Welcome to the entertainment section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/E

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

October 10

Special name

Is there a special name for chords that have the same notes but a different root?? Examples are C6 and Am7; Csus4 and Fsus2. Georgia guy (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is something similar to the concept of Relative key. There's Common chord (music). Card Zero (talk) 05:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C⁶ is the first inversion of Am⁷. See further Inversion (music) § Root position and inverted chords. --Lambiam 05:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I suppose that is the term. I passed that by, thinking "no, an inverted chord is still the same chord in a different order, I need to find a name for when these function as different chords". Card Zero (talk) 06:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Killer's Memory

I've just watched a film on TV, with the above title. On here, it's obviously the film Knox Goes Away. Google correctly finds this article when you search for A Killer's Memory, but I can't find any clear indication of a connection between the two titles. Can anyone tell me whiether it was known by different titles in different markets? Rojomoke (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is not the Belgian film The Memory of a Killer, although the subject matter is similar. Rojomoke (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German WP calls it "A Killer's Memory". Various google results suggest the name was changed for its Prime Video release. Our article needs updating. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In its AKA section, imdb has "A Killer's Memory" solely as the title in Germany. --Lambiam 20:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartwarming, funny, adventure and family Disney movies/tv shows

Are all Disney movies/tv shows heartwarming, funny and adventurous? And are they all aimed at entire families? 86.130.9.101 (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on your definitions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what is a Disney show? Devs (TV series), for instance, was a dark sci-fi drama about free will. It was unheartwarming, not funny, and not really an adventure story, and wasn't aimed at entire families probably, but it was produced by FXP and DNA TV, both owned by Disney. Card Zero (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And a number of Disney's early cartoons had plenty of violence and killing in them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not. Read The Walt Disney Company. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 13

Midnight Oil lyrics

Midnight Oil is a politically-focused rock band from Australia. In 1984, they released a song called Who Can Stand in the Way, which is broadly about the brutality of capitalism. The lyrics, as usual, are rooted in Australia and Australian culture: John Laws, Dobroyd Point, First Fleet, etc. But the part I'm curious about is a kind of lyrical epilogue at the very end, where Garrett sings:

When the spinifex hit Sydney, it was the last thing we expected
When the desert reached the Gladesville, we tried to tame it
And when the emus grazed at the Pyrmont, it suddenly dawned on us all
Hah, everybody, the world was silent and the door was shut.

These also reference Australian things, but it's otherwise completely out of place and sounds kind of like they're quoting someone. Our article on John Laws says that he published poetry and he's name-checked right at the start of the song. Is this passage from him? Googling has not turned up anything for me yet. Matt Deres (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you assume it's a quote? To me it just feels like part of the lyrics of the song. --Viennese Waltz 03:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it were published poetry, then phrases from it would surely appear on Google, which (apart from quotes from these lyrics) it doesn't. Alansplodge (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fair enough. But if I search for John Laws poetry, I get reviews, and other people recording it, and other evidence of their existence, but precious little actual poetry. Likewise, Googling, john laws lyrics only gives examples of songs about someone named John Laws (same guy or not). Matt Deres (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Laws is still alive, copyright concerns are likely to restrict the amount of his poetry uploaded and searchable. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might come from elsewhere because it's sung in a different style, and doesn't match the theme or pace of the rest of the song. To be honest, it doesn't sound like any of the Oils music I've heard. Matt Deres (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 17

You missed a movie

In the Monty Python list of films on their page you missed listing the film, Jabberwocky (1977) Though it wasn't written by most of the Python troupe (Terry Gilliam was co-writer with Lewis Carroll and Charles Alverson), two of the Pythoners were in the movie: Michael Palin and Terry Jones. I feel it should be mentioned in the article as a peripheral piece they had a hand in. Frankly, I thought it was a terrible movie, but I still think we need to mention their failures as well as their successes. According to IMDB it still got a 6.1 even though it wasn't a box office smash. Here is the IMDB link if you want to use it as a source. Jabberwocky (1977) - IMDb https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076221/ 72.35.124.250 (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles exist because volunteer Wikipedia editors choose to create them, not because of any "corporate" editorial decisions on what article should exist. As you seem to be new here, I probably wouldn't recommend that you leap straight into creating that article, but hang around, learn the ropes, and may you can do so. HiLo48 (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jabberwocky is a Terry Gilliam film, not a Monty Python film. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be ... something completely different. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do, of course, already have an article about the film: Jabberwocky (film). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.1905} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it were necessary to list every "peripheral piece they had a hand in", we would have to list every Terry Gilliam film (obviously) as well as many others like A Fish Called Wanda and Shrek. While they are known for Money Python, they are actors, writers, directors, and even some film producing. After 40 years, they've worked on a lot of movies and many of those projects involve more than one member of the group. It appears that the only two who aren't on speaking terms are Eric Idle and John Cleese. The others appear eager to work together when they can. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I presume none of them are on speaking terms with Graham Chapman anymore. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Jones might be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similar issue when writing Les Six#Collaborations. You may or may not like my approach. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

English Horn and (concert pitch) low D

According to Cor anglais (edit contributed by Jerome Kohl and sourced to Norman Del Mar Anatomy of the Orchestra pp.158-159) Antonín Dvořák's Scherzo capriccioso uses a low D on the instrument (whose lowest note normally is a low E) and yet (according to the article and presumably Norman Del Mar's book) an extension down to that note is unlikely to have ever been manufactured? Could someone explain? How is that note then produced? If you have access to Norman Del Mar's book, does he say anything? 178.51.16.158 (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a part score at Free-scores.com for the Corno inglese, we see in bars 90 & 92 a D₃ (notated A₃), but in an orchestral score at Free-scores.com the Cor.ingl. plays a D₄ in these bars (notated A₄). So I guess one solution is that the player plays these notes an octave up. --Lambiam 09:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to an informed answer (which I hope we get), I can offer a number of mostly unserious conjectures.

(1) Dvořák, not a woodwind player, didn't know (or forgot) that the note was below the instrument's range.

(2) He knew, and intended it as a joke. Perhaps he was pranking the player(s) in the particular Prague orchestra the piece was written for.

(3) He knew, but didn't care – the music demanded that note and it was up to the players and instrument makers to achieve it.

(4) He knew the particular orchestra had an unusual variant of the instrument (part of the oboe family, perhaps a forerunner of the Bass oboe) that could play the note.

(5) He had intended that the part be played on a bassoon, but forgot to indicate this in the score.

(6) It was a simple transcription error, which he was not immune to – see Antonín Dvořák#String quartets.

Have fun shooting these down. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a different, but also a very interesting question. Maybe the answer is something close to (3): that's what he heard, and even though he knew it couldn't be done, that's still what he heard that English horn doing. As to the practical solution, my guess would be that what people do is what Lambiam suggested. I even think in the part score that Lambiam mentions, in some places, someone wrote by hand a high A above the printed low A in the score. But there are several recordings of the piece on YouTube, so if you or anyone hears well and likes that piece or are curious about it, they could give it a listen and report back here what they've heard. Does anyone know of other such "ideal" unplayable notes in the standard literature? (Ignoring modern works that call for notes in the range of what's only audible to bats, where the note itself is a prank, the impossibility being the very purpose, meant to demonstrate something, although I'm never sure what.) 178.51.16.158 (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a story about one famous composer (who, I've forgotten) showing another musician a piano score he'd just written, which at one point had left and right hands busy respectively low and high on the keyboard while a single note was sounded around its middle. When his visitor protested that this was impossible to play, the composer commenced the piece, and at the crucial moment leant forward and struck the crucial key with his nose.

By the way, I should have included with my earlier suggestions: (7) It was an error by the score's publisher. As a former professional book editor, I am well aware that printed works are rarely completely error-free, and I'm sure this applies to printed music as well as to texts. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

Unaccompanied solo voice in Western classical music 1600-1900?

Has anyone heard of a work (a real work, not a vocalise for singers) for unaccompanied solo voice in Western classical music from between about 1600 to about 1900? 178.51.16.158 (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "unaccompanied solo voice" produced a stack of results, including these likely candidates for further research: [1], [2], [3], [4]. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that except for songs outside the common practice period (plain chant, Hildegard von Bingen, Adam de la Halle, trouvères, troubadours, etc.) or folk melodies (not classical art music) those Google results are not real. Not your fault of course and I appreciate your trying to help. I did not check every single one but the first one in the first link is already spurious: Ghizzolo "Bella Ninfa fugitiva" is for at least 2 voices. On IMSLP when I searched for works for "1 voice" I got a bunch of results. Most seem to be some kind of folklore or other but I noticed a Debussy work whose score has only a single vocal part: Berceuse pour "La Tragédie de la mort"[5]. "La Tragédie de la mort" is incidental music for a play of that name and apparently that berceuse is indeed for an unaccompanied solo voice. It's probably sung by an actor, not a singer. It's from 1899. The extreme limit, almost. Something meant to sound like a folk melody. Would this be considered "Western classical music" though? 178.51.16.158 (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Debussy wrote is in that category. The concept of crossover music did not emerge till the 20th century; until then, if a composer was working in the Western classical music tradition (WCMT), then everything they wrote would also belong there. Now, Debussy was influenced by the gamelan music of Indonesia, and wrote at least one piece ("Pagodes") that emulated the sound and structure of the gamelan, but that piece is still considered part of the WCMT. These other people were similarly influenced. Mozart ("Rondo alla turca") and even earlier composers were influenced by Orientalism, but they weren't departing from the WCMT by doing so.

On the other hand, George Gershwin made his name by writing popular songs and musicals, then he dipped his toe into the waters of WCMT by writing a rhapsody for piano and orchestra (Rhapsody in Blue), a set of variations for piano and orchestra (albeit based on a popular song, "I've Got Rhythm"), an overture (Cuban Overture), a piano concerto, and a symphonic poem (An American in Paris). Despite their obvious thematic and rhythmic borrowings from the popular and jazz worlds, their form belonged to the WCMT.

For a long time, people like Erich Wolfgang Korngold, Max Steiner, Bernard Herrmann, and even John Williams were looked down upon by the cognoscenti because they wrote vulgar, worthless film music, not fit to be considered worthy of the WCMT. Well, they've latterly come in to their own and achieved the recognition and respect they're due, and their scores are regularly played and recorded by symphony orchestras around the world. They're popular, in the sense that they're liked by people who wouldn't normally attend classical concerts or listen to classical music radio, but they also belong to the WCMT. That's also true of Strauss waltzes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

Super Bowl and American television

How did the Super Bowl come to be such a huge phenomenon? It's repeatedly been the most viewed thing on American television year after year, with businesses paying extreme amounts to get ad spots during the event. When did this trend begin, and why? Lizardcreator (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even before the name "Super Bowl" was adopted, it was very popular. The main reason is that American football was developed to appeal to television networks. Overall, the game hasn't changed significantly. Minor changes are made to appeal to television broadcasts such as having one team wear white and another team wear a color. Then, even on old tiny, grainy, black and white televisions, you could see the players on the field. The field is dark green with bright white stripes so you can see them. The ball is large enough to be seen. There are reserved camera locations all around the field that has increased to include cameras that fly over the field and cameras in the pylons. Much of that is to make the viewing experience better. Some of it is based on psychological testing. They could show the width of the field on the screen and you could see the pass from throw to catch. They don't. They zoom in on the quarterback. He throws the pass. You can't see where it is going. Oh my! What will happen!?!? It pans and you see the receiver. That moment of panning makes it more exciting to the viewer. Beyond the viewership, the NFL has customized the game to please television stations. There are plenty of commercial breaks. If you see a game in person, you will see that it stops often while it waits for the broadcast to come back from commercials. In the end, viewers are excited to see the games and television stations are eager to broadcast the games. Since Super Bowl I (which was not called a Super Bowl), it was an extremely popular televised event. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't all that popular at first. The first two years were simply the AFL-NFL championship, in which the Packers owned their AFL opponents, and there were lots of empty seats in the stadiums. After the merger, the event became a lot more hyped-up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Name of a special effect

Now that image processing is so often digital, there is a special effect that I often see in TV commercials and occasionally in instant replays in sports. The effect takes a part of the image representing either an object or person, or some onscreen text, and emphasizes it by briefly making it larger. Rather than selecting a whole rectangle from the image and enlarging everything inside it, the effect I'm talking about modifies only the selected object or characters, leaving the background unchanged.

What I'm curious about is the name of this effect. --142.112.141.16 (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 22