Entertainment desk
< June 5	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 7 >

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.

June 6

Are talking head shows rehearsed?

I've seen some talking head shows that seem like they have recorded a rehearsal and edited between it and another take. For instance, they have only one camera on a remote person, the host will ask a question, then there is an edit, the camera angle (from a single camera) is slightly different, and the person answers the question. Do talking head shows record more than one take and edit them? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly would depend on the show. Some are live, and some are taped and edited and perhaps have retakes. Which one do you have in mind? RudolfRed (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The show you've seen could be using the Pick-up technique used by a lot of journalist interviews where only one camera is used. This camera is focused on the interviewee and the questions are put to them and their answers recorded. Afterwards, the camera is moved and focused on the interviewer who then repeats the questions one-by-one whilst looking in the direction of the interviewee. The interviewer leaves gaps in between the question to 'actively listen', nodding their head, saying 'mmhm'. The whole thing is then edited as if it was recorded live on two cameras. Nanonic (talk) 06:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, the interviewer will re-ask the questions with the camera at a different angle, even if the subject has gone. The interviewer will ask then to an empty chair where the subject was. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 07:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've forgotten which show I saw with the edit, but I've seen edits before. This wasn't a pick-up because the journalist was in another location. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 12:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will also notice the occasional cut/fade between two edits of the same talking head. That is either from two separate takes, or they edited out part of a much longer piece. Astronaut (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, when a section of an answer from a subject was cut out for length, it was common practice to "cover" or hide the edit with a shot of the interviewer nodding or listening. In recent years that practice has been considered unethical by some, in that it deceives the viewer. There are now editors who will leave a frame of "black" in order to make the edit more noticeable. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 10:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews with in-studio guests on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart occasionally have edits in the middle of the interview. Some are more obvious than others. When they are especially obvious, Stewart will often comment about it after the commercial that comes immediately after the televised interview saying that the interview had to be edited for time and that viewers can see the full interview on the show's web site. Dismas|^(talk) 19:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate SG1, etc - The Subspecies

I am a big fan of Stargate & on a number of occasions I started to think about the humans that where seeded on different planets in the different galaxies. One thing I was thinking of was if most of the Humans where transplanted (maybe) tens of thousands of years ago to be slaves & so on, would they be considered either a subspecies or a different species, because they've probably been isolated from Earth & the other worlds for all that time.
Similar question about the Jaffa. From what I can remember, they are the product of selective breeding & genetic engineering conducted by the Goa'uld, so what does that make them ?
Similar question about the Wraith. From what I can remember, they are a hybrid species of Iratus Bug (is that I-RAT-US or I-RATE-US) & Human DNA. So what are the Wraith ?
Similar question about the Humans of the Pegasus Galaxy, where they seeded in a similar fashion that the Goa'uld used the Milky Way ? 194.74.238.137 (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Mythology_of_Stargate.

Q1 and Q4 - Human - same species. Unless their DNA was altered in some way e.g. radiation. I would guess the genotype would be the same but the phenotype could easily be different.

Q2 and Q3 - Hybrid_(biology) "has several meanings, all referring to the offspring of sexual reproduction". So they're not hybrids. GM freaks maybe? 196.214.78.114 (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Staying in-universe, they are related in some way to The Ancients. Their history, along with that of Humans and Wraith (and Ori) is explained in the article. The Jaffa are Humans who have been genetically modified by the Goa'uld as explained in the Mythology of Stargate article. Astronaut (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the biological species concept if two organisms can mate and produce fertile offspring they belong to the same species. μηδείς (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and for the humans that have been separated from earth for a long time, they could have lost the ability to interbreed with earth humans, and thus be a new species. See allopatric speciation. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's approximately a 60,000 year split between Australian aborigines and certain other human populations, without speciation. You'd need a small founder population, geologic time, and sufficient selection pressure μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Musical scales

I am trying to learn some music. In the book “Improvising Blues Piano” by Martan Mann on page 16 there are printed a few major scales. Let’s take E flat Major at the very bottom of the page. The first note is E flat (D#). On the Bass staff (left hand) the note E is positioned on the second space from the top and the flat mark (at the very left of the staff) is also located there. Thus one can easily see that it should be a flat key (black).

However on the staff for the right hand (treble staff) above, the line for the E note does not have the flat sign on the left against it. There must be 3 flats in this scale and one can see that there are three flat signs on the left edge of both staves (bass and treble) but they are sort of misplaced and do not indicate the correct notes to be flattened. In fact some of them are positioned against empty spaces where there are not notes at all.

One can see the same strange picture for all other scales. This is just an example.

Why is it so? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.14.15 (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sharps or flats at the left of the staves are the Key signature, and by long-established convention this only has one symbol for each note-name, so as in your example there is a flat sign for the E in the top space, but not on the bottom line, which is also an E. (Our article doesn't seem to mention this convention, though I've only skimmed it.) Although some composers (e.g. Bela Bartok) have toyed with other ways of writing key signatures, the usual method is very well established, and anyone who is familiar with standard notation hardly notices the anomaly until someone like you points it out. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it an anomaly. The flattened E in the key signature says that all Es are flattened throughout the piece (unless otherwise indicated). There are no notes in a key signature, just flat or sharp signs (or nothing, in the case of C major or A minor). An accidental before a note applies just to that note (in all octaves, and for the rest of that bar), but an accidental in a key signature applies to the entire piece of music (until and unless replaced by a new key signature). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Musical scales II

Many thanks to Andrew Taylor. A very quick answer indeed. Now is another question. Here in Wikipedia.org there are numerous tables (or rather the same tables in many places) giving Major and Minor scales with white columns corresponding white keys and shaded columns corresponding black keys on the piano. I am sure you know what I am talking about. According to the table for the Major scale, G flat major has only one flat (one black key to press) and it is G flat, HOWEVER, the key signature on page 17 of the Blues book I quoted has 6 flats (little flat signs) for G flat. Why is it so?

Many thanks. - Alex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.14.15 (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder you're confused. It took me 10 minutes to work this out. The table at Major scale is read as rows rather than columns. Thus, the scale of D major is the notes D-E-F♯-G-A-B-C♯, numbered 1-7 respectively.

There's a row for F-sharp, but not for G-flat, and one for D-flat but not one for C-sharp. But the notes for F-sharp are the same actual notes for G-flat, if some of the names are different. So, for the F-sharp major scale we have:

F♯-G♯-A♯-B-C♯-D♯-E♯,

and this is the same as the G-flat major scale:

G♭-A♭-B♭-C♭-D♭-E♭-F.

G-flat major shows the 6 flats. I haven't found any table that shows only one flat for G-flat major. If you could link it (use double square brackets), that would be a help. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the F in the F# scale be notated as E# to avoid having an F and F# in the same scale (and for non-Equal temperament tunings, E# and F would not be strictly enharmonic; but let's ignore that for a bit). --Jayron32 21:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. Fixed now. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quibble: F♯ and G♭ are the same thing in 12 note equal temperament, but not in just intonation or meantone temperament. —Tamfang (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kenyan music charts

Hello, does anyone know if there are official Kenyan music charts? Regards LZ6387 (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does "official" mean in this context? Just choose the most popular "current music" station in the country and look at theirs. HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The OP is asking if there are charts of best-selling singles and albums in Kenya. Nothing to do with radio stations. --Viennese Waltz 09:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing us with yet another example of attacking an editor in front of an OP while not bothering to try to answer the OP's question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are YOU talking about? what makes your interpretation better than mine? And where did your manners go? And if you're so certain, why didn't you answer the question? HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My question was about the best-selling singles and albums in Kenya, just as Viennese Waltz wrote it. Regards LZ6387 (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Best selling how? In shops? Online? Combined? In my country at least the top music charts are now at least partly based on YouTube downloads. And, as I hinted at in my first response, if you can define official, you're on your own way to answering the question. HiLo48 (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order. In the US, music charts have always contained several components - not only physical sales, but also radio plays, jukebox plays, etc. In other parts of the world like the UK, "official" charts have always been solely based on sales (now including downloads). The original question wasn't clear as to whether their interest was just in physical sales, or in some other criteria as well - but, now it is clear. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]