Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Oh, what a charming thing's a battle!
Frankly, this mad sergeant is such a wonderful comic creation that I couldn't resist. And, let's face it, it's not like we're overwhelmed with 18th century popular music. Plus, it provides useful illustration to numerous articles, including Charles Dibdin, Isaac Bickerstaffe (the libretto uses the other spelling of his name, which was also one of Johnathan Swift's aliases. Shame on Swift!), Ranelagh Gardens, and The Recruiting Serjeant, which I made for this purpose. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nominate and support. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose (per discussion at the Opera Project. Not only is this badly sung but it's accompanied by a piano. Leaving aside the fact that the piano didn't exist in England in 1770, we really need a version with orchestra. Maybe that's impossible to find but I think we should delete this anyway. Best. --Kleinzach 05:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- "Delete" seems rather strong, particularly as this song entered the music hall/parlour ballad tradition. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe, but the article is about the 18th century 'burletta' (if that's what we've decided it is) The Recruiting Serjeant, not 19th century parlour ballads. Anyway this is about 'Featured sound candidates' - and I'm opposing. --Kleinzach 03:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- "Delete" seems rather strong, particularly as this song entered the music hall/parlour ballad tradition. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Interesting and notable. Clear recording. As indicated by my support on another candidate, I disagree with "purist" oppose rationales.
That said, my support comes with the caveat that this should be clearly labeled as a music hall arrangement and rendition, just as the other candidate is clearly labeled.Vassyana (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- I honestly don't know how you'd label it, "By the way, this piece is performed by a singer who comes from the music hall/parlour ballad tradition, and Dibdin's work was used as parlour ballads? The other one has a lot more definite things you can say, you're asking me to label this with a critique of the singer's style, combined with "guess what purpose the piano arrangment was made for." Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- I won't ask that you engage in original research or guesswork to provide a caption. Vassyana (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I honestly don't know how you'd label it, "By the way, this piece is performed by a singer who comes from the music hall/parlour ballad tradition, and Dibdin's work was used as parlour ballads? The other one has a lot more definite things you can say, you're asking me to label this with a critique of the singer's style, combined with "guess what purpose the piano arrangment was made for." Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not very nicely sung at all, and not up to standard...oppose. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support very much opposed to the restrictive attitude that some display. GerardM (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment In order to get an article up to featured standard, a writer may do weeks of work. Shouldn't there be some kind of equivalence with featured sounds? Shouldn't we only promote excellent ones? --Kleinzach 07:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- You are insisting on "work" that is in my opinion extraneous to what a featured sound is. The notion that weeks of work are needed in order to get to this state is preposterous in my opinion. GerardM (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment In order to get an article up to featured standard, a writer may do weeks of work. Shouldn't there be some kind of equivalence with featured sounds? Shouldn't we only promote excellent ones? --Kleinzach 07:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)