Entertainment desk
< December 1	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 2

George Sampson, again

This article states: "[Sampson] has already produced an earlier dance DVD, released shortly after winning the contest and showcasing his breakdancing talent." Has anyone got an idea what it was called and where and when it was released? I've been reading numerous articles about him and never came across another DVD. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Access 2 All Areas, released this month, is George Sampson's first DVD according to his website[1] and Borders[2]. I guess the Manchester Evening News may have got it wrong. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen multiple video interviews and none of them (not even those shortly after his win) mention another video. I think you're probably right. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Insidious" by Machinae Supremacy

What do the lyrics to Machinae Supremacy's song "Insidious" represent? Has anyone figured it out yet? Neon Merlin 02:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you ask these Machinae Supremacy questions, I feel ashamed that I don't completely understand the lyrics of a favorite band. I sometimes get the feeling that the Swede's English may have lost something in translation. Let me try anyway. Here are some ideas:

The opening verses seem to say "when I look at myself, something evil thrives" (depression? low self-esteem?).

"Insidious" was the first track on their debut album Deus Ex Machinae. With that in mind, the lyrics might mean "we've come a long way" or "we're trying to get back to our roots."

I suspect the lyrics might refer to video gaming somehow. Perhaps the "avatar" might refer to escaping from life into a video game.

Other trivia:

On their web forum, the band started a thread for ideas for the name of their debut album. In the end, they used one of their own ideas, Deus Ex Machinae, for the album name, but used one of the suggestions, Insidious (which contains a hidden reference to the Commodore 64 SID chip), as a track name. Here's the post where Robert resonates with the Insidious suggestion, it might provide clues to the song's meaning.

Robert Stjärnström's own review of Deus Ex Machinae says "Insidious" is "A personal favourite, no doubt about it. What makes me love it most is the fact that it's about me, in a way, and I really feel this song sometimes..."

A few times in the past people have started discussions on The Official Machinae Supremacy Forum soliciting interpretations of a particular track. The fans' discussions always generate a lot of ideas. Sometimes the band will chime in to confirm interpretations they intended, or praise interesting interpretations that hadn't thought of. I searched, but couldn't find any discussions about "Insidious". You might consider starting one. --Bavi H (talk) 08:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas made-for-TV movie from about 1965-75

Sometime about 30-40 years ago a black and white made-for-TV movie was run each Christmas for several years by one of the networks, perhaps ABC. The story was about a little girl whose father would not allow the family to have a Christmas tree because of some painful event in his past, about which he would not speak. Though I forget the details, I recall the story having a happy ending in which the father relents.

Can anyone out there remember the name of this movie? I would like to find a copy and give it to my grandchildren.

Would it be The House Without a Christmas Tree? If so, it appears to be available on DVD. Deor (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional interplanetary wars

I'm curious whether there are any well-known fictonal wars between humans and aliens in which the human race is the aggressor rather than the victim. --99.237.96.81 (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Ender's Game and subsequent books, the question of "aggressor" is complicated. The bugs may have made the first attacks, but there is a serious moral question as to whether or not they could be considered the "aggressors", and the books deal with this issue head on... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) In Babylon 5, Earthgov under President Clark forms an alliance with the Shadows, who are the aggressors in an interplanetary war. StuRat (talk) 06:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2) In Star Trek, the original series, there's an episode where several of the crew are transported into an alternate universe in which humans are evil, bent on conquest at all costs, and advance by assassination. They are about to exterminate the population of an entire planet to set an example. Their crest was also quite fun, a planet with a sword stuck vertically through it, so both violent and phallic at once. The most memorable feature, however, is that "evil Spock" has a goatee. StuRat (talk) 06:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earth was the aggressor in the Xindi War, too, at least according to the Xindi. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Forever War. Algebraist 08:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Warhammer 40,000 universe, humanity has been in a state of perpetual war with more or less everybody ever since leaving Earth bent on galactic conquest. Algebraist 09:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesis the Warlock depicts a xenophobic far-future Earth bent on "purging" the universe of all aliens. Malcolm XIV (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

star ship troopers,mn i love those movies. star trek sometimes too.

I disagree about Star Trek. The Prime Directive would prevent wars of imperialism. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But, in the episode I mentioned, the Star Trek crew were in an evil, alternate universe Federation, which didn't have THAT Prime Directive. They may have had A Prime Directive, but it would then be suitably evil, as well. StuRat (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deriving the Major Scale

Alright, I understand the whole Pythagoras/equal-tempered bullshit that went into creating the modern Western chromatic scale. Those maths lay on my mind just fine. That being said, when I look at the major scale, I can hear it's inherent qualities, but I can't explain why it is the way it is.

Why is the major scale the major scale? Is there any justification behind it? What is up with that scale that makes it so damn special? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenjibeast (talk • contribs)

If you understand the math behind the chromatic scale, then the major (and minor) scales is also pretty easy to understand. In an "octave", the frequency of the notes is such that two successive same lettered notes are multiples of the same frequency. Thus, if we take "concert A" to be 440 Hz, then the next lowest "A" is 220 Hz, and the one below that is 110 Hz. Well, the 12 notes of the chromatic scale are selected to be some set interval between each other, such that all 12 notes (or halfsteps, or semitones) meet some coherent system, usually equal temperment or just intonation or some system like that. On a guitar, for example, the frets are generally set up so that each fret is 1.0594 times larger than the higher note (or the twelfth root of 2). A scale is simply a method of choosing 8 of those 12 notes. The differences between major and minor scales is in choosing which 8 of those 12 notes. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you just want to determine how the major scale differs from the minor scale or any other scale? Perhaps you want to know why it is called "major"? Please clarify your question. Thomprod (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, to be specific, what I asking is /why/ the major scale is structured the way it is. I understand the reason it's called major (The prominence of major intervals) as well as how it differs from other scales (Order/spacing of intervals).

That being said, I have a theory. Looking at the keys on a piano as a chromatic scale, the black keys form a perfect pentatonic scale. By removing this said pentatonic scale from the equation, one is left with only the white keys, or a perfect C major scale, or F lyndian, or G mixolyndian, or whatever mode you want to talk about.

Now, moving further into this analysis concerning pentatonic scales, the C major scale can be broken down into several pentatonic scales, but specifically, there are three that follow the interval pattern as set out by the black keys. One has the tonic at C, one at F, and one at G. Due to the harmonic pull of the dominant G, the C is the most natural tonic of this scale, and therefore the ionian mode has become the most used in Western music. Similarly, the minor equivalents of C F and G - Am Dm and Em, follow a similar structure, although the harmonic pull of the minor Em is far weaker, and therefore, less compelling. Can anybody see what I'm trying to get at here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenjibeast (talk • contribs) 19:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand and echo the question. Why does a major scale sound like the 'most right' way to go from one octave to the next with no accompaniment?NByz (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds "right" to people who grew up hearing Western music which uses this scale. Friday (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That;s a bit of a tautology. All you are saying is that it sounds right because the people who listen to it expect it to sound right. It doesn't address the question of why we expect it to sound right. There must be something beyond random chance that those 8 relative tones sound "right" and another 8 random tones would not... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Friday hints at, a lot of the reason for the major scale being viewed as the "normal" or "regular" scale is due to historical accident, and is perpetuated via repetition. (Musicians today feel that major scales are "right" because they grew up hearing them, because composers in preceding generations used them. Which they did because they felt "right", because that's what they grew up hearing ...) Even the base concept of a twelve note chromatic scale of equal half-steps is subject to cultural differences; certain types of traditional Indian and Arabic music use other subdivisions (Microtonal music). The seven note diatonic scale is likewise culturally driven. The traditional music of a number of cultures, including Chinese and Celtic, employ five note pentatonic scales, and blues and jazz music (influenced by African sources) frequently uses a six note blues scale. In fact, the concept of a "scale" in western music is a relatively recent one; in ancient Greece and in Medieval Europe, official music was organized around the concept of musical modes, which, while sharing many of the same features as musical scales, differ in their theoretical application.

As to why history has saddled us with this particular musical subdivision, I can only speculate. Since any musical instrument has overtones, compositions have to take those into account. If the overtones match up, music sounds better, because the cord (even a chord spread out over time) sounds more like it's coming from a single instrument. For overtones to match well, you're talking about intervals in small whole number ratios, the simplest non-trivial ones are a perfect fifth (3:2) and a perfect fourth (4:3). The ancient Greeks, for whatever reason, viewed the octave as split into two tetrachords (perfect fourths). Two stacked fourths don't quite make an octave - a whole tone is left over. There are several ways to deal with this, but the easiest is to stick it between the two tetrachords, which happily gives us a perfect fifth between the fundamental and the start of the second tetrachord. Our scale is now C-F-G-C. The Greeks had several ways of splitting the tetrachord (literally "four notes") up into four notes. Going back to the ratios, we can add in (5:4), or a major third. We now have C-E-F-G-B-C (B being a major third from the start of the second tetrachord at G). We can now place the fourth note in the tetrachord. While 6:5 gives the minor third (D sharp), it splits the 4 semitones distance of C to E by 1 and 3. If you limit the steps to a whole tone at most, you can split the at the major second to get C-D-E-F-G-A-B-C. Note that the "whole step maximum" gives you a "diatonic" tetrachord split, whereas going with a minor third gives you a "chromatic" split. If you then circularly permute the whole-whole-semi-whole-whole-whole-semi interval series, you get the medieval church modes. Two of these (Ionian mode and Aeolian mode) trickled down over the years into the major and minor scales, although the others can still be recognized in the odd composition. For example, the Beatles song Eleanor Rigby is in the Dorian mode. (P.S. To reiterate, the derivation above is not necessarily historical, it's merely informed speculation. I'm sure the actual history is much more convoluted. The Humanities desk may be a better bet if you're interested.)-- 128.104.112.75 (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's seems like a logical series of steps. And I think we all can think of dozens of examples of people being drawn to the familiar in music.NByz (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity about Freddie Mercury (The Greatest Singer Of All The Time)

I want to know: but he was atheist? Or however, What was his religion?--79.42.86.90 (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of thing is difficult to determine for sure, but I don't think an atheist would want his funeral conducted by a Zoroastrian priest. According to the article, he hadn't attended any services in years, but that doesn't mean he wasn't privately religious. At a guess, it seems religion wasn't a huge aspect of his life, but when it was, Zoroastrianism was his religion. Matt Deres (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, he wasn't the greatest singer of all time. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but among male popular singers, I imagine he would rank fairly highly by whatever standard you chose. He was a couple steps above most rock singers. Matt Deres (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is referring to him as a "singer". He was a great "performer", but not necessarily a great "singer". Sure, the music is good on CD, but it is much better if you see Freddy performing it in concert. Other bands are the opposite. The music is great on CD, but watching them in concert is worse than listening on CD. Who wants to pay a lot of money to see some guy stand in one place and sing a few songs? -- kainaw ™ 13:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just yesterday I was flipping through Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Singers of all Time to make sure Roy Orbison was in the top 5. He was not, being beaten out, inexplicably, by Bob Dylan (7). I allowed that Aretha Franklin got the top spot, Orbison got 13, and Mercury was 18. --Moni3 (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre. I'd be willing to wager that even Dylan's close relatives wouldn't put him in the top 100 singers - his voice is curious, interesting, lots of things, but far from fantastic. His undoubted talents are not as a singer. --Dweller (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on one's tastes, Kainaw. I'd happily pay money to see Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau (had he not retired years ago) or Bryn Terfel sing some Schubert/Brahms/Schumann/Wolf lieder, which are typically sung while standing virtually motionless. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting, Kainaw; I'd tend to see it the other way around. If a singer sounds great on CD but not so hot in concert, I'd assume that their studio voice was electronically (or otherwise) enhanced. At the least, I would say that a guy who could do both (like Freddie) had demonstrated that his voice was not manufactured. Matt Deres (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's were lip syncing comes in. All the cool bands do it! As for Bob Dylan, he actually can sing very well. Lay Lady Lay is an example of him singing and not just making weird noises. -- kainaw ™ 02:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

""Musically, we are more talented than any Bob Dylan," - Robert Pilatus, half of Milli Vanilli. Matt Deres (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd second Kainaw's statement about Dylan. Most of Nashville Skyline featured some really great singing by him. The mumbly, nasal, out-of-tune singing he did in many of his songs was an intentional affectation, done for effect more than anything. Don't assume that because Dylan chose to sing the way he did that he couldn't sing... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would that not then mean he chose not to be on Rolling Stone's list? This question is taking a tangent from Mercury, but I have to say that Dylan chose to capitalize on his songwriting and performance (by deliberately not singing well) skill. Almost everyone on the list after Dylan could sing circles around him. James Brown? Al Green? Etta James? Dylan himself said Orbison's voice made you want to drive your car off a cliff it was so intense. That's what a good singer does. --Moni3 (talk) 14:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Rolling Stone could quite reasonably be basing its judgement on the songs he sang well. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is a LOT more to singing than merely hitting the notes well. Dylan, for example, was a master of phrasing. I would posit that he certainly was a master of using singing to elicit a very specific emotional response from the listener, even if he didn't use a clear tone or was a master at vocal acrobatics. There are LOTS of people out there who can hit notes perfectly, but didn't have Dylan's skill at verbal poetry. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's songwriting, which Dylan excels at beyond question. --Moni3 (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All very edifying, I'm sure, but this is not a discussion forum. What has any of this got to do with whether or not Freddie Mercury was an atheist? Malcolm XIV (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Dylan could write a song about it? 216.239.234.196 (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rozen Maiden Ending

Does anyone out there know how the manga Rozen Maiden was actually supposed to end? I know the ending was actually never published, but was there ever an interview with Peach-Pit where one of them said "Oh, this is how it was supposed to be"? Any sense of closeure would be better than nothing. Emma Hordika (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]