Entertainment desk
< March 23	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 25 >

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.

March 24

Storytelling in movies

What is the specific word that describes a movie whereby a character or characters retell the story, almost in a sort of interview format, or memoir type thing, and the movie jumps from showing the action that characters are telling, and scenes of the characters actually telling the story? Thanks, 65.244.225.162 (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A narrative ? If they are telling you what happened to themself, as in "I was ten when I first met...", then that's a first-person narrative. StuRat (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

flashback or frame story? 98.226.122.10 (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Film Noir? Kingsfold (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(anti?)-Catholic science fiction?

Once upon a time I read a science fiction novel set in a time when Roman Catholicism is the legally established religion of the whole world, to which everyone is required by law to adhere. It was probably published in the 1950s. The protagonist suspects some sort of deception in official sources concerning a certain deceased writer, but dismisses a bit of evidence that might support such a conspiracy theory by saying "editors edit", and therefore the exclusion of a certain brief poem or letter or something from a volume of collected works is not necessarily an official cover-up. I remember very little about the story. Does anything I've written above ring any bells? Can anyone identify the title or the author? (I can't; I've forgotten.) Michael Hardy (talk) 06:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My initial thought was A Canticle for Leibowitz, based on the header. It does have the Catholicism, but the plot was different. I suspect I'm not correct. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 21:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pavane ?..hotclaws 22:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like Philip K. Dick, who in some works had a two-party dystopia represented by religion vs. science in the form of (distorted futuristic) Catholicism vs. Marxism (typically for Dick he depicted it as a phony "choice" with both sides sharing power behind the scenes). He also favored "conspiracy theory" plots. 63.17.46.33 (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

angad singh bedi

Can i find out angad singh bedi"s personel email id????????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabhyata sharma (talk • contribs) 10:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrities rarely publicise their email addresses. If he hasn't made it publicly available through a website or something then you're out of luck. If you want to write to him then you need to find out the name of his agent and write to him care of them. Our article doesn't include any such contact info, unfortunately. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Searching Billboard

I'm in the process of writing an article on One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer and I'd like to include information about the various times it charted for different artists. A search on Google Books gives me a variety of hits. For example, this result plainly says that Amos Milburn's recording made it at least to the number 4 position on the Billboard R&B charts for at least the week ending November 14, 1953 and there are multiple hits just like that for other weeks. It was a decent hit for the man. However, when I check the Billboard website regarding the song, it says bluntly that "This Song has never charted." I've got to assume I'm not using the website correctly, but what am I doing wrong? More generally, is there a better place for me to be looking? Matt Deres (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't trust the Billboard website for this; the same week, Clyde McPhatter was #1 on the juke box chart, but under "chart history" it doesn't show him having charted at all; perhaps the "chart history" is only hot 100 or maybe most played by DJs? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Billboard site is totally unreliable regarding chart placings, stating for many songs that have charted "This song has never charted". Deletionists love it. If you search for a song title and 'billboard' on Google Books you can find some chart placings there as the billboard magazines are 'full view', although it's difficult to build up the complete picture from individual weekly charts.--Michig (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

who sings this version of "Nobody Knows You (When You're Down and Out")?

I've gone through every publicly available version of this song I can find and none of them match up.

The style of this rendition is jazzy, almost big-band swing. It is sung at full volume throughout by a male vocalist with an extremely powerful voice. The final refrain (looping the words "Nobody knows you" twice) is sung with a huge vocal melisma on the syllable "no-".

The only other distinctive thing I can think of is that it has been played a lot in the last year on Sirius Satellite radio "Real Jazz" station 72. I've heard it at work a lot in the last year but have unfortunately not had access to the receiver to see who performs this version.99.69.54.148 (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't see this, perhaps this will help you out: Nobody Knows You When You're Down and Out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spotify

Is Spotify legal? I mean in that the artists get paid. Chevymontecarlo. 16:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the artists do get compensated, but Spotify has been criticized for not giving just compensation to artists signed to smaller labels. See Spotify#Criticism. decltype (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Chevymontecarlo. 16:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It ain't necessarily so. Older recording contracts (written when online digital distribution wasn't within the rather limited imagination of the lawyers drafting them) don't say anything specific about online distribution; whether distribution over new channels is covered by the old contract, and how monies accrued are distributed between the artist and the label depends on the specifics of a given contract. Radiohead's Tom Yorke told Wired "EMI wasn't giving us any money for digital sales. All the contracts signed in a certain era have none of that stuff."(ref). This was also the subject (in part) of the recent Pink Floyd v. EMI case (ref) which settled in Floyd's favour (note, incidentally, that PF music isn't available on Spotify). And the record labels business model has some issues, in particular anti-trust allegations regarding price fixing, including Starr v. Sony BMG (ref). The low payouts Decltype mentioned seem to be due to Spotify counting, contractually, as "radio" rather than "purchase" - this guy compares the math of the two. So, if I might parse your questions a bit:

Q. Is Spotify legal? - A. It's clearly not out and out piracy; everyone genuinely thinks they've got the legal right to do what they're doing. But they might be mistaken, and only a court can tell.
Q. Do the artists get paid? - A. For streaming, not really very much (see also Lady Gaga's Spotify bonanza). For purchases, it depends on the artists' contract and how effective they are at enforcing it - maybe yes, maybe no.
Q. Is Spotify's business model sustainable, or is it going to go the way of so many previous online music services? A. maybe. And if the record labels don't have the rights they claim to, or can't set the prices they want, or a court finds that streaming doesn't map to the "radio" parts of contract, the content arrangements that Spotify has might not be so watertight.

It goes to show you never can tell. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, here is a TechCrunch story analysing the economics of online music streaming services; it's not a rosy picture for anyone. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it's not as simple as that then! :( Chevymontecarlo. 16:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]