Entertainment desk
< April 10	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 12 >

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

April 11

Popularity of baseball vs American football in the USA

It's my impression that in my lifetime of over 60 years there been a change in the most popular sport in the US, from baseball to football (the American kind). Firstly, am I right?, Secondly, if true, how and why did it happen? HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, yes (at least within the last 30 years). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a LOT of analysis tied to this; the big difference has been tied to American Football as a TV friendly, while Baseball is a radio-friendly sport. See this article which has a pretty good overview of why American Football works so well on TV. I can't remember where I first read that analysis, but it has been made by numerous sports writers and historians. I think it was probably someone like David Halberstam, he wrote an important book about the 1958 NFL Championship Game, which has been called "The Greatest Game Ever Played" and with good reason. It was the first NFL Championship Game that was broadcast nationally by a major TV network, AND it just happens to be one of the most exciting games every played as well; being the only NFL Championship to go into sudden death overtime. The 1960s was the decade where the NFL really blossomed. A second league was formed (the American Football League) and was successful enough to force a merger. Now, I did most of the work to bring History of American football to featured status, so I hope you won't mind if I add some personal observations and speculation as to what made football supreme in the U.S. Color television was becoming a thing in the 1960s; that really made the colorful football uniforms pop and gave visual interest to the game. Baseball uniforms were basically two colors: Gray and White. The flow of the games are different, which makes football work on TV so well: Football consists of short bursts of action (5-6 second plays) with about 20-30 seconds for analysis by the sportscasters. It's fairly rhythmic in that way: play-break-play-break-play-break. The pacing is perfect for keeping a television viewer glued to the set. Baseball is much more leisurely; there can be 10-20 minutes between a ball being put into play, good for listening in on radio while you do other stuff, not so good for keeping eyeballs on TV sets. The NFL has done a good job using its labor contract to maintain league parity: There's not really an advantage to being in a major metro area; teams have national followings regardless of where they are, and a team from small town like Green Bay, Wisconsin can still compete every year for a championship. MLB still offers HUGE benefits for being from a major metro area. You've maybe got 4 teams that are "in it" every year, and then a random number of small market teams occasionally make a run for a year or two. In the NFL, no team is terrible forever, and you've got more teams that have a shot every year so fans of all teams feel more connected for a longer time. Also, season length has something to do with it. MLB has 162 games in a season; they play almost every day. That decreases the interest in any one single game. Unless its a major rivalry like Red Sox-Yankees, no one needs to watch every game, because any individual loss or win doesn't mean much. The NFL plays 16 games in a season, essentially all on the same day of the week (Sunday) with a featured game on other nights (one on Thursday, on on Monday). Every game makes a difference, so every game matters for the fans. While a mid-season Royals-Astros game in Baseball means absolutely nothing to most baseball fans (even to Royals and Astros fans), a midseason game between the Chiefs and the Texans could mean the difference between either team making the playoffs or not, so it's still likely to attract considerable interest. And that's my belief in why football has become supreme: TV. --Jayron32 13:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of live attendance, MLB still wins with almost 75 million tickets sold in 2012 versus 17 million for NFL.[1][2] with baseball attendance setting records but football attendance declining slightly. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Divide the baseball numbers by 10 to get the real figures. Baseball teams play 81 home games per year. NFL teams play 8. That means, on a per-game basis, Baseball games have less than half the attendance of NFL games. You'll note your source is MLB.com; that source has a vested interest in making their numbers look better. Lies, damn lies, and statistics, my friend. --Jayron32 13:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR is pretty popular too. About the NFL, I recall Howard Cosell talking in the late 60s or so about how it seemed to fit (more than baseball) with the America of that time: action-packed, violent, etc. The violent side has come under much closer scrutiny in recent years, but the NFL remains at the top of the popularity list. And you're right, the NFL (or football in general) is perfect for TV. Baseball is better on the radio, or in person, where you can chat with others or wander around without much fear of missing something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, here's some less filtered numbers, which aren't interpreted to make baseball look better: here is baseball's number, and here is the NFL numbers, both by ESPN. There are 3 sets of numbers: total attendance, average attendance per game, and "pct" which is the average percent of "capacity" (i.e. tickets sold divided by number of seats) for each team in both sports. Here's the relevant comparables:

In the NFL, 11 of the 32 teams averaged 100% attendance or better (more than 100% means that there would have been standing-room-only) in home games. In MLB, none of the teams averaged 100% attendance or better. The closest was the SF Giants, who got 99%. The median percentage of seats sold was 73%. In the NFL, the median was 98.9%. No team in the NFL averaged less than 80% capacity. In baseball, only 8 teams did better than that.
In the NFL, every team averages per-game attendance was better than every single MLB team. That is, the best attended home team in MLB was the LA Dodgers, with 46,216 per game. The worst attended home team in the NFL was the Oakland Raiders, with 50,444 per game.
If you want a real apples-to-apples comparison, the Oakland Raiders (football) and Oakland A's (baseball) play in the same stadium (the last such team to do so; it used to be more common for teams to share a stadium, but currently that's the only two teams to do so now). In the same stadium, the Raiders average 50,444 per game. The A's average 22,337 per game.

There you go. NFL numbers have plateaued recently (or even slightly declined) largely because the league has already been essentially at capacity for a long time. When just under half of your teams literally sell out every single game, it doesn't take much to drop a bit. Baseball, OTOH, has lots of games with half-filled (or barely filled) stadiums. They have a lot more room to go up than the NFL does. The NFL would have to literally reconstruct their stadiums to sell more tickets. Baseball just has to find ways to fill the seats that are regularly empty, and there's a lot of them. --Jayron32 14:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about per event attendance and am puzzled by your fixation on only it as a valid statistic. NASCAR per event attendance [3] far exceeds football but does not not approach capacity, or football's (much less baseball's) season totals. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The best estimator of a given sport's popularity might be the total revenues taken in, not just from attendance, but also from product licensing, TV contracts, and whatever else one can think of. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you want to know what America's most popular sport is, you ask people: Harris Interactive poll shows a longitudinal study of the most popular sports in the U.S. Baseball has seen the biggest decline, losing 7% of it's support as someones "favorite sport", while the NFL has had the biggest gain, with Pro Football seeing 10% increase. Other sports have remained relatively constant, losing or gaining less than 3% of their popularity over that time frame. --Jayron32 20:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack of BBC One series Death in Paradise

Is there a website where I can get the soundtrack of Death in Paradise, all seasons 1, 2, and 3? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.60 (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Composition for Guitar versus Piano

A friend of mine who plays and writes for the guitar is curious is there is any significant difference in composing for the two instruments. That one bends notes and plays with a slide on the guitar seems relevant. I'd also assume there are no two-handed compositions for guitar. But I am actually almost entirely ignorant, and neither read music nor play an instrument myself. Can anyone point out if there are differences I am missing and any good articles or references to recommend? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not an answer to your question, but still an interesting point; there is certainly piano-style two handed playing of guitars. Two handed tapping allows for the playing of keyboard music on guitars. Fgf10 (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For players who play fantastic 2-handed guitar (that is, fretting and striking notes with both hands) check out Ben Lapps or Zack Kim. Also, while it is strictly true that you can't bend the notes on an acoustic piano, electronic keyboards are surprisingly versatile in allowing such note bending. Many high-end synthesizers such as the Yamaha Motif have nobs and such that produce a pretty good facsimile of guitar note-bending. --Jayron32 23:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for Medeis, some of these discussion forums may have some good info for you: [4]. --Jayron32 23:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, one question. In two-handed piano playing does anyone ever play more than six notes at a time? I assume that would be the limit on a six-stringed guitar? Like I said, I am personally quite ignorant here. μηδείς (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A piano player can play 10 notes at once. And guitars can play more than 6 notes if they have more than 6 strings. See Russian guitar. --Jayron32 02:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may recall that Tom Lehrer referred to his piano as an "88-string guitar". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely, for one song (The Folk Song Army) he invited his audience to "pretend that I am playing an 88-string guitar." —Tamfang (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, most piano players can play 12 notes at once. The thumbs can easily play 2 notes each, and depending on the shape of the thumb, may even be able to play 3 each, making 14 notes in all. But very little music ever calls for such dexterity. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, strictly speaking, piano players usually also have forearms and elbows and the like, and can probably play dozens of notes at once. To do so in a sonicly pleasing way, however, is the trick... --Jayron32 03:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But being required to play 6 notes with one hand is far from uncommon, particularly in music by Romantic composers such as Liszt, Scriabin and Rachmaninoff. Scriabin went a bit weird in later life but the other two always inhabited the world of sonic pleasure. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(I will be referring to the six-stringed modern classical guitar and the way it is played in classical music, not to guitars with more strings, or two-hand tapping)

You already mentioned that you can change a note's pitch on a guitar (and also modulate the sound, add a vibrato etc) which you can't do on the discretely tuned piano, yet in terms of melodic and harmonic possibilities, composing for the piano is less restrictive than for the guitar. Compared to the violin, say, the guitar does allow for more harmony and polyphony. Skilled players (which is whom a composer is often composing for) can play counterpoint, self accompaniment, and so forth, but the guitar still allows for less of all that than the piano. One of the reasons being the hands and fingers employed, as mentioned above. In addition less simultaneous combinations are possible on the guitar. The way the strings are laid out and especially their limited number (six) in combination with the physical limits of what hands can do, even make certain constellations of six or less notes impossible to play in standard tuning. (For a very simple example: You cannot play the minor third e^I-g^I (only two notes) as a harmonic interval, because both of those notes can only be played on the lowest strings (but not simultaneously) Then again, on a guitar you can play two notes in unison, something the piano can't).

On the piano too, of course, not every constellation of ten (or twelve or whatever) notes is possible. There are even constellations of only three notes that can't be played simultaneously on the piano (unless you use your nose or chin). But this is only because of the limits of the human being, not of the instrument. A player piano can play the works of Conlon Nancarrow or anything written for the 88 keys, a human being can't, but nor could a "player guitar". All in all, the piano allows for many more possibilities in terms of polyphony.

The article on classical guitar repertoire starts out with "To a greater extent than most other instruments and ensembles, it is difficult to compose music for the guitar without either proficiency in the instrument or close collaboration with a guitarist. As a result, a large part of the guitar repertoire consists of works by guitarists who did not compose extensively for other instruments." This is a sentiment often heard among classical guitarists. I personally believe that one of the reasons is the history of negligence of classical guitar in the tradition of conservatories, which probably lingers on to this day. The vast majority of students of composition can play the piano (whether as a first instrument or not, they'll know their way around the instrument), but only very few play the guitar. In classes, more emphasis is placed on members of the symphony orchestra, maybe some other instruments such as the organ too, but not that much, if anything at all, on the guitar. (This is a very general statement. I'm sure there are plenty of conservatories that include the guitar in their teaching about instruments and instrumentation, and times are changing and have changed).

Because the guitar does allow for astonishing harmonic complexity in comparison to most solo instruments (just not the piano), and because this is something composers might wish to exploit, the suggested lack of knowledge and practice (in comparison to their familiarity with the piano) would make it quite a challenge, even with the help of a guitarist. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the problems you note with the Guitar not also applicable to other instruments, except moreso? Other stringed instruments used in the classical repertoire including the violin family have only 4 strings; their limits are identical to that of the guitar excepting they have less of a range. No, my suspicion as to the lack of attention to the guitar among classical composers (which established the tradition and thus it carries forward to this day as the way standard "orchestra" composing works) has to do with the type of music that guitars were originally suited for. Classical gut-strung guitars were and relatively quiet instruments. Like lutes and other predecessors, guitars were well suited for intimate settings: a small room with a few people listening in. They just weren't "concert hall" instruments. Instruments for the concert hall had to either be able to fill the hall themselves (big, brassy wind instruments, pianofortes, etc.) or have the ability to play a large group of them to reinforce their volume (violin sections). There's just no place for a guitar among the tradition of composing for the classical concert hall. Modern developments in the guitar (such as the introduction of steel strings and larger and larger body types such as the Dreadnought, and of course, electric amplification and electronic signal processing) have made the guitar a MUCH more versatile instrument in modern times. And of course, LOTS of people do compose for the guitar, just not in the "classical orchestra" frame. There's libraries of guitar music out there, written by excellent modern composers. --Jayron32 18:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greater limitations when compared to a piano exist for most other instruments, sure. What makes composing for the guitar more challenging, in my speculation, is that you do have far more possibilities, polyphonically speaking, than with a violin, cello, etc (where you can't employ much more than the occasional multiple stopping), not to mention than with a wind instrument (multiphonics are possible, but very limited and unusual). If you want to make use of the complex possibilities the guitar has to offer you need a deeper knowledge of the guitar which is often lacking among composers who don't play the guitar. A violin's limitations are easier to understand, and it will mostly be employed purely melodically. A harp's harmonic possibilities are also complex, but students of classical music have typically learned more about the harp than about the guitar, because it is used in symphony orchestras more often. You are of course correct that guitars weren't concert hall instruments, but many composers (particularly more recent ones) like composing for chamber music, smaller ensembles, unusual combinations and unusual instruments too. But they'll be quicker in understanding the scope of possibilities of a shakuhachi or brake drum than that of a guitar.

I limited my answer to "classical" music because this is the field where you will find most compositions written out, specifically, usually note by note (not just melody and chords, e.g.) and intended to be played by other musicians. (It also makes the question easier to answer, because you are absolutely right about the vastness of ever-increasing possibilities the electric guitar has to offer). ---Sluzzelin talk 04:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The variety of four-handed and even six-handed compositions playable on a single piano notably exceeds any polyphony possible on a guitar. In an orchestra, string instruments such as guitars must generally be manually retuned by their players to agree in pitch with the available piano for which any tuning is a major operation. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am cut-and-pasting this to my friend, whom I suspect will be impressed by the help so far. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing that occurred to me: Visually (and also physically, in terms of arm position) a piano keyboard is an almost linear replication of the whole musical scale at a pianist's disposition. Guitars and tablature aren't as transparent in comparison. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do realize, by the way, that your friend might be interested in a completely different kind of answer, being a guitarist themselves. My answer was intended from a "neutral" (or at any rate non-guitarist, so much for neutrality) outlook. Your friend might wish to know more about the difference between what composing means to someone who is a pianist and composes on the piano, and someone who is and does the same on the guitar. I found one study that might be interesting (but I can't access more than the abstract): "Music motivation and the effect of writing music: A comparison of pianists and guitarists" (Peter D. MacIntyre and Gillian K. Potter, published in Psychology of Music 2013).

This PsyPost article writes:

"MacIntyre and Potter also found a big difference between guitarists and pianists when it came to composing music. Nearly twice as many guitarists reported writing music than pianists. In addition, 40 percent of pianists said they had no intention to learn to write music in the future compared to only 13.5 percent of guitarists.

I am surprised that there are not more studies on the motivational effects of writing music,” MacIntyre told PsyPost. “In our study, we found that almost 90 percent of guitarists either write music or plan to begin writing music. As a group, guitarists show a lot of diversity but have at least two things in common: calloused fingers and a desire to write music.”

We found this result intriguing. Most often, I think of writing music on the piano rather than the guitar, but our sample shows guitar players are creating their own music in large numbers.”

Jayron is absolutely right about the "libraries of guitar music out there", but, once again, they seem to be written by guitarists! ---Sluzzelin talk 05:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused... Do people who write for piano typically not know how to play piano? That seems a bit incongruous... --Jayron32 00:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, yet there are a number who composed for the piano, but for whom the piano wasn't necessarily "their" instrument; though they had learned to play it, they wouldn't consider themselves pianists. Example: Paul Hindemith. And on the other hand, the majority of classical compositions for clarinet or cello or harp were not written by clarinetists, cellists or harpists. ---Sluzzelin talk

My friend asked me to thanks everyone who contributed, and found User:Jayron32 and User:Sluzzelin's answers particularly helpful. My thanks to all as well. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]