Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 March 9

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities 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 9

Architecture and Music

This is something I've wondered for a long time. My whole life I've loved music, and yet I fail to see any connection with architecture. Many times I've read on how a well designed building can be translated into song. This whole concept seems rediculous. I mean, has anyone walked past a skyscraper, snapped thier fingers, and thought "great tune, man" ? Could someone please explain this to me? --Sam Science (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I cant find anything on Sophic or Mantic...

Be nice if someone put something in

Thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.201.186.150 (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it was Goethe who first described architecture as “frozen music”. Michael Flanders in turn suggested that his friend Donald Swann’s music was “defrosted architecture”. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's the old quote that "writing about music is like dancing about architecture"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to consider how a composer works. Speaking as a composer myself I doubt that music can actually convey extra musical ideas directly. Music does however convey the emotions and possibly the ideas of a composer very well, far better than text sometimes. Many composers cite architecture as being an inspiration to their music. John Adams has said this for instance. Maybe it a feeling of grandeur from a gothic cathedral, maybe it’s a sense of sleek modernism in a skyscraper, or maybe it’s even a sense of history that a composer is inspired by. Finally, consider how architecture has directly influenced music compositions. In particular many Renaissance composers wrote music specifically designed to be performed in churches and cathedrals. They took into account the very long reverberation time and also the location of the one or more choirs when they wrote, thereby customizing the music for the building in which it would be heard. --S.dedalus (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not just emotions and ideas, but formal elements too can be translated directly from architecture to music, and back again. Both disciplines talk about static and dynamic structure, fundament, the use of space, background, omission, detail, ornament, and so forth. Iannis Xenakis, who was both an architect and a composer, published some thoughts on these translations, though they're quite academic and perhaps not directly related to your question. But yes, there are people who "see" a song in all sorts of things, including architecture, from skyscrapers to beach huts, from crowded airports to hospital waiting rooms. If synesthesia can make music elicit visual imagery, why shouldn't it be possible the other way around as well? And occasionally we do snap our fingers and think: "great tune, man!" ---Sluzzelin talk 11:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm reminded of two things John Ruskin said - "A building must do two things: it must shelter us and it must speak to us of the things we find important and need to be reminded of." And "Don't just look at buildings, watch them." That second remark plainly means that while a building is static, its appearance alone isn't the only thing about it that matters: it's also important how people move around it and experience it. Perhaps a building can have many of the qualities and effects of music, although of course the comparison is a metaphysical one. Xn4 18:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Synesthesia? (Good luck trying to make sense of this article!) --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Music and emotion

I am a person of modest education and background who has sometimes been chagrined when persons whose opinions I respect describe popular music as being extremely simple/repetitive/unimaginative as compared to works by Mozart and company. I can see their point in terms of the virtuosity of the composition and performance, but the stuff just leaves me cold. I grew up listening to an NPR station with no shortage of classical music, but none of it can make me actually feel emotion like, say, Too Drunk to Fuck or recent Spencer Krug output or a lot of other pop music. My question: is popular music more popular than more technically masterful music for the same reason that Anne Rice outsells Nabokov, or are these different situations? Thanks.

Anyone who claims classical music is not repetitive has not actually listened to (or especially studied) classical music. I can't help but be reminded of an interview with Jimmy Page where he discusses trading riffs with David Bowie. He said that Bowie told him it must have been like that back in the classical time. Perhaps someone told Beethoven, "Hey man, I got a cool riff for you. It goes da-da-da-dum. I bet you can build a song around that." Then, I can't help but think of many Beatles songs that are far more technically masterful than Mozart. Even Metallica's Master of Puppets is more technically masterful than most classical music. So, your question is based on a fallacy. Classical music is not more technically masterful than popular music. Popular music is more popular because it is popular music. It is wasn't popular, it wouldn't be called popular music. It would be called alternative or underground or college music (or country -- oops, I shouldn't have said that!) -- kainaw™ 03:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Kainaw, I disagree and I hardly think David Bowie is a good reference for classical music. lol. Although some classical music is repetitive in a sense (themes are repeated and elaborated on), it is not repetitive in the circular way that popular music is. I’m not sure how Bowie came to that conclusion, but having analyzed numerous works of Mozart, Bach, etc. and a few pieces songs by the Beatles I can’t see any contest. In terms of harmony, rhythm, melodic development, and use of tambour even Edvard Grieg is superior.

To answer the original question – I’m sorry to say this is one question to which you will not find an answer without some degree of musical training. A standard pop song has a repetitive chord progression such as I, IV, V, I (chords move in sequesnce and are labeled with Roman numerals depending on what note of the scale they start on). Compare this to even the most basic composition by Mozart which relies on a complex pattern of relationships between and within keys. Classical music is also generally far more complex and intricate than popular music because of its musical forms such as Sonata form or Rondo. Classical music is often far more expressive and uplifting than popular music. I cannot imagine comparing Too Drunk to Fuck with the searing emotional rollercoaster ride that is Bach’s St Matthew Passion. How can even the any pop love song compare to the beautiful Winterreise? How can even the complexity of on of Frank Zappa’s most experimental songs compare to the intellectual genius of Arnold Schoenberg?

Pop music is easy to absorb and requires zero thought to understand. It appeals to us on essentially a carnal level. “Classical” music requires the listener to participate. Classical music must be understood not just heard, but if you can do that the payoff is a hundred times more wonderful. If you really want to understand this question you could start by looking through Portal:Classical music and reading some of the articles featured there. Hope this helps. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Music evolves... I think it's simply a case of changing styles. You can't compare classical music which was composed 400 years ago to MTV's top 10 in 2008. To say either is more or less emotive is really for the listener to decide. I see both points and can totally understand each. To answer your question directly, I believe today's "general public" have come to accept things which they can enjoy instantly, and which don't require effort to do so. Like your comment about famous authors, most people would rather read a novella which takes them through a story directly, rather than read an epic classic which might require effort to actually understand and enjoy. It's basically instant gratificaton. The same applies to music. What defines technicality differs from person to person, of course, but as a fan of both the most extreme forms of metal, and the wizardry of Bach, I can state without reservation that old classical music has realms to which even the most complex modern metal compositions still aspire. I think it's blatantly untrue to say that bands such as the Beatles and Metallica produce more complex music than classical greats. Time will tell, of course, but I have my doubts that any of the music we call "popular" these days will still be listened to 1,000 years from now, whilst the great classical composers will surely live on. A personal opinion, of course. --- Soulhunter123 (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what "technically masterful music" means, whether it has to do with composition or performance. But either way I am skeptical about the link between music that is technically good and music that moves you emotionally. I might even suggest that technique has almost nothing to do with emotion. Pfly (talk) 06:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think by technically masterful the OP means art music. Perhaps there is a link because a very skilled composer can purposefully create specific emotional responses in an audience whereas an amateur or unskilled composer may be able to do the same, but he or she may rely more on luck and inspiration than skill. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Popular music is 'popular' because it appeals to a broad spectrum of listeners. That makes no difference on whether it is 'technically' good or 'art or 'skilled' - it can range from being some of the best music ever made to being some of the worst music ever made (though all that would be opinion). The reason it sells well is many reasons: Easily accessible, large audience of listeners/people who've heard it to market to, general human desire to be part of the 'norm' or 'mainstream' (not everybody falls into this always, but by and large) and many other reasons. Only pretentious tossers (apologies for the use of language) believe that mainstream must equate to lower quality than niche markets - it is not the case. You may prefer more niche music more (I certainly tend to) but those niche markets churn out just as much crap music as the 'pop' world does. ny156uk (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A few thoughts, in random order. It's completely fallacious to relegate classical music to that written "400 years ago". I suppose there was a bit of intentional hyperbole involved in that claim, but it just perpetuates the notion that all the classical composers died out at some stage in the past, and "popular" composers are all we have left today. That is 1000% wrong. There is wonderful "classical" music being written as I speak, and there always will be. True, great music from the past is still played, listened to and enjoyed today, precisely because a significant number of people love it and want to keep on spreading the word about it. Same holds true for great literature, sculpture, architecture and painting from the past. If it's timeless, it's timeless. On the other hand, the proportion of works of art from any era that are truly timeless, compared to the totality of all works of art from that era, is small. In amongst the great works are multitudes of lesser works all the way down to utter crap, and no composer wrote only timeless pieces. One measure of the greatness of a composer is the proportion of their entire output that remains loved and played - Bach, Beethoven and Mozart wrote literally hundreds of pieces in this category, which would probably account for 30% of everything they wrote. That might sound like a low figure, but they wrote a hell of a lot, and there isn't enough time in anyone's life to get to know their entire output. Lennon and Macartney would probably score a lot higher than 30% - and they were just as much geniuses as Mozart and co were. Popular music consists, in the main, of 3-minute songs. But when it comes to classical music we're comparing apples and oranges. Mozart's works, for example, ranged from simple 2-minute songs or piano pieces, up to 4-act operas that take 3 hours to perform, and also 4-movement symphonies and concertos, chamber music of extraordinary range and variety, masses and other choral works, etc. I might love particular parts of a certain opera, but quite dislike other parts; others would have a different set of responses. Or I might love opera but despise string quartets, or vice-versa. It's tempting to lump all "classical music" into one basket, but that's as wrong-headed as lumping reggae, jazz, soul, pop, new wave, funk, dance music, and all the other "popular" genres into one basket as if they were all the same. I've played and heard Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata probably close to 1000 times; but if, in some weird Kafka-esque nightmare, I were given the choice of hearing it played 1000 times over and over, or the Beatles' "Yesterday" played 1000 times, I'd choose the latter. One's emotional reaction to music varies greatly - I might listen to a piece on one occasion and get teary; but on another occasion I'll just enjoy it, but with no emotional reaction at all. Oliver Sacks' Musicophilia has a lot to say about emotional responses to music, as do a lot of other books on the subject. There's no explanation, afaik, as to why one person is strongly attracted to "classical" music while others are magnetised by "popular" music. I will never be able to explain why Brahms's Alto Rhapsody moves me and Smells Like Teen Spirit horrifies me. We like what we like, and we can never make anyone like what they don't. Exposure is important, and parents have a duty to expose their kids to a wide range of genres of music and other forms of art, but at the end of the day, what the kids like and enjoy is what their own brains decide for them, not what their parents decide for them. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ragging (in India, especially)

What are the main causes of ragging in India. Can we call a person who conducts ragging as mentally sick? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kishormahabal (talk • contribs) 03:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ragging. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Identifying classical piano piece. Please have a listen!

Last month, I posted here to see if anyone could identify a piece of classical piano from a YouTube clip. Nobody knew it, so I'm back again and hopefully some piano fan will be able to tell us this time what it is. It sounds to me like a Michael Nyman ("The Piano") piece, but the clip is only very short, so I cannot tell. Any help is appreciated. View the clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqMMJV-ZgPQ --- Soulhunter123 (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be helpful if people looked at your original posting and the responses then, Soulhunter: so here it is. For some reason it is marked as "solved"; but I don't think it really was, as you indicate.

Why not email the producers of Frasier?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

...or was that a different one? If so, please give a link to correct earlier posting, so people don't have to follow up the same false leads as they did last time.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies; I think I posted my last request without logging in (i.e. anonymously) so I can't actually find it now. The one you specified above is, indeed, different and was solved. To provide a quick summary, Philip Glass was suggested as the composer, but it was decided that the piece was unlikely to be his. Michael Nyman remains the top runner, but nobody could identify which piece the clip was from. I will keep looking for the old discussion. --- Soulhunter123 (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The old discussion is here. --- Soulhunter123 (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nutty Nazis?

Why was Hitler's government so marked by people in power with huge mental health issues? Was it due to hand-picking, the leadership role model, a job-specific selection process, or just sheer political manoevering by aggressive, ambitious types with supermen complexes gathered from Nietszche as in jobs for the boys? I take it they were a product of the times, philosophies, national confidence factors etc, but why this particular imbalance when there were a few regular, idealistic, "principled" types like say, Rommel? Julia Rossi (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say you're on the right track, though perhaps supermen complexes would be over-egging it for most party members. On the whole, there aren't many modest and entirely rational people who go into politics, at the best of times. For Germany, the years following the First World War were the worst of times, and when the Nazi party got into government its rise was still linked with the SA as well as the SS. The Nazi Party always presented a theatrical or even melodramatic face to the world. On the inside, I find it hard to see a man like Rommel getting far, even if he'd wanted to be part of the show, which is also hard to imagine. Xn4 17:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Julia. I'm not at all sure that the Nazi leadership was in fact marked by 'mental health issues', as you have put it. Indeed, I personally would reject such a label as positively dangerous, in the sense that it would seem to offer a convenient and entirely unsatisfactory explanation for the criminal excesses of the Nazi regime. After all, mad people do mad things; don't they? Yes, it is true that Hitler might be said to have some personality disorders, but so, too, did Stalin. Most of the senior Nazi leadership-and I do not include Julius Streicher here-were surprisingly normal, with little in the way of a 'superman complex'. Some had above average intellects; people like Herman Göring, Josef Goebbels, Albert Speer and the 'fellow traveller' Hjalmar Schacht. Others like Heinrich Himmler, Wilhelm Frick and Walther Funk were colourless mediocrities, who, but for Hitler, would almost certainly have passed through life unnoticed by History. Others, most notably Rudolf Hess, were just bizarre eccentrics.

Xn4 is right in drawing attention to the historical circumstances that brought these men together, and allowed them to advance the programme they had. If they were mad then so, too, was Germany. Yes, they were all ambitious, all anxious to make an impact on the world and address what they saw as injustices inflicted on Germany. They all had principles of a kind, not principles you or I may like, but principles nonetheless. Perhaps the only one with a true 'superman complex' was Goebbels, a restlessly ambitious figure with a razor-like intellect and virtually no moral sense at all. But Goebbels was an oddity in a party that stressed an Aryan ideal. Below average height with a club-foot and a large head, he over-compensated for his perceived weaknesses by developing his skills as a publicist, a speaker and an organiser. In these particular areas he had a talent second to none. He was probably one of the few who ever read Nietzsche.

I suppose in the end you have to consider that the Nazi state was torn up by the roots, so to speak, which has allowed the kind of pathology that you have advanced. Yes, it was mad. Yes, they were mad. But just imagine if this had happened with any other state; just think what the records might reveal. What, for example, lies behind Donald Rumsfeld, a man less fitted for senior office I find hard to imagine. Look also at the Soviet leadership under Stalin, little better than a collection of thugs and drunks with a sexual pervert thrown in for good measure. And they all emerged from an ideology that placed its greatest stress on the liberation of the human race! Politics at the best of times is an odd business, attracting odd people. We know all too well what it attracts at the worst of times. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, these men were both angry and capable, but not mad (in your words, "people with huge mental health issues"). Mad people need tremendous luck to organize their own success, and the leading Nazis had to make their own luck and did succeed to a large degree, both in their own careers and in taking over their country. After the Great War, Germany had been treated meanly and foolishly in defeat, and in the midst of economic collapse and mass unemployment the Nazis set about harnessing the anger of the German nation to bring themselves to power. That course took them into extreme paths, and when they got into power (especially later, under war-time conditions) it corrupted them further. When Hess flew to the UK in 1941, he was closely examined and found to be suffering from mental illness and depression, but was not not found to be mad. In all the circumstances, that's hardly surprising. Hitler, surely, was mad by the end, and the killing of the Goebbels children surely shows madness, but people do crack up under such pressures. I agree with Clio that we see forms of mental illness at the top in all directions. Xn4 05:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That clarifies things for me, that syndromes of incapacitating mental health problems weren't the thing, but tendencies to be crazy were in the party and were aggravated under pressure. Re "principled", it was the turn of phrase meaning having some sense of responsibility to others and doing the best job they could contrasting with the cruelty and excesses of people in power - rightly the Nazis had their own principles as in a chain of reasoning, so I didn't mean to be so woolly there. It's been very helpful to have the overview, connections with will and power and politics and the background of Germany between the wars as a recipe for ensuing developments. I take it the fascism wasn't against a background of suzerainty that was Stalin's- though this isn't to make excuses for anyone abusing power in the way that these are examples (or models) of, but I couldn't see how the mad ones accumulated the way they did, so it's been helpful to think about that. I guess too that having an extremist in leadership attaches and protects others with the same um... aptitudes as himself and keeping them around him. It's disturbing to see "forms of mental illness at the top in all directions". In the end, power is about oppression to stay in place and other syndromes such as paranoia emerge in that context. It's a rich field to think about lots of things - including what a prevailing power understands by what it means to be human - and not. Thanks for your thoughtful information, both of you. Politics, anyone? Julia Rossi (talk) 06:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not mad, but severely lacking in moral judgement. AllenHansen (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Rumsfeld is a Princeton graduate. There is no point comparing him to the Nazis and I dont know how Clio the Muse got this information that he is the man "less fitted for office that she could imagine". Perhaps she thinks Churchill is much more of an intellectual as him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Rumsfeld with Churchill. Big mistake. Flamarande (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Churchill's an interesting comparison and undoubtedly suffered from mental illness. In 1758, the Duke of Newcastle warned George II against promoting James Wolfe, claiming he was mad. Thackeray's William Pitt (1827) quotes the king as replying "Mad, is he? Then I wish he would bite some other of my generals". Xn4 17:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Neville Chamberlain seemed to have a weak grasp on reality in the period leading up to WW2, in evaluating and reacting to the German threat to peace, and in evaluating the ability of Poland to resist invasion. Insane or merely incompetent? Edison (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither! Would you like me to mount a defence of Chamberlain and Appeasement, Edison? Then you only have to post it as a separate question! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, Churchill suffered from depression specially towards the end of his life, but I don't know how this influenced his actions. Anyway, it is nothing like some kind of delusional thinking that is what the RP may be searching for. Mr.K. (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a short rebuttal to "Rumsfeld is a Princeton graduate". A few years ago, the Hamburg historian Michael Wildt took a closer look at the RSHA, one of the chief organizers of the Third Reich's most monstrous and pathological achievement, the Holocaust. (Generation des Unbedingten. Das Führungskorps des Reichssicherheitshauptamtes, Generation of the Unbound: The Leadership Corps of the Reich Security Main Office. Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 2002 (Engl., in original German, Hamburg: 2002). ISBN 9653081624.).

According to the study, 75% of the RSHA'ss leading officials had an Abitur, about two thirds had a University degree (most often law), and about one third had a PhD. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

But in any case, since when was a university degree considered a prerequisite for political office? The best leadership takes natural political skill, which cannot be taught in a university environment. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, delusional was the word and the feature I was after. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not at all sure that the Nazi's did have 'huge mental health issues'. A lot of them were highly educated and capable, but also, certainly by the end of the war, completely amoral. (Have a look at Hans Frank.) I suspect that, in a sort of Stanley Milgram sort of way, they competed with each other for Hitler's attention (he was, apparently, a great believer in divide and conquer techniques amongst his higher echelons). See also the book: 'Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland' by Christopher Browning for a chilling description both of how ordinary people became detuned to their activities and how they systematically became more and more brutal. --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "Beastorn"

A recent question about Byzantium/Byzantine reminds me that in July last year of 2006, on a thread about words to do with Byzantium – see here - I asked a side question about the origin of the word “Beastorn”, or even whether it’s a real word. It appeared in "Barry Jones Dictionary of World Biography" (Information Australia, 2nd ed., 1996), in the article on Charlemagne, and the full quote is as follows:

• By 800, Charlemagne was the supreme power in western Europe, and he and his counsellors, such as the English Alcuin, wishing to emphasise an imaginary continuity between Charles his empire [sic] and that of Rome, argued that the imperial throne was vacant owing to the crimes of the Beastorn (Byzantine) empress Irene. (my emphasis)

I took the advice last year in 2006 that it was probably a misprint for “Eastern”, but that's never quite sat right in my brain. The book, as I said last year then, has an extremely surprising number of factual and spelling errors for a person of Jones's undoubted erudition, so it could well be just another one. However, the spelling errors (apart from transliterations of Russian names, about which he’s very inconsistent) tend to be more related to type-setting rather than those perpetrated by Jones himself, e.g. in many places where the letter l (el) belongs, the numeral 1 (one) appears. And on the back cover, there’s a blurb for the reader, signed by Barry Jones, and with his name printed under his signature. It’s spelled “Barry 0. Jones” - that’s Barry zero Jones, not Barry O (for Owen) Jones. I know this because in the body of the blurb he refers to Edna O’Brien and O.J. Simpson, both spelled correctly with an O and not a 0. There’s no way he would misspell his own name so egregiously. There was a later edition of the Dictionary in 1998, but I don't have it so I can't compare.

I remain inclined to the view that it's not a typo, and that Jones uses the word Beastorn quite deliberately, if for no other reason than that he explains, by the use of a word in brackets, what he’s referring to. If it were a typo for "Eastern", no explanation would be required, and the word "Byzantine" would not require any brackets. The first time I ever read this passage, the word sprang out at me and I knew absolutely that I’d seen it somewhere before, but I still can’t remember where or when. On Google there are precisely 3 hits for “Beastorn” – my original question from last year 2006; a weird Spanish “grammer” [sic] site which has quoted my question without authority (what cheek!); and a rather amazing porn site named “Beastporn” (I had to open it in the interests of literary and historical research, you understand). But that's all. I seem to be in very dubious company lately. I did check with Michael Quinion last year around that time, but he drew a complete blank. So, it seems to be just about unknown, except to Barry Jones and me (well, at least my taste in friends is improving).

OK, after that long-winded intro, I’m now casting around for anyone who can help me with the etymology of this word and its relationship to things Byzantine. Clio – if anyone knows about stuff like this, you would. Any ideas? Noetica - you’ve turned up here since those heady days – does the OED have anything to say about this melancholy and haunting word? Or anyone else? I'm depending on you. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly unlikely that "Eastern" might be qualified by "Byzantine" in that context. I remember this discussion from before; the typo explanation still seems most reasonable. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

so what is this 'beastporn' site like? are we talking animals here or what?...:)Perry-mankster (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not animals in the sense of non-human. More like super-human, if you get my drift. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jack, is that really a published dictionary definition? It's positively breathless! It also makes Alcuin sound like some kind of collective or tribe! What on earth are the alleged crimes of the Empress Irene? In actual fact Pope Leo III and Charlemagne considered the imperial throne to be vacant for entirely sexist reasons. Irene was, well, a woman! Perhaps that was her chief crime?! I have no idea where 'Beastorn'-a truly ugly word-comes from. I imagine-and please forgive me for saying so-that it is a product of Mr. Jones intellectual confusion. I must have a look at this dictionary. If this is typical it must be full of laughs!

Incidentally, I did not see this first time around because the Language Desk is not among my happy hunting grounds. In reading it over I was surprised to note that the first respondent had never heard of Byzantium. I seem always to have known of its existence, dragged into consciousness from some past life perhaps! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The real reason you didn't see it is that it was posted in July 2006, Clio, before your arrival in these hallowed environs, not last year as I incorrectly stated. The quote above is not a definition, just the full sentence in which the word appears; it's part of a considerably longer article on Charlemagne. I quoted it to provide the context in which the word Beastorn appears; I thought that might help respondents to understand what was going on. Unfortunately, the Dictionary doesn't have an article on the empress Irene, so I have no idea to which "crimes" Jones was referring. In his autobiography A Thinking Reed (2006), he goes into great detail about the genesis of this Dictionary (he started work on it in the mid 1950s!), and explains the troubles he had with publishers in earlier versions. These included various editions being published under his name, but without his knowledge, and with massive unauthorised changes and deletions made by the publishers. Apparently he wrote a stinging denunciation of the troubled history of the work in Private Eye. I can't agree about the ugliness of Beastorn - it's certainly not a beautiful word, but it does evoke another place and another time - it has a really haunting quality for me, hence my lingering obsession with it. But that's just me. Thanks anyway, Clio. So, where does this leave me? Noetica, you may be my last hope. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Although Constantine_VI does not sound an ideal son, having him kidnapped and blinded might be considered an ummotherly act, or even a crime. SaundersW (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That the Empress was notorious for having blinded and murdered her own son was, in the minds of both Leo and Charles, almost immaterial: it was enough that she was a woman. The female sex was known to be incapable of governing, and by the old Salic tradition was debarred from doing so. As far as Western Europe was concerned, the Throne of the Emperors was vacant: Irene's claim to it was merely additional proof, if any were needed, of the degeneration into which the so-called Roman Empire had fallen. John Julius Norwich, Byzantium: the Early Centuries, 1988, p. 378.

As I have said, no women, thank you very much! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Questing knight Sir Noetica hunts down the legendary Beastorn while a dew-clad nymph applauds.

Ariel-like at your bidding, JackofOz, I have skimmed the logosphere, and dallied the while among dew-clad nymphs of lexicomania, ears a-strain. But I hear nothing like unto beastorn, neither at OED nor under no manner cowslip.

Eastern, meseems, is an hypothesis not lightly to be dismissed. If there is an infelicity here, it would not be the first from Jones. In Decades of Decision he derives utopia as if it were eutopia (a separate and much rarer word). This is a schoolboy howler, where I come from. Similarly, in live conversation with Jones I ascertained that for all his fine talk concerning reductionism in Sleepers, Wake!, he has an... unusual understanding of its role in integrating the special sciences.

On Friday I might be able to check later editions of his dictionary. Would you like that? If so, give me a little more information (chapter title; proportion of the way through the chapter, etc.) to guide me. Failing that, there are certain surpassing good gurus we can consult in quest of the fabled beastorn.

Clio, I have a copy of Norwich's Byzantium: the Early Centuries. You inspire me to advance it in my list of legenda.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I could go into chapter and verse about the errors I've spotted in the Dictionary of World Biography, but that would take all week. To be fair, though, I have no reason to believe other than that the overwhelming proportion of facts he states are true; it's just that, where he goes wrong, he sometimes goes badly and inéxplicably wrong, and these errors really stand out and assume a gravitas out of proportion to their numbers. I can't resist giving a few examples: (a) Of Sir Roger Bannister, he says: English athlete. The first to achieve a four-minute mile (6 May 1954), he was knighted in 1979. All true, except that there's no reference to his other life as a physician. His knighthood could reasonably be assumed to have been bestowed for services to athletics, when in fact it had nothing to do with this but was entirely for his services to medicine. (b) In the article on Mary, the mother of Jesus, he describes the Immaculate Conception to mean that she was "the subject of a virgin birth". In fact, the doctrine says no such thing. It says she was born without stain of original sin. Although she is said to have remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus, there's never been any suggestion that Mary's mother remained a virgin after giving birth to Mary. (c) He says, of King Alfonso XIII of Spain, As a posthumous child of Alfonso XII, he may be said to have been a king before he was born. Well, hardly. He wasn't even legally a person till he was born, let alone a king. (d) On Cecil Beaton, he says that he was the friend and (briefly) lover of Greta Garbo. Maybe so, but that entirely obscures the flaming homosexuality which characterised his main relationships. (e) He says that Irving Berlin's original given name was "Isidore", when it was actually Israel. Isidore was his middle name. (f) He talks, in reference to the appearances at Lourdes claimed by Bernadette Soubirous, of "the vision" and "the event" - there were no less than 18 such claimed visions and events! (g) Of Humphrey Bogart, he talks of his first big success in The Petrified Forest (1934), which led to a long series of 75 films including ... you guessed it, The Petrified Forest. And so on. In one of his other books, Barry Jones' Guide to Modern History: Age of Apocalypse (1975), he refers to the Ottoman Empire as "a Mohammedan power" (!). I guess it's easy to nitpick, but it is fun.

Back to the Dictionary: There are no chapters, simply a continuous series of short articles on prominent people throughout history, arranged alphabetically by surname. The article on Charlemagne is on page 147 of the 1996 edition (820 pages), and the sentence I quoted above is about 45% of the way down the article. Yes, thank you, Noetica, I'd be very interested to learn whether this word is replicated in the later edition (which I've learned today is for some odd reason referred to as "the 1999 edition" despite being published in 1998). I'm pretty much convinced, if reluctantly, by now, that "Beastorn" must really be a typo for "Eastern", but I am very keen to put this rest once and for all. Thank you all for your forbearance with me; I know I should have been shut up a while ago. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think "Beastorn" may become another one of those obscure RD jokes. How could one possibly misspell "eastern" in such a manner? I have to check this book out for myself. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What is an "RD" joke, Anon? Why do I get the feeling you are not treating this matter with due seriousness? What is the capital of Assyria?

JofO, how silly of me. Of course it has no chapters! I'll get back to you when I have trawled the tomes.

O, and Jones was spotted more recently (last year?) on The Einstein Factor (nonsense that it is!) confidently confusing helium and hydrogen in the most, um, elementary way. Excruciating, from a former Minister for Science. Still. He's done such things; we have not.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As to how the error could possibly have occurred, my guess is that the text was scanned at some point and the infelicities for which this technology is notorious happened this way. What else could explain the literally hundreds of examples where an l (letter el) is replaced with a 1 (number one), and an O (letter) is replaced with a 0 (zero). Also, many words are broken into 2 parts (without sometimes becomes "with out", throughout sometimes becomes "through out", etc). Chabrier's influence was "no table" (i.e. notable). In the Charles I entry, we read about Archbishop William Laud's "at tempt" to influence matters. We're told that Archimedes "calculated the value of ! [sic, and my own personal !] to a close approximation" - surely this was meant to be π . And so on and on. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So I eased my way in reeeeeal quiet-like, out of the heat of the Melbourne day – into the sweaty jungle gloom of The Library. This is what I had been trained for. It was... strangely quiet. Too quiet. This was Charlie's point, and I had no business there except a mission – a mission from JackofOz. Beastorn, verify status. Determine, with extreme prejudice.

Reference section? Yeah, right. That's what they told the Poindexter kid, and he was never seen again. Still dunno what they told his old lady, but it sure as hell wasn't the truth, no sir Bob.

And then there it was: vintage Jones, 1999 pure Cambodian, hardly used. I cracked open the gun-metal boards, blew off the dust, and... uncannily pristine and not so much as a mind-my-misprint: the Beastorn.

I was due for R&R and just wanted to get out of there with my brain still in and my guts intact, but something told me: Shoot, shoot goddamnit. Gave it three quick swipes with my 2-megapixel Sony-Ericsson CIA-special-issue, and one of its bio-tome buddies. There's ALWAYS another one, just down the shelf aways. We knew they were hoarding this stuff, just like the vets said about Alexandria. Yeah, you know the type: Chambers, 1997. I'd seen 'em in Nam. Giant brutes, with entries for every two-bit Byzantine empress this side a' Nantucket.

Turns out it had the juice on this Irene broad:

Irene c.752–803

Byzantine empress

She was a poor orphan of Athens, and her beauty and talents led the Emperor Leo IV to marry her (769). After his death (780) she ruled as regent for her son, Constantine VI. Powerful and resolute, she imprisoned and blinded him and her husband's five brothers, and ruled in her own right from 797, but in 802 she was banished to Lesbos. For her part in patronizing monasteries and restoring icon veneration she was recognized as a saint by the Greek Orthodox Church.

That was all. Tough dame! Turns out it jives with Wikipedia's briefing, but... I was suspicious as all hell: Lesbos, likes it Greek... sounds like one of those Maffra-dikes the pah-dray done warn us about. But what did I care? My tour was up, and I was headin' off waitin' for the next boat down-river. The desk-jockey brass back home could make what they like of this... "field in-telli-gence", or whaddever the hay they call it. 'Taint ma war no moah. But the Beastorn? It's out there, I tell you. It's out there.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Noetica, you're a saint, not only for your stirling efforts on my behalf but more particularly for braving this fucking heat (no apologies; this is supposed to be autumn, goddamit! Didn't anyone tell the weather gods to turn summer off at the stroke of midnight on 1 March? The leaves on my trees are beautifully golden and dropping (which means they're not on my trees anymore, but I think you're probably intelligent enough to know this), but for all the wrong reasons) when I would gladly have provided a papal dispensation (or even empirical in this case, if that's the right word) had I believed you were making a special trip solely for little ol' me and didn't have important (naturally) and unavoidable business in the city anyway. We Maffradites have been staying indoors in air-conditioned comfort away from Beastorns, but still unable to avoid a plague of beastly insects that also seem to want to get away from the weather outside and seem to regard mere doors and mere flyscreens as challenges to be overcome rather than actual barriers to ingress. The Beastorn is around, somewhere close, I can just sense it. But that's my problem. St Noetica of the Heatwave, go in peace, tripping merrily back to the Dandenongs where you may now have that well-deserved rest on your cold stone floor with a rock for a pillow. (Well, at least it'll be relatively cool). Thanks, mate, much obliged. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wild Geese: "Flight of the wild geese"

Where did the name "Flight of the Wild Geese" come from? --12.169.167.154 (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I found nothing definite, but would have guessed that like the feathered geese, they migrated southward in large numbers, hoping to return one day, when the climate is warmer again.

I did find this quote by Seán Ó Faoláin:

"The Wild Geese come in their thousands with the October moon. They blacken the sky and they cry the coming of Autumn. Where there are low marshlands, or sloblands, they settle down, and then the cabins are cooking them with much butter or grease in the bastables all the Winter. About the estuary of the Shannon, and all up the river into Limerick, they must have whizzed and moaned, that Winter of 1691, when Ginkel offered the terms that ended the Jacobite War, and started bitter quarrels among the tired and tattered Irish. The flying Irish, down the Shannon or down the Lee with Sarsfield, looked up at the skies, and took the name, The Wild Geese. It was the end of a period. It was all but the end of a race." [1]

---Sluzzelin talk 10:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I found this "French ships, which came to the west coast of Ireland smuggling brandy and wine, would leave with recruits for the Irish Brigade. To hide their movements from the English, the men would be listed on the ship's manifest as 'Wild Geese,' thus the origin of the name" here[2]. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Singing: what is this "quivering" of the voice?

In this rendition of 'ne me quiite pas', the singer's voice possesses a quality; a sort of quiver that occurs at certain points throughout - is there a name for this kind of "quivering" of the voice? --Seans Potato Business 14:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Tremolo. Gdr 15:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me rather as though the tremolo is produced in rather than being an intrinsic quality of her voice, though. SaundersW (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, when used by skilled singers, tremolo is a musical technique rather than an accidental occurrence. It can be used to great effect when applied artistically. - Nunh-huh 00:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Vibrato. Malcolm XIV (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Vibrato is a fluctuation in pitch rather than the fluctuation in intensity of tremolo. By the way, I meant only that this particular tremolo sounded artificial, not that it is artificial in general. SaundersW (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Britain, UK, British Isles, etc.

I have been aware on past visits to Wikipedia of the battles that flare up from time to time over the use of the term 'British Isles' as applied to the whole archipelago, including the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Thinking about the politics here I was wondering how the label 'Britain' evolved in relation to Britain itself, that part of the archipelago excluding Ireland. The Roman provance of Britannia did not include-or describe-the whole island; so how did the concept evolve after the departure of the Romans? Does any of this make sense? probably not. But I'm sure some of you guys will give me a good answer. I'm relying on you!King Knut (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at the very detailed British Isles (terminology)#Historical aspects? Gdr 14:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Yes, I have read all of that page. What I am asking about though is the evolution of a POLITICAL as opposed to a geographic concept. I am sorry I did not make this clearer. King Knut (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the page the previous respondent referred to covers the political as well as the geographical use of the name in some detail. Additional information not in that article might include that the term Bretwalda - usually understood to mean "Lord of Britain" - was used in the Anglo-Saxon period to refer to an Anglo-Saxon ruler who had dominance over the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. How, why, and to what extent the term was used is a matter of some debate - as the article I've linked to sets out. The term King of the Britons was sometimes used to refer specifically to Welsh princes prior to Wales' incorporation into the Kingdom of England.

Put simply, the island continued to be called Britain after the Romans left, and when a state emerged that occupied the whole of the island, the geographic name was adopted for that state. 02:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Britain was always both a political and a geographic concept. However, things start to get complicated after the Romans left in the fifth century. Bede, for instance, obviously thinks of the Britons as a very specific group of people, under attack from both the Irish and the Picts. As he has it "...we call them races from over the waters, not because they dwelt outside Britain but because they were separated from the Britons by two wide and long arms of the sea, one of which enters the land from the east, the other from the west, thought they do not meet." The 'arms of the sea' here refer to the Firths of Clyde and Forth.

Going forward to the ninth century Historia Brittonum again we see two Britains. There is the island inhabited by the Scots, Picts, Saxons and Britons. But the author-traditionally named as Nennius-goes on to describe the thirty-three cities of Britain, none further north than Dumbarton-the fort of the Britons-on the Clyde estuary, suggesting a non-British kingdom beyond to the north. This distinction is maintained by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which divides the island between the Picts to the north and the Britons to the south.

By the tenth century we find Edward the Elder being described as "King of the English, raised by the right hand of the Almighty to the throne of the kingdom of all Britain." But the first who might truly be entitled to that title was Athelstan, his son.

There was still at this time confusion, though over the precise terminology, as 'King of Britain' could effectively still mean dominion only over the old Roman province. The one way of getting round this might have been the style 'King of all Britain', which appears with increasing frequency in the Chronicles, or 'King of Albion’, a tenth-century neologism Eadwig, for example, is described as 'king not only of the Anglo-Saxons but also truly of the whole island of Albion.'

In reading early Medieval sources it is as also as well to remember that Britain could still mean 'the land of the Britions', as opposed to England. In Asser's Life of King Alfred it is used specifically in reference to Wales, with Offa's Dyke "the great rampart made from sea to sea between Britain and Mercia.” In is only from the twelfth century that the Britons of the west were described as being from 'Wealas', the Old English for foreigner or Celt, though the Welsh still thought of themselves as British. By the following century the Normans, abandoning the old Anglo-Saxon preoccupation with the whole island, thought of Britain as the old name for their own kingdom of England.

In his History of the Kings of Britain Geoffrey of Monmouth managed to create an elaborate and bogus genealogy, giving comfort to both the Welsh and the English in their claims to authentic Britishness! The competition between the two over historical roots found some resolution in Elizabethan times, when Edmund Spencer celebrated in the Faerie Queene a Britain made up exclusively of England and Wales. It took a northern interloper to bring a new and not entirely welcome expansion of this idea! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a book on this subject (unread by me, but it got good reviews): 'Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707-1837' by L. Colley. --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A Dutch patriotic song

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v8YMbB6f7k

What is the song in the movie "A Bridge too Far". It is also in the movie "Soldaat van Oranje". -- Toytoy (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's "Oranje boven, oranje boven, leve de koningin." The best way to translate it would be something like "Up Orange, Up Orange, long live the Queen!" It's hard to translate the word "boven" correctly. Literally it means up or above, but in this context it means something along the lines of "hail ...". This song is sung to this day. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

How are you going to sing this when you will be ruled by a king? Will it scan?  --Lambiam 23:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be very honest with you: I have no idea, since we haven't had a king since November 1890. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, "koning" could easily be substituted for "koningin". There are plenty of precedents, like the version from the wedding of Juliana and Bernhard, where "het bruidspaar" was substituted. I am afraid this would be the solution. If you are really interested in the nauseating history of these Orangist songs you might try the site "www.geheugenvannederland.nl" and enter "Oranje boven" (with quotes) in its search engine. This will bring a number of sheet music examples going back to 1813. There are a number of different songs, using the slogan "Oranje boven" in their lyrics. Try this example, for instance [3] I hope this is useful as a first approximation--Ereunetes (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Replacing koningin with koning doesn't sound well metrically though, because one syllable is missing. Maybe it would be possible if koning is sung 'konihing'. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The estate of Anna Nicole Smith

Who will get her money eventually, in American law, as the son she left her money to in her will is deceased? 80.0.106.88 (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea but a scan through articles such as probate, inheritance and Uniform Probate Code might help you find out more. 18:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Anna Nicole Smith's daughter will inherit late mother's estate. Corvus cornix_talk 20:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Does the daughter receive estate as a beneficiary in a testamentary clause or through intestate succession? 75Janice (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that the article linked by CorcusCorvus cornix says, "A Los Angeles judge on Tuesday made 18-month-old Dannielynn Hope the sole heir and set up a trust in the girl's name", I suspect the latter. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Close to the latter. Anna Nicole Smith didn't quite die intestate, but her will named no beneficiaries that were alive at the time of her death (she had left everything to her son Daniel, and had not revised her will following Daniel's death and Dannielynn's birth). The size of Anna Nicole's estate is not particularly large unless she wins her suit regarding the provisions of J. Howard Marshall's will, and we are faced with the prospect of a protracted legal battle between representatives of two dead people, which will be economically beneficial primarily for the lawyers involved. Ideally, a settlement would be reached between Marshall's other heirs and Dannielynn's representatives (which should be possible now that Anna Nicole is dead, and the ill-feelings between the heirs should be of lesser importance), but that would require that Dannielynn's representatives place her interests above their own. We shall see what transpires, as Howard Stern is involved. One is reminded of Jarndyce and Jarndyce. - Nunh-huh 00:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding loan talks (germany post war)

Some background: The best research on the Morgenthau plan I've found so-far is this paper: Frederick H. Gareau "Morgenthau's Plan for Industrial Disarmament in Germany" The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Jun., 1961), pp. 517–534 Here Gareau explains how the plan was longterm policy, it won the day at the Potsdam conference thanks to the political bent of the U.S. delegation, and then gradually was watered out, although its effects on Germany lasted well into the 50's.

There were two main turning points, one was the September 1946 speech which most reputable historians have rightly labeled as the primary turning point, see also John Gimbel "On the Implementation of the Potsdam Agreement: An Essay on U.S. Postwar German Policy" Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 87, No. 2. (Jun., 1972), pp. 242-269.

The second main turning point was Hoovers March 1947 report where he candidly stated "There is the illusion that the New Germany left after the annexations can be reduced to a 'pastoral state'. It can not be done unless we exterminate or move 25,000,000 people out of it.", as for example used here. This report in a convoluted way led to the U.S. occupation directive being rescinded.

I found this paper, released in 2006 on the UK government secret discussions from 21 October 1946, where they pretty much prove that the historians who saw the Byrnes speech as one of the pivotal point were right. I.e. "b) U.S. policy was pastoralising (Morgenthan) until Stuttgart speech. They supported R. & Fr. case - to point of reducing steel prodn to 5.8 m. tons. And during Loan talks, cdn´t oppose them too strongly." "...They forced us to 5.8 m. - but all experience has shown we were right on APW Cttee in our figure of 11 m. " "Before this was completed I had seen Byrnes (before Stuttgart speech) & asked wtr. this meant he wd. overthrow Morgenthau policy. He said yes - with Truman´s authy."

What buggs me is that I would like to know more about the "And during Loan talks, cdn´t oppose them too strongly." Which loans was it that the U.S. so strongly opposed? Any ideas on this? i presume they were some sort of reconstruction loans for Germany that the Morgenthauers in the U.S. administration wanted no part of? Regards--Stor stark7 ^Talk 22:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

EB (Ernest Bevin) is talking about the Anglo-American loan - the UK economy had a very large dollar deficit, not all of it home-grown, and a desperate need of dollar-denominated credits - which had been agreed in December 1945. It wasn't the US that "cdn´t oppose", it was EB who couldn't oppose US plans to deindustrialise Germany until after the loan was agreed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okey, thanks a lot for clearing that up for me. Although I have to say that from EB's 1949 letter to Schuman he does not seem very opposed to de-industrialisation per see.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 01:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"I must tell you frankly that the continuation of dismantling is causing great disquiet among the Labour Party here and is becoming more and more unpopular in Parliament." [I am opposed] "In my view we cannot afford to wait until our whole dismantling policy falls about our ears ... ." [So we should stop now]

The Americans got the scenery, the Russians got the agriculture and the British got the (heavy) industry. The day-to-day priority of the British administration was to keep steel and coal and finished goods flowing out of the British zone and food flowing in. But dismantling didn't help with that.

"[A]s long as [the dismantling issue] remained unsettled it was the British who had to bear the brunt of German resentment and American criticism." [Bullock, Ernest Bevin: A Biography, p. 671] Had conditions been different, food could have been imported from the Sterling bloc, but in 1945-1947 feeding Germans meant spending dollars and we've already seen that dollars were one thing the British did not have. The short version is that Alled post-war policy in Germany was made everywhere but London. "England is so weak she must follow our leadership. She will do anything that we insist upon ..." said W. Averell Harriman. And he was right. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Discographies: Alberto Ginastera's "Danzas Argentinas"

Hi, I'm trying to compile a discography of Alberto Ginastera's "Danzas Argentinas" but have not had any luck. I've tried online databases, but they have results that are outdated, and therefore inaccurate. I was wondering if you could help point me in the right direction, or know of any sites that would help (that I haven't been able to find yet). Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.5 (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm... Surely you have already checked this article. I guess this link and this other one are not of much help. Maybe you want to try posting your query on the Entertainment Desk, where such kinds of search usually receive helpful treatment. Pallida  Mors 02:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)