Entertainment desk
< July 23	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 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.

July 24

Characteristics of an easy melody?

Is there a standard set of characteristics for an easy melody, or is easiness really a subjective trait? Maybe it's generally easier to sing long, high notes instead short, fast-paced notes? Sneazy (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's easiest to sing notes that are within your vocal range, so if you're, say, a soprano, then high notes will be easier, but if you're a bass, low notes will be easier. A song will be easiest to sing if its range is narrow and the intervals between notes are close - i.e. it doesn't jump from one note to one much higher or much lower. Another thing that would make a song harder to sing is if there are long passages without pauses for breath, as these require greater breath control. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for rhythm and structure, can't go wrong with 4/4 time and AABA form. Well, you can, but not as easily as with ...And Justice for All. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones

Dear all.

There is a scene in the Star Wars movie "attack of the clones", which bothers me since many years. Anakin Skywalker starts to murder all of the sand people (including the women, children and babies), after he discovered his dying/dead mother. He then returns to his love interest Padmè Amidala and tells her about the massacre. Padmè only says "to be angry is to be human". My question is: why does Padmè act so unimpressed? Are the sand people considered to be a inferior species? Why does nobody care about the slaughter at all? I am bringing up this issue because neither Wookieepedia nor any Star Wars books at all were able to answer my question.--92.105.189.138 (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Lucas is a crappy writer and a crappier director. A good writer would have realized the problems you note and fixed them. A good director would have noticed that it lacked consistency and had it script-doctored on the set. Lucas was neither and so it's a hanging thread. Be glad Disney is now in charge of the series. 130.16.210.10 (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Fox[reply]

Ultimately, because it's a poorly written film that had a pre-defined end-point they had to get to. (Anakin had to become cartoonishly super-evil, but also have twins with Padme. If she'd been repulsed by evil the plot wouldn't have worked and the movies wouldn't have "connected" with the original trilogy properly.)

But, if you want to analyze it, the sand people were considered savages, and the whole world of Tatooine was considered a backwater full of criminals and slavers. Historically, It would not be too unusual for a Queen not to give a crap about such people.

Imagine if, during the 1600s, you told a European royal about the native Americans you killed to avenge your mother. They might give you a medal! APL (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear gentlemen, thank you very much for your answers. I was confused by many scenes in the prequels (I am not talking about nitpicking about something in the distant background, I am talking about major events), but this sequence was simply the weirdest and I have tried to get a clue about it since years. Anakin is supposed to be the "hero", but what hero murders a entire village? I assume that most of the people in the village had no idea, that there even was a human imprisoned? I also assume that the women and children (and probably even most of the men) had nothing to do with the kidnapping? @APL: your argument with the European royals is good, but isn't the republic supposed to be this very ethical, modern democracy (they even think Gungans make good senators)?--92.105.189.138 (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to draw a distinction between a "hero" and a "protagonist". Anakin is most certainly supposed to be the protagonist of the films I-III, as Luke is the protagonist for films IV-VI. However, being a protagonist doesn't mean you're necessarily a hero. As APL mentions, the prequels had a pre-defined endpoint: Anakin had to turn into Darth Vader. Despite being the protagonist, he had to become evil, and killing the sand people was a part of that transition. I think that at that point in the films, Anakin is supposed to be at the "flawed hero" stage, someone who is trying to be good, but makes a fatal flaw that comes to haunt him. Were his destiny not set, he might have been tormented by his failings and struggled to make amends. Instead, he has to be corrupted by the experience and turned evil. Being disturbed as a viewer at how callously Anakin treats the event is the desired effect. - The fact that the rest of the in-universe people ignore the event can possibly be chalked up to the fact that Tatooine was a backwater (and I think not part of the Republic?), so the rest of the characters might not know about the massacre. Padmè only knows because Anakin told her, and it might be that she is not aware of the extent of the massacre, or perhaps that she loves Anakin so much that she's hoping he'll take the tormented/struggle-to-make-amends route (not having the benefit of seeing episodes IV-VI). - Or it could be that Lucas sucks at writing screenplays. -- 205.175.124.72 (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP 130 basically sums it up, and a search on "George Lucas Worst Director Ever" will give a lof of interesting reading, including the Guardian article on Lucas effectively retiring after fan reaction to his mega-flop Red Tails. A huge failing in Star Wars I with the boy Anakin is that the child actor doesn't actually understand his lines well enough experientially to interpret them emotionally. It is very similar to watching Penelope Cruz's early English-Language films where she has learned her lines phonetically, "I love you" and "they killed my mother" would come out as equally flat. The casting for Anakin seems to have been entirely based on "cuteness" in both cases. Here's a blog that argues in praise of the series, one of the best things I have ever read ever. μηδείς (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, was there supposed to be a blog link in that post? John M Baker (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your answers. I guess it is the same with the plot of "the phantom menace": I have 3 different books about the movie, and each one tells a different political backstory (most explanations even exclude other versions completely). Does this mean, that there never was a coherent story to begin with?--92.105.189.138 (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But... But, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but... George Lucas... Nicholasprado (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of filming of the original movie, the father/brother/sister plotline had not been developed. The movie was not expected to be a big hit. Alan Dean Foster (who wrote the original novelization, credited on the cover to Lucas) wrote a sequel Splinter of the Mind's Eye in which there's an implied romantic relationship, and none of the old characters except Vader, Luke and Leia appear. Once the film became a big success, Lucas imagined a sequel on a grander scope (i.e., more expensive precious efectsies) and Foster's plot was abandoned. Although Foster's sequel is excellent and has more integrity, the three film arch worked out well. But you can see it goes all over the place and reverts to yet another deathstar when the ideas get thin. μηδείς (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most excellent blog essay I failed to link to above is here Revenge Of The Sith' devastates the kids as Anakin falls from grace (In which a silly space opera brings my whole family to genuine tears). μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But if "the phantom menace" (I was seven when it was released in 1999) is supposed to be a movie for kids, why does it have a never explained, weird political plot as the main story? Was that story ark supposed to be funny?--92.105.189.138 (talk) 07:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, George Lucas isn't the best writer. He's a great "ideas" man, but when it comes to actually writing the screenplay or directing, he flops. The political plot wasn't supposed to be funny, it was supposed to be dark. He interspersed the kiddy bits to try to appeal to children as well as the more serious Star Wars fans. The effect doesn't work well. — Richard BB 09:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal range

What seems to be Bono's vocal range? Baritone? His highest note is a C♯5 in Bad, his highest note in falsetto is a G6 in a live verison of One, his lowest note is an E1 in New York and the largest note (10 sec) was a G♯5 in Miss Sarajevo (Live Verison). So, what's his vocal range? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 21:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not baritone. Ask Jack of Oz, who will know, if no one answers. μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article List of tenors in non-classical music, he is a tenor. I'd be reluctant to put him in one of the sub-classifications listed in our article Tenor though. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Impossible

When was the original Mission Impossible series first shown on British television? Was it shown by the BBC or ITV? 46.208.127.224 (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible for me to determine its trustworthiness, but should you decide to accept it, this article claims it was first shown by ITV on 5 January 1968. This message will not self-destruct in five seconds. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]