separated from a nomination with three of the 6 Brandenburgs.

Add your reasons for nominating it here, and say what article(s) it appears in.

• Nominate and support. Major Bloodnok (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose—Robotic performance; same audio-engineering issues as below. Tony (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - This concerto is meant to contain two violas da gamba. They are not credited either on the Pandora Records site or on the file description page. I can't hear any, and it seems to me that modern instruments are used in the performance. Since the whole idea of this concerto is to contrast new and old instruments, that seems a bit silly to me. Graham87 06:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Not promoted -- Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

JS Bach - Brandenburg Concerto No 5

Separated this from a large nomination to make 3 smaller nominations with a Brandenburg Concerto in each. A superb piece of music by JS Bach, and this recording illustrates the Brandenburg Concertos page very well. They come from the Al Goldstein collection in the Pandora music repository at ibiblio.org. They are recordings by the Advent Chamber orchestra in a live concert for the small record label that has released its work to the public. They are well played with spirit and would make a fine set of FS. Originally uploaded by Graham87.

• Nominate and support. Major Bloodnok (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: I listened to the first movement. Wrong notes and tuning problems, mostly in the first 30 s. Harpsichord is a is box of bees. But the main problem is the audio-engineering. Fuzzy and lacking in body. Tempo slackens. Tony (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Harpsichord does not have enough resonance, especially considering the vital role it plays in this work. This is evident in the cadenza of the 1st movement ... the lowest notes sound completely wrong to me, as if they were artificially amplified or ... almost as if they come from another instrument. Graham87 06:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Not promoted -- Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky - Symphony No. 4, Mvt. 4

Wow, this is a phenomenally difficult piece to play (especially for the woodwinds in the beginning :P). But it was well performed.

• Nominate and support. haha169 (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Fantastic! Sven Manguard Wha? 00:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Finale Tchaikovsky Symphony No 4.ogg --Guerillero | My Talk 02:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Debussy - Toccata from Pour le Piano

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Closing statement:

I was asked to bring an utterly impartial close to this, by Sven Manguard (talk · contribs). I've done my best.

Tough call. The tempo concern in particular is, if anything, even more subjective than some of the complex debates over at FPC.

In evaluating the debate, I do not consider any 'supermajority'. This absolutely is not a vote. And thus, Tony1 made excellent specific, erudite comments to explain his oppose rationale, which have considerable weight.

However... as a Featured Article is not expected to be 'perfect', similarly, a Featured Sound should not be. It has to be amazingly good, but it can of course be improved. With this whole new ball-game of FS, currently our criteria are evolving. I believe that this sound file is "considered to be [one of] the best articlessounds in Wikipedia" (to borrow from the FA page). I see no specific reasons to reject it in Wikipedia:Featured sound criteria. In summary: it ain't perfect, but it is fucking good - and the consensus seems to support that. (Consensus can change; relist and re-evaluation is always an option.)  Chzz  ►  02:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Appears in Pour le piano - although I'm concerned with mic levels (again), and the volume of the last two chords still makes me pissy to this day, the rest of the piece isn't quite disastrous. :)

• Nominate and support. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 14:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support and suggest this stunning recording would be perfect for the first Featured sound. Wow! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • *blush* —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 01:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Jaw Drops Stunning. Just freaking stunning. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Lolwut Did you know that I almost didn't upload this? —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 01:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support I said "fabulous" to the Chopin, and I think I've just run out of superlatives (at least without looking some up). I can forgive the volume peak clipping at the end of that because of the quality of what went before. Superb. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • When in doubt Google "list of superlatives" Sven Manguard Wha? 22:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • ...I seriously almost didn't upload this. It doesn't sound rushed to you? —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 01:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
      • The speed makes it blissful. See, you can never run out of superlatives. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
        • The thing is, when you're really talented, you're very sensitive to your own flaws, in part because that's how you need to be to get even better. To us people without your talent, our jaws simply hit the floor in amazement long before then. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Well said Adam. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - A good performance overall, but the tempo fluctuates a bit (which is apparently how it's meant to be), and there are a few flubs due to the excessive speed (especially around 00:48, where you play a wrong note and then proceed to go even faster (perhaps due to nerves?) I certainly wouldn't use this recording as the first featured sound, TBH. Graham87 09:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments Oppose:

I hadn't heard this wonderful and extremely difficult movement for years. The book by Roy Howat, the Scottish pianist, makes good reading about how to interpret Debussy, especially from a performance-practice point of view.

But the piano is not my instrument and I know little about "reverse engineering" this performance style; so my comments, which mainly concern dynamics and articulation, are off the cuff. I do know that it's generally accepted D. was fussy about his dynamic indications. At 0:13, you remembered you were in the middle of a longish crescendo, and because you hadn't gathered sufficient volume thus far, suddenly whacked it on half way through one bar. In that same passage, the LH has alternate accents and staccato marks, strong to weak: probably each accented eighth-note needs to be almost joined up to the staccato note that follows (I can't think of how else it could be done); I hear little difference in your treatment of the subsequent two bars, where all of the LH chords are marked staccato. I think the problem is over-pedalling, which obscures his articulation markings—blurs them. Four bars later, at about 0:18, he changes suddenly from forte to piano, yet there is no sudden reduction in volume (it is important, I think ... almost a dramatic "echo").

At 0:21, the LH quarter-notes should be almost lugubriously legato, but are not. Along with the RH 16th-notes, they are grouped by the phrase-marks into two-bar segments: I suspect this flags not only an articulative breath, but how the music should breathe in terms of push and pull. Unsure, but note the conservative periodicity of the whole work: four- and eight-bar phrases (see the hiccough extra (5th) bar just before the first pp?). The changes in articulation and dynamics reinforce this conservative periodicity, but you don't obey them. Funnily enough, the whorls of impressionist notes do have to be finely etched into these periods, often with sudden and precise changes.

As Graham points out, at 0:49 a wrong note intrudes: a few bars later you lose confidence as a result, and it becomes nervously skittish and rushed. There's a minor wrong note at 1:03, and another around 1:44. At 1:35, it's a little too blurred for me. 1:55, the critical octave C-naturals are lost. At 1:59, you anticipate the pp—first in the LH, then in the RH; the pp, in the subsequent bar, is marked "subito" (suddenly). It's now anything but sudden. 2:33, the RH needs to be softer to bring out the LH motif.

Some lovely accumulations of power in the 3:20s.

The very high notes: that piano does not take them well—shrillness; it's meant to be beautiful.

The very last chord is marked fff (it was already triple forte, but just to make sure, he shoved the marking in again). You back off it an play it suddenly mezzo piano.

I'm not opposing, although I should; there are a few good things about it ... good tempo. But if this becomes a featured sound, I'd like to hear you re-record it and re-submit it before long, taking seriously the indications in the score. Much slow, repeated rehearsal of short segments is required before this becomes too public. Again, it is very very difficult music, but "music performance is a blood sport", as a conservatoire dean once told me: it's true. Tony (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, Tony - in hindsight, most of your points about tempo and dynamics are valid, and, in fact, all of your concerns about dynamics have already been addressed, in my last few practice sessions.

I would like to point out, however, that I have played this piece for some of the most esteemed pianists and educators in the country, and none have given me a review as long and detailed this.

I'm not offended by your comments - please don't take it the wrong way. I'm only concerned about your standards for FS, and whether they are reachable by mundane Wikipedians like myself. I understand your desire for perfection (yes, not just on the note level, but on the musical level as well). But is now the right time, while FS is just starting to grow? — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 16:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support It sounds great! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• La Pianista has indicated that there may be another performance of this uploaded in a few months, but it would be from a live perfomance, and therefore there would only be one take. In the spirit of not ripping each others' throats out perhaps it would be best to wait and see if that materializes. At 5-2 this doesn't have a super-majority right now, so if nothing changes, this won't pass. I still think it sounds spectacular, but if in two months we get an even more spectacular version, that would just be a plus in everyone's opinion, yes? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Check your math: 5/7 > 2/3, hence it is a supermajority. If we get a better version, we could delist and replace then, we shouldn't be bound by a theoretical improvement that may or may not be possible at some unknown time in the future. 18:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs)
    • I concur. Carry on as you would - if a better version comes along, I'll certainly upload. :) — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 01:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, my mind was not strong at 2:00 AM there. I was thinking 3/4 ratio instead of 2/3 ratio. My bad. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support I think its beautiful recording. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Wow, absolutely incredible. How am I just listening to this nomination today? Great work. Jujutacular ^talk 06:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moonlight Sonata 2–3

Delist nomination

These were nominated with a live performance of the first movement. I think they got rather minimal review because of that. I don't think they'd have passed on their own, and, hil completeness is good, I don't think these are the way to get that completeness.

Withholding judgement on the human-performed part for now.

• Nominate to delist. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delist I was hoping we could replace these with the musopen versions immediately, and do a delist and replace job like we did with It's a long way to Tipperary, but at the moment that proposal has stalled. Tch. In the mean time this is a mess of a set. Should we delist all three currently listed ones (see the chart below)? Sven Manguard Wha? 23:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to leave the genuine human performance, for now. If we don't get the full Musopen set, then we'll need to put these head-to-head. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I've managed to find a third party hosting the third movement of Paul Pitman's performance on Musopen. I'll see if I can find the second movement, then upload them. --haha169 (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, amazing what a few hours of searching can do. I'm not exactly sure what to do with them right now...so: . --haha169 (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Not as good as the first movement (there's some obvious mistakes), but far better than what we have. An interesting conundrum! =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delist: given the highly competitive nature of playing such canonic works (they're very exposed parts of the repertory), I don't believe either file should remain featured. Wrong notes, unevenness of touch, a bit underwhelming in artistic terms. Might be worth using in an article, but certainly not on the main page. That seems to be the benchmark now. Tony (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Somewhat inclined to agree; It's a great find, but - and here's what we couldn't have known until we did find them - they aren't up to the high standards set by La Pianista and other. I'll have to review the competing first movements, as they seem a bit above the rest of this before I decide if any of those are FS-worthy. THAT said, I think these are definitely better for the article than what we have. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delist all I've just listened to this lot again and it's very dispiriting because to be frank they are all terribly dull. The MIDI version sounds just as it would if I'd step-entered the notes to a pre-determined tempo and then occasionally changed the volume of a phrase. Very poor. The Pitman performance is well below the standard expected; his first movement is ponderous and tedious and the rest are embarrassing. The same goes for the slow version in the nomination below - ponderous and dull on a poor piano. That too should be delisted. For once I agree with Tony.Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Per proposal on moving forwards, all current Moonlight Sonata FSes are delisted, and current discussions closed, without prejudice to future nominations. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Moonlight Sonata

Wonderfully beautiful and masterful playthrough of Beethoven's Sonata. Recording is flawless, no background noise.

• Nominate and support. haha169 (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Certainly well played with a very clear recording. I've a minor quibble that I don't think the performance brings out all the drama in the music - the middle section is a bit insipid where it should be more forthright. Having said that I think it is of high quality and should be promoted. Are the other movements of the piece on the web-site too? If so, could they be uploaded and added to the nomination? If not, is there a good recording of the whole sonata No 14 on there somewhere? Oppose See my note for the delist nomination. Major Bloodnok (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• We have a trio of featured sounds of the moonlight sonata at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Moonlight. I'm trying to figure out what the heck happened on that page, as both this nomination and the three featured sounds and one additional file are all there, and the three featured sounds are not grouped together. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sound File	What it is	Status
File:Moonlight.ogg	7:53 long Adagio Sostenuto (First movement?) played by User:Jfarjona	Featured
File:Beethoven Moonlight 1st movement.ogg	6:00 First Movement created in MIDI and played on a digital piano.	Not Featured
File:Beethoven Moonlight 2nd movement.ogg	2:05 Second Movement created in MIDI and played on a digital piano.	Featured
File:Beethoven Moonlight 3rd movement.ogg	6:55 Third Movement (Presto agitato) created in MIDI and played on a digital piano.	Featured
File:Ludwig van Beethoven - sonata no. 14 in c sharp minor 'moonlight', op. 27 no. 2 - i. adagio sostenuto.ogg	6:03 recording. First movement?	Currently nominated

What should we do? Is the first of the three pieces in the set not as good as the currently featured first piece of the set? Does breaking up the set damage it? Is the current nomination better than the other two first movements? Sven Manguard Wha? 17:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

For my money, the currently nominated version of the first movement is by far the best. I don't like the MIDI version because, well, it's a MIDI version. As carefully crafted as it is, it doesn't sound fresh - there is a noticable delay at the start of every bar in the first mvt which sounds inauthentic to me. The slow recording by Jfarjona is generally played well, but the piano is not terribly good with some very shrill notes in the treble. I notice the MIDI versions were nominated in 2008; maybe it is time to reassess? I couldn't find out when the other version was nominated though. Major Bloodnok (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Musopen features all three movements, I believe, so if someone has an account on that website and is willing to upload it for us, it would be highly appreciated. I'm just surprised that they are charging money to download high-quality public domain music...bandwidth costs probably. --haha169 (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That set was always a little funny. If we can get a decent full recording by one person, that'd be better. Perhaps we should open at least some of the old set to delisting? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

On the main subject, I suggest we Delist our current set, and Suspend this nomination, to see if we can get the whole Musopen set. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the current MIDI set shows evidence of a crude cut-and-paste job in the 1st Movement. Major Bloodnok (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there one more vote for moving forwards with the delist/suspend? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah sure, seems sensible enough. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Per proposal on moving forwards, all current Moonlight Sonata FSes are delisted, and current discussions closed, without prejudice to future nominations. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

To The Colors and Retreat

I know these two calls from colors at boy scout camp. I grouped them together because in my experience To the Color is used for morning colors, raising the flag, and Retreat is used for evening colors, lowering the flag. They balance each other out.

• Nominate and support. Guerillero | My Talk 05:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment (Really, a bit of trivia:) In the US Army usage I remember, for morning flag-raising, the sequence goes: Reveille, morning gun, To the Color. The hoist commences at the first note of To the Color, with the flag reaching the top of its staff or pole at the last note. Similarly, Retreat is sounded before the evening gun, followed by To the Color as the flag is lowered, with similar synchronization of call and hoist. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sure, well if they pass, then they will be promoted separately, at least for my opinion. You may want to wiki-link some of the names there, since lots of people who sift through featured sounds want to learn more about them, just like the rest of Wikipedia :). And I believe Retreat is the same as Sunset? --haha169 (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

From what I have read sunset has a few differences from Retreat.--Guerillero | My Talk 04:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I was just asking because there is an article on Sunset, but I couldn't find one on Retreat. Anyway, Support, sounds good. --haha169 (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you like me to renominate these individually?--Guerillero | My Talk 04:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Together is fine, particularly for short works like this, performed by the same group or person. You could reasonably throw in a few more bugle calls, actually, since they are so short. That said, you might want to break up that massive Brandenburg nomination. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Clear EV and the recording and performance quality are more than ample. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Well played. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Promote all Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm going to do a little research to try and find the dates, as soon as I have a little time. Otherwise we have to put them into undateable, which is awkward. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Reveille is already in undateable. Perhaps we should make a section specifically for bugle calls, or a section for short tunes? A lot of these types of things are undateable. An example is the Can-can.--haha169 (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
    • The Can-Can is easily datable. It's from Orpheus in the Underworld. I sang it once. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Promoted ToTheColor.ogg and Promoted Retreat.ogg as two separate files (as opposed to one file in two parts.) Sven Manguard Wha? 02:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Pavane pour une infante défunte

A fine example of the excellent work from Ravel's early period.

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Copyright query. Unfortunately, Ravel is different from everything else. Copyrighted until 2026 in the US, and until 2016 in France? I'd need to check again: this has come up before. There's something about it in the lead of Ravel, too. Tony (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This work is from before 1923, so it's out of copyright in the US. It's only his after-1922 works which run into US copyright problems, which is lucky, as the vast majority of his works are before 1923. We can't have his famous Bolero, but this, Miroirs, Gaspard de la nuit, and dozens of other important works are available to En-wiki, though not Commons. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

[2] and [3]. Tony (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons requires works to be out of coyright in their home country. Ravel is NOT out of copyright in France. En-wiki only requires the work be out of copyright in the U.S., which his pre-1923 works are. This is why we have {{notforcommons}} (and why this needs to be locally uploaded).

It should probably be noted that Featured Pictures works under the above rule as well, and works of similar copyright status (free in America, not free outside of America, and thus uploaded to en-Wiki) do somewhat regularly appear on the main page already, though it must be said, in fairness, that U.S. copyright is one of the most restrictive in the world, so the cases where it works out in our favour are very rare, and only make up a tiny percentage of possible works. I'd suspect FS could easily end up with more works of this type than FP, due to a few highly notable, long-lived early-20th-century musicians (Bartok, Ravel, etc) with a lot of important relatively early works. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"En-wiki only requires the work be out of copyright in the U.S., which his pre-1923 works are." - aren't all his works out of copyright in the US, as he died more than 70 years ago? Jujutacular ^talk 13:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No, U.S. Copyright is crazy complicated. Disney didn't want to lose control of Mickey, and someother people with valuable copyrights worked to extend them, so.... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

To make it even more complicated, there is an entirely seperate set of rules just for recordings, which somehow involves New York and 1976, I think... I really need to read up on that, it's embarrassing that I know so little about the area. Either way that doesn't come into play in this case because the performer explicitly released her work. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Aye. That's why I'm rather conservative with what I grab early-recording-wise. Pre-1923 should be safe, after that, you have to actually deal with that absolute mess of copyright law. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Sounds great, played well with feeling. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support the more I liken to this the more beautiful it becomes. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It was recently brought to my attention that this was never officially closed. Umm... it's closed. I promoted it a while back and forgot to mention it here.... so... ummm... Promoted - Pavane pour une infante défunte --Sven Manguard Wha? 04:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Now everyone back away slowly and pretend nothing weird happened. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Syrinx

An excellent performance, and, well, we're kind of light on early 20th century composers, so I'm focusing on that this week.

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support It's very good. As an added bonus, the swarm of angry snakes in my room calmed down while this was playing. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Zginder 2011-03-08T21:09Z (UTC)
• Support—why can no one get into the description page to edit "Ogg Vorbis sound file, length 2m 26s, 201kbps"> The spacing needs to be fixed, as with all such. Tony (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • That's added by Wikipedia software automatically, and cannot be edited. I'll take this to your talk page. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• support Great stuff. Major Bloodnok (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Promote File:Debussy - Syrinx.ogg Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Not yet Eligible - Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Debussy - Syrinx.ogg I see no reason why this could be in dispute right now --Guerillero | My Talk 23:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Burleske

Still feeling a bit ill, which meant I wasn't feeling up to the intense, concentrated, and extended effort of coding, but I made a breakthrough on something I've been wanting to nominate: There were insufficient details about this excellent performance, which meant I didn't feel it was suitable for FS. After 4 hours picking at research, I've filled in the gaps.

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Fantastic research, nice performance. Graham87 08:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support—Interesting piece (not deep, but it's colourful and energetic). Recording quality is just OK. Nice to have a more complete description page. This is going to be a fly in the ointment for many FSs chosen for the main page. We really DO need to furnish the information for visitors, where at all possible. On the nerd side, thank GOD we finally have a proper dash in the year range. And just why hyphens dot all of the file names is hard to fathom. The geeks who seem to object to proper dashes have never come up with a proper argument against them. IMO, "Richard Strauss - Neal O'Doan - Burleske" is second-rate. The typography should be professional, and there is no excuse for squidgy little hyphens: "Richard Strauss – Neal O'Doan – Burleske". Tony (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Filenames really do need to be simple ASCII, since they CANNOT be redirected to in any meaningful way, and some users downloading them will run into awkwardness if we use too many unusual characters. Everywhere else, you have a point. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
    • "some users downloading them will run into awkwardness if we use too many unusual characters"—why? What is "too many"? " they CANNOT be redirected to in any meaningful way"—how do people search for a soundfile, then? Surely they are in categories. The file names are often so bizarre that the whole business of file names is dysfunctional for pure searches. Won't the search function respond to single search words such as "Beethoven"? Why does proper typography interfere? Who is going to search for items with typography anyway? I would like answers to these questions. Tony (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, Tony, but you really don't seem to understand the difference between filenames and text. Filenames can cause problems if users take them to other devices which do not support Unicode, however, all modern browsers DO support Unicode. What's possible in text is not necessarily possible if you want to, say, have the file on an MP3 player (not that we support MP3 players that well, but that's because Wikipedia's decision-making sucks when philosophy and usability collide.) Now, perhaps I'm coming from a perspective of someone who started on computers in the early 80s, and the restrictions are gradually lifting, but we need to be conservative on this point for things that may be used in fairly cheap, unstandardised equipment, and sound files are one thing that a lot of users want to be portable, and may well use in such equipment. In particular, I don't think en-dashes are particularly widely supported on older equipment. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Right. Policy says we should support users on 800x600 screens, so it also makes sense that we should support users that have a need for ASCII-only filenames. Jujutacular ^talk 15:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm a bit concerned I wasn't able to find a specific link to this file in the Pandora Repository. Could someone help me out? Jujutacular ^talk 03:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • http://music.ibiblio.org/pub/multimedia/pandora/vorbis/piano/O_Doan/Liszt%2cStrauss/index.html Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Also, the "licensing info" link: [4] seems to be dead. Jujutacular ^talk 02:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Fixed. Graham87 03:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Fantastic piece. Jujutacular ^talk 03:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support The start caught me off guard there! The transition to the piano was rough, though I'm not sure if that was the composer's intention or not. Otherwise, it's a marvellous piece. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:12pm • 07:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support My god it's just fantastic. Now someone go get Guerillero or X! to close this :D Sven Manguard Wha? 21:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Richard Strauss - Neal O'Doan - Burleske.ogg None of you could find any major faults with this and neither can I --Guerillero | My Talk 06:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Delist: Handel - messiah - 44 hallelujah.ogg

Pretty much panned by everyone during the roll call. Let's make it official and put it out of its misery. I believe X! says it best with "quality of the sound is crap".

• Nominate for delisting and support delisting. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Suggested replacement: http://www.usarmyband.com/Audio/christmas_with_the_chorus.html It's done all-male, though, and I think they lost at least some of the harmony... maybe not. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Talked myself out of it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delist. As per comment on roll call. Poor sound quality. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delist Rather echoey and diffuse. Recording's fault; performance is rather good, from what one can tell. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delis - I feel rather embarrassed, I didn't pay any heed to the quality of the singing moreso the orchestral part of the performance, I suppose I should have done that when I nominated it. The signing reverberates far too much and I can only barely make out the words :S I'm looking for a replacement at the moment and I'll upload if it's freely licensed. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:55pm • 02:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It was a different featured Sound culture at the time. The flaws are of recording, and that was somewhat ignored then. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Demoted Handel - messiah - 44 hallelujah.ogg --Guerillero | My Talk 06:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Andante Pastoral and Scherzettino

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Sven Manguard Wha? 03:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support impressive --Guerillero | My Talk 01:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Wow, Goldstein on a modern piano! :p Tone is lovely - very nicely done. — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 02:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Wow, this is pretty good. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Taffanel - Pastoral and Scherzettino.ogg -- Chzz  ►  11:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Delist: Toccata et Fugue BWV565.ogg

Also heavily criticized in the roll call. Apparently not up to standards, and as such an iconic piece, it will be judged harshly as it is.

• Nominate for delisting and support delisting. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support it sounds so electronic and canned. This is shuch a high profile piece that we should expect high standards from it. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I've wavered a bit, but this is probably the right choice. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delist To my un-trained ear it just sounds 'wrong' in places... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delist It sounds like a sequence of step-entered notes in a MIDI keyboard.Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delist per all above. — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 22:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Delisted File:Toccata et Fugue BWV565.ogg --Jujutacular ^talk 01:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis

Gorgeous piece, well played. A tiny bit of background noise at the start, but nothing too bad. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Gorgeous performance. Graham87 05:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Sound description page: did Vaughan-Williams make the arrangement? It doesn't say, and must. En dash for one year range, hyphen for another. Please see WP:MOSDASH. Tony (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • He must have made the arrangement, since the piece was originally written for a string orchestra. Graham87 15:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I've fixed the hyphens. I don't think we need to talk about arrangement unless there's been changes from Vaughan Williams' original - and, so far as I know, there haven't been. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Fantastic performance, very smooth. I don't think the background noise is much of a problem. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 5:50pm • 06:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. omg I love this piece. Very moving, the background noise was overshadowed, I didn't even notice it. -- œ^™ 05:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Promoted U.S. Army Band - Ralph Vaughan Williams - Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis.ogg --MacMed^talk_stalk 00:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Poecile Atricapilla

The song of the Black-capped Chickadee (Poecile atricapillus). It appears in the article on said bird.

• Nominate and support. It's significantly more annoying than my current alarm is, so right after this I'm converting it to .mp3, sticking on a loop, and uploading it to my phone. Still, it's a high quality sound, even if you can hear other birds in the background. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support - High-quality recording performed on authentic instruments. :-) Perhaps the sample could be shortened by ten or twenty seconds, since the call is so monotonous. Graham87 05:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, see this discussion about cropping the file. I'm not too fussed about it, TBH. Graham87 05:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Yay! More sounds, finally. Sounds great, I think it is too monotonous as well but I'm not too fussed with leaving it. --haha169 (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • People can always hit "stop" when they've heard enough. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Very good quality, I thought it was an actual birdsong by that I mean one not performed on instruments. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 5:26pm • 06:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It is an actual birdsong, as far as I know. I'm pretty sure Graham87 was referring to the birds when he said "performed on authentic instruments". Sven Manguard Wha? 20:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I was indeed. Graham87 10:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - When this hits the main page can we please include a picture of the bird like is done on the talk page? I personally think that it helps the listener's understanding of the topic. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Garryowen

HAve to have a bit of Irishness on St. Patrick's Day!

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• The pitch of that woodwind almost gave me a migraine, is it supposed to be that high? Sven Manguard Wha? 23:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Pretty normal for Irish music. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Eh, bagpipes are starting to seem a lot less annoying now. Irish music comes to it's own with the violin though, the best Irish music I've heard has had some mean violin. Or was it a fiddle. Donno quite the difference. Either way, this piece isn't to my taste, but Support. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I pulled my support after showing it to an Irish born Bostonian (about as Irish as possible outside of Ireland, I think) who informed me that what I was complaining about with the woodwinds was in fact valid. Yes, they are high, but not searchingly so. Now mind you this change of heart isn't entirely because of him, and he isn't an expert, I also happen to dislike that it gives me migraines, despite the fun tune and good technique, I'd rather avoid giving everyone migraines on a day that some of them will already be drunk on. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - High performance standards, as always, but clearly an orchestral arrangement with the fiddle and tin whistle (or is it a piccolo?) added as afterthoughts. In any case, not an appropriate setting for traditional Irish music. The high woodwind instrument plays hardly any embellishments that are so characteristic of Celtic music (e.g. grace notes). The only part I really like is the fiddle solo in the middle. I'd be pretty embarrassed if this appeared on the Main Page as "Irish music" for St Patrick's Day, which will occur on a weekend next year. Granted, we don't have many adequate examples IMO ... File:Dancing Willow - Demo-CD 2007 03 - The old grey goose.ogg would be fine if it wasn't for the obtrusive drum kit but maybe File:Dancing Willow - Demo-CD 2007 02 - The foggy dew.ogg would be a bit more acceptable. Graham87 05:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Not perfect: start of second time there are slight ensemble issues. Yes, great performance, but the arrangement is junk ... better for a film score. Tony (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Support The piccolo is nothing, it's the arrangement that is disappointing. The piccolo seems to have just been editted over the top of the piece and I noticed that the strings weren't in time during the start, only slightly and the fiddle is a bit loud as is the piccolo Graham has a good point when he says that the fiddle and piccolo were added as afterthoughts... there should be some degree of musical balance in the piece dynamically. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 5:42pm • 06:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• neutral: I also find the arrangement to be uninspired, and the relative levels of piccolo relative to strings to be less than desirable. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• I am going to go against the general feel here and fully Support this. It sounds like the other Celtic music I have heard. (I will admit that it is a small amount) --Guerillero | My Talk 22:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not convinced by the arrangement, which does not seem to have the liveliness I would expect from Irish dance music. Played very well as always. Major Bloodnok (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• This is clearly not passing, so, to simplify closure, I'm going to Withdraw it.

Withdrawn Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

John Brown's a-Hanging on a Sour Apple Tree

A high quality version of American folk music on a traditional instrument. Found on the LOC website with no know copyright restrictions. The last few seconds were cut off via Audacity because it was an interview between the musician and the ethnographer.

• Nominate and support. Guerillero | My Talk 02:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The fiddle is out of tune and most notes are screechy, while some are accidentally played (see 0:14). —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 7:09pm • 08:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose—per AA. And the opening ... has the recording been cut from the middle of a track? Rather closely miked, and more reverb might have helped (as though in a barn with a stone or cement floor). There are surely better recordings around. Also, if it had been a really early recording, it might be a different matter, but it's 1967. Tony (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This was certainly higher quality then most of the recordings that the WPA did during the height of the depression. I will go back to looking through the Library of Congress's database --In actu (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good example of how folk music was played in practice, and thus valid for consideration on ethnographic grounds. There are two problems, however. 1. This doesn't actually appear in Appalachian Folk Music, or any other article, making it ineligible. 2. It's cut off far too abruptly at the end. Make it a bit longer, and use a quick fadeout if you must end sooner than ideal. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Alt 1

This is the full uncut version

John Brown's a-Hanging on a Sour Apple Tree

This should show why I cut it so close. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reason I opposed the cut version, the fiddle is horribly played, screechy and out of tune. Also at 0:24 the performer slows down (slows down TOO much) and then at 0:29 it speeds up... —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 8:00pm • 09:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• John Brown's a-Hanging on a Sour Apple Tree.ogg was withdrawn by the nominator. This looks like a snow sort of thing and it will be better to free up some space on the main nomations page. I thought the ethnographic qualities of this recording would have made up for the imperfections at first. Thanks for weighing in --Guerillero | My Talk 02:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Dave Niehaus call

Fascinating and interesting piece of sports history featuring a Hall of Fame inductee. Very descriptive play-by-play. Great job by uploader to obtain this file. Let me say this is my first nomination for featured sound.

• Nominate and support. MobileSnail 04:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but Featured Sounds can only use free use sounds, this item is fair use (copyrighted). Since this submission cannot meet the featured sound criteria, I have to close it. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)