Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/February 2011

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

• For promoted entries, add '''Promoted Example.ogg''' --~~~~ to the bottom of the entry, replacing Example.ogg with the file that was promoted.
• For entries not promoted, add '''Not promoted''' --~~~~ to the bottom of the entry.
• For entries demoted, add '''Demoted Example.ogg''' --~~~~ to the bottom of the entry.

Use variants as appropriate, e.g. with a large set of files, all of which pass, '''Promoted all''' is fine, but if one of them didn't pass for some reason, make sure that's clear.

Cello Suite 1 in G Prelude by J S Bach

This is a recording by John Michel of J. S. Bach's Cello Suite 1 in G Prelude. It was suggested for nomination by Raul654, who handled the OTRS ticket for this and several other pieces performed by John Michel. This file is already a featured sound on Spanish Wikipedia, was a Commons media of the day, and is used in the articles Cello and Cello Suites (Bach) on English Wikipedia. Without further ado...

• Nominate and Support: Sven Manguard Wha? 18:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Edit: As the rest was added, I Support All now.
• Question Why are the rest of the Cello Suite not featurable? Why only the Prelude? Zginder 2011-01-20T00:21Z (UTC)
  • I asked Sven to nominate the prelude because that is the best known part of the suite. I did not mean to imply that the rest of it is not featurable. Raul654 (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
    • We can include the rest, it's certainly good work, however I do note that only the prelude appears on Cello, so it is likely that Raul's assessment is correct on the comparative... umm... 'known-ness'. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
      • The prelude is most certainly the most famous. However the whole suite seems to be good work so I would say include it all. Jujutacular ^talk 16:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I transcluded the whole thing over here, and amended my nomination to extend support to all. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support all superb performance, high quality recording. Jujutacular ^talk 00:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support—Oh yes, this guy is good, even if it's on modern cello, not the original instrument Bach wrote for. Tony (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support all a high quality performance, even if there is the occasional mis-bowed and mis-tuned note. I can forgive the echo too - it sounds too much like it's been recorded in a hallway, and doesn't have the intimate sound which I would prefer. For all that, it's a fine set and should be made featured sounds. He does take the prelude at a fair lick too - faster than YoYo Ma or Casals for example. I don't think that diminishes the recording though.Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Promoted all —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 00:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Satie - Gnossienne

It sounds good, appears in Gnossiennes (Satie), and was uploaded by La Pianista.

• Nominate and support. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support All As with just about everything I've heard of La Pianista, this is excellent on the quality front. As to the encyclopedic value, these headline the article, not surprisingly, on the Gnossiennes. My one concern is with volume, but that is a minor concern since I test at 50% volume and could hear everything. It's just not quite as loud as other noms. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support All as uploader. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 05:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• Procedural issue: I believe for the performer herself to vote "Support" involves a significant conflict of interest. Such a vote should be struck, and indeed we need to write into the instructions that this will always be the case. And I have never thought the nominator's vote should count in the perilously small requirement of three votes. Having said that, I will support this nomination (weakly). I have no score of the work in front of me, but I'm wondering whether there are pedal markings. There seems to be a lot of pedalling, and I'm unsure the composer anticipated the amount of blurring that results. I note, also, that the room acoustic is pretty live, which doesn't help (just a little drier would be my choice—certainly for the Beethoven on your user page). In a few places the effect is a little harsh and the dream-like quality is lost to a hard-edged sound; the piano itself is on the wooden side. (What type of piano is it?) You might experiment next time with miking that is not quite so close; a less boomy environment would make this easier. Some of the files have a second or two of noise at the beginning, which would not have been too hard to edit out ... or is this a carry-over artefact of splitting a single rendition into multiple files? Let's hear more from La Pianista, but the tweaking of the audio-engineering and careful attention to touch and pedalling would be good. Tony (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: A discussion on this issue has been raised in the talk page of FSC. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• I completely agree, Tony. After having thought it over (for approximately three seconds), I've struck my vote. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 06:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support all. Great performance, thank you for your contribution La Pianista. A bit of extraneous noise, but not enough for me to oppose. Is that the click of the pedal on the floor I keep hearing? If so, you may try a small rug or something underneath. But overall, great work. Jujutacular ^talk 22:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It's recorded at the performance hall at my university - I don't think a rug would really fit in. :) I could find some better shoes to wear, though (the clicking comes from my foot hitting the pedal, not from the pedal hitting the floor). —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 06:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
    • OK, that's easy to fix next time. Is any reverb added in the post-production? Tony (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Nope. The hall itself is incredibly live. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 06:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1-3 and Oppose 4-7 - I think the quality meets requirements, but 4- 7 where published between 1923 and 2003 and are therefore copyrighted in the USA. Zginder 2011-01-08T18:15Z (UTC)
  • I saw that too, except for the fact that these are found works. They might have only been recently discovered and published, but clearly they were created over 100 years ago. The person that released them has no possible legal claim to them, as the works themselves became public domain. I'll try to find a page with policy to clear this up, but I believe all seven are PD. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I the USA until 1976 unpublished works had infinite common law/state law copyright. When congress extended copyright to unpublished works they gave until 2003 for these works to be published and for those that were copyright does not expire until 2048. Zginder 2011-01-09T05:40Z (UTC)
      • Well, my reading of the laws is terribly confusing. It seems to me that because this was composed in France, federal law supersedes state law in this case, however the federal laws are conflicting. Commons says "If published before 1978, the work is subject to the rules for works published before 1978. Because the common law copyright on unpublished works was perpetual, there were no unpublished works in the public domain back then, and thus the work was eligible to copyright when published." and refers me to another section that says that if it was published without a copyright notice "From 1923 to 1977: in the public domain" but with a copyright notice "From 1964 to 1977: not in the public domain for some time to come; copyright expires 95 years after the original publication." The issue is that there is no indication of which one applies. Someone needs to figure out if copyrights were appied for in 1968 when 4-6 were released. 7 was released in 2001, so that is out regardless. Sigh what a mess. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Regretfully, I must inform you all that Gnossiennes 4-7 are unequivicobally not within the public domain. They exist in a legal web of competing copyright laws, and had they been discovered a few years later, they would be PD, but sadly, they are under copyright at the moment. Strangely, there is no one with a valid legal claim to them that I can find, but I'm sure that the collector that found the music and the publishers that reproduced and distributed the sheet music would argue that point. Therefore, I leave a not to the closers below. I wish it were not so. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support all Well played and the sound is excellent. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Closers: Gnossiennes 1, 2, and 3 can be promoted. Gnossiennes 4, 5, 6, and 7 are ineligible for promotion.

Resolved discussion on combining seven submissions into one.

====On the listing==== Because of the odd history behind these pieces, with 1-3 being titled Gnossienne and published by Satie, 4-6 not named or numbered Gnossienne and published after Satie's death, and 7 being undated, not named or numbered Gnossienne, and only recently discovered, I have mixed feelings about combining all of these into one submission. Certainly there are arguments about whether or not they are one piece (1-7), or two (1-3 & 4-7), or three (1-3 & 4-6 & 7), or seven, and we must decide (although I have not looked to see if there is precident) as how to count this (one promotion in 7 parts or 7 promotions each in 1 part). I'd like to poll the FS regulars on this, and at the very least, ask La Pianista. In the mean time, I suppose we should continue operating normally. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Sven, with all politeness, I'm not really sure what you're asking or what the concern is. I'm playing from a Peters edition, which publishes all seven Gnossiennes together. There's even pages of text explaining the works and their history. Maybe I should add this to the article...hm, I think I'll do that right now. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 02:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Sven, sorry for not batch-nomming them but I'm not even sure that I could do that without breaking it. I would be willing to work with you to create a way to do that if there isn't one already. Sorry for all the trouble there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC) No trouble at all. What I would have done is placed all seven multi-listen item templates on one submission, if I decided to do a multi-part sub. Based off of what La Pianista said, these are treated as one work. Whether or not we list it as seven promotions or one can be decided later. That being said, there's no reason to bother with combining them now. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Promoted all (That is, 1-3) --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Elfentanz by David Popper

This is rather interesting piece, composed by David Popper, which I am led to believe is a perpetuum mobile using the spiccato technique for the cello. It appears in all four of the articles I just linked to, and is well executed, free use, and... well... just sounds fun.

• Nominate and Support: Sven Manguard Wha? 02:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - impeccable technique on both the cellist's and pianist's parts. Very "fun" piece, too. :) —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 16:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Zginder 2011-01-26T23:11Z (UTC)
• Again, the description page is missing essential information: when and where was it recorded? Tony1 11:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I can't find those things anywhere. I have the date it was uploaded, but Pandora Records is defunct and the source is a download tree for Pandora's EFF licensed files, information is limited. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The Pandora Records site also accepts similarly-licensed works by others. According to http://pan.zipcon.net/NEWS-FEB26-10.html 2010 is correct, and it was apparently performed in Illinois Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Promoted --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Magic Flute Overture

Tony brought this to my attention, and I do believe he found a gem in the rough in this one. It's a high quality recording, appears in The Magic Flute and Bangkok Opera, and shockingly enough, it's free use. Without further ado, I present this FSC.

• Nominate and Support: Sven Manguard Wha? 03:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - gorgeous sound quality, acoustic, and especial kudos to the strings' articulation. A few tuning issues for the brass in the beginning (I may be simply hearing things), but overall, a beautiful performance. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 03:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support per above. Jujutacular ^talk 03:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Comments. (In view of my strong stand about conflict of interest, since I brought this file to Sven's attention I won't formally vote.) La Pianista's concern had already struck me. Yes, damn pity they don't strike the chords with the precision they deserve; yep, the brass and winds are almost in tune. But what impressed me were the fast, fugal sections: it's brave to take them this fast, and again they're let down in a few places by the lack of brass ensemble (only one noticeably bum chord, and regrettably they're too loud for the strings in couple of places; heck, their parts are easy by comparison—those players deserved a punishment rehearsal by themselves before the big night). The string and wind parts are challenging to play, so the combined work of the players and the conductor should be congratulated. Clearly there are some good string players in Thailand. Let's remember, also, that this was a live performance—no luxury of multiple takes. [Aside: Please note that the last of those quick repeated notes in the fast fugue subject—the sforzando (stabbed loud suddenly, sticks out)—represents evil. No one else has worked this out, he boasts. After the curtain opens, the off-beat stabbed notes, now crotchets, represent the swishing of the dragon's tail as it pursues the hero Tamino; when the three ladies are singing, Mozart gives us the first hint that they're not the saviours they purport to be by bringing back this off-beat sforzando in the accompanimental texture for about 10 seconds. Cute.] Tony (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I have to go on the record here and say that seems a tad absurd. If you didn't support it, you wouldn't have brought it to my attention. It's common practice for the nominator's support to be counted as a support, especially since you had no part in the creation or restoration of this, it's a "found" nomination. In short, I fail to see any conflict of interest here. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Sven, that is completely not the point: this process, sadly, promotes on the numbers. When two people are implicated in the nomination process, their two votes overwhelm the rather small requirement for numbers. I do not think nominators should vote, although the rules currently encourage this. Tony (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose good quality recording and a fine performance undermined for me by the brass section (I agree with Tony, they should have had a punishment rehearsal before the big night). I've been thinking about how to judge musical performance as part of an FSC process, and on this occasion I feel I have to jump in this direction. A shame. Support Changed my mind as per talk page - performance is good overall, and that while the brass is a bit of a worry I don't think this should be denied featured status for that. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support: This is miles above other symphonic works available under a free licence, and hence is amongst Wikipedia's best audio material. Getting too hung up over relatively minor flaws, when the performance overall is this good, is counterproductive, in my opinion. Further, since the brass (as a whole) is relatively low compared to at least the top couple parts of the string sections, it might even be possible to do a subtle digital rebalance of the brass and strings where needed, if someone has appropriate software (Audacity won't cut it here, methinks). Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Magic Flute Overture.ogg --(X! · talk)  · @899  ·  20:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Swansong by Josh Woodward

The Ashes nomination was withdrawn until the article itself could be beefed up with sources and content. This song, however, appears on the article for Josh Woodward himself, and achieved notability by being selected as part of the Ubuntu 10.10 Free Culture Showcase.

• Nominate and Support: Sven Manguard Wha? 04:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Zginder 2011-01-31T14:31Z (UTC)
• When and where was it recorded? How is the free use attested? Tony (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Whoops, I could have sworn I did that. Fixed now. Answers are "October 2009" and "on his website" by the way. Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 19:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• Listened to this a ouple times now.. I's not my sort of thing, but the roduction values are good, and the artist notable, so Support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Production quality is good, and it illustrates well the output by an artist. I'm not entirely sure about Notability as he appears to be an "Indy" artist with some (albeit minor) claim to fame. However, he does have a page and that's been in place for a while so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I was deriving the notability of the song from it being released with Ubuntu 10.10. I'm really not an Ubuntu person, but I assumed that was a big deal. If it isn't, we'll have to take that into account then. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have used Ubuntu in the past, although I didn't know about this competition they were running. It seems to be a big deal (at least in terms of linux OSes) and notable for that reason. I'd be wary of adding any more tracks by this artist until he became more notable for other reasons (a hit single, major signing to a record label, etc).Major Bloodnok (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd certainly say that the songs should be uploaded and used in articles on the albums. I agree we should be cautions about over-promoting one artist of relatively low notability, but I would say if any of his songs end up illustrating articles not related to him - for instance, ones on a certain style of music - and remained stable there, that those songs would be featurable. Also, if he does covers of any public domain songs, those might be featurable as well. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Making it to the Ubuntu 10.10 Free Culture Showcase is no small feat. Add to the fact that (correct me if I'm wrong) little to no featured sounds of this genre (or any freely licensed songs for that matter), this is definitely a good pick. --haha169 (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• N.B. Tweaked things to prepare this for promotion. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Josh Woodward - Swansong.ogg --(X! · talk)  · @138  ·  02:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Grace and Beauty

I think this came out quite well, in the end. It's synthesized, but that has the advantage that I could edit the performance and make sure it's note-perfect, while making sure it still sounded like an actual human performance. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Nominate and support [ETA: Alt]. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• It seems to have gotten stuck in a loop at the end. Was that intentional? Sven Manguard Wha? 07:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Ragtime tends to have a slightly repetitive structure, where most sections are played twice. Plus, Scott loved the "Call and Response" structure, where melodic lines alternate between octaves. It's just how ragtime is structured. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• support A good rendition of a ragtime piece by a notable composer of the genre. I'm not sure about the synthesised piano, but given that ragtime was played on all sort of pianos of various sorts in brothels in the US southern states, I think it is appropriate. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support A verry well done rendition. I would have preferred a normal piano, but whatever. --haha169 (talk) 08:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Sadly, I didn't have one available. If anyone wants, I still have the source files (MIDIs, but very high-quality ones), so they are tweakable. For example, you could use a different piano sound like here. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • If someone can, it would be great. If not, then this is still a really well-done rendition. I have a piano, and can play, but I do not have a good microphone. --haha169 (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Could you upload the MIDI, please? I have a high quality piano-sampling software that could produce a more realistic file. Jujutacular ^talk 07:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
      • File:James Scott - Grace and Beauty.mid Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Alt - Thanks Adam. Jujutacular ^talk 18:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I would also just like to say, ragtime is especially suited for this type of work. Average listeners probably won't be able to tell that this is derived from a MIDI. Looking forward to more of these type. Jujutacular ^talk 18:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The secret is making sure that all the little human touches are added in. Emphasise notes, make notes slightly shorter or longer as suits the phrasing, hand tweak dynamics, and so on. MIDIs are disliked because people think that just making sure they match the score is sufficient; it's not, the next step is several hours of humanizing it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Right. What makes ragtime the easiest is the deviation from strict robotic playing is less than in say, Chopin. Jujutacular ^talk 18:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Alt - well done, well done. Indeed, computers one day will be our overlords. --haha169 (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Praise to the wise ones, our robot masters. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I'd like to see a computer humanize a MIDI file. You can't write an algorithm for creativity :) Jujutacular ^talk 19:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There are some tricks you can use, though I'm not sure I could explain them, at least without the scores. They're just the things that sound right to me. Maybe I should put up the edited score for Frog Legs Rag when I finish the revision of it.

Suffice it to say, while you can humanize a MIDI, it takes about four or five times longer than just inputting the score. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Alt A much better piano sound (sorry Adam), and the performance is done very well, with some nice touches too. Well done.Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Psh. No need to say sorry, Adam still did 90% of the work. I probably spent 30 minutes on it. Jujutacular ^talk 23:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Alt Never thought an MIDI could sound so good. :) —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 09:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The secret is actually caring =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Promoted James Scott, Grace and Beauty 2.ogg --Sven Manguard Wha? 04:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Mozart - Piano Sonata No. 14.ogg

Recorded the same day as the Chopin nomination below. Unfortunately the second and third movements are lost - I recorded those in a separate session. Hopefully a single movement from the work still has a shot at FS.

• Nominate and support. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 06:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose—Sorry, there are some very good things about this performance, and it's probably good enough to include in an article for the time being. Good tempo. Some nice articulation. Pedal almost too much in a few fast passages. But why don't you re-record it? It's so close. Here are some points.

1. 5 s: why is the subsequent diminished 7th chord softer (much softer) than the opening tonic chord in the previous part of the bar? The dim 7 chord is the first departure, more unstable harmonically. Just because it ends a phrase doesn't mean it should be softer; I'd be inclined to treat it similarly to i. This issue is repeated at the end of the second phrase, where there's actually a return to i. Lower volume is counter to the circular harmonic scheme here, I believe. (In the recap, this dynamic issue is less obvious; in the same places, though, you hold onto the last chord of each phrase, where I think your initial treatment of effortlessly clipping them was more natural.) More generally, in a few places your dynamic control zooms in and out in a distracting way. Perhaps it's that I'm used to hearing music of this period played without dynamic fuss.
2. Around 18–22 s: more rhythmic control needed in the placement of the chords. And more generally, sometimes you start a new phrase/idea just a little prematurely, which gives a nervous feel to it (2:34.5 s is one obvious example: we trip over it).
3. 24.5 s: wrong note. (Just a tech. point: is it nowadays easy to graft the right note on from a different take?)
4. Some lovely lyrical bits in the recap before 3 m.
5. The ending, after 4 m, is lovely. Except that IMO your second-last chord could have been given appropriate weight by coming just a teensy weensy later.

Finally, I'm going to be very rude and make a specific technical suggestion, since I'd really like you to make us proud by being able to showcase WPians' work. Your left hand is weaker than your right hand; in particular, you need to focus on avoiding the occasional lack of coordination between the hands (I've noticed this elsewhere, too). One good exercise is to play a C major contrary motion scale, but not the usual way: instead, make the hands ever so slightly out of phase with each other (try right-hand notes coming a little before, and make the disjuncture exactly the same throughout). Record it after a while and look at the fine control on the ogg diagram. PS ensure that you have a high degree of muscular relaxation as you play such an exercise: the brain must lead, not the muscles.

Admirable and promising, all the same. Tony (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, Tony. And I also anticipated such comments - I wasn't all too sure that this was FS material, either. But I've at the same time felt the impulse to at least respond to your comments.

I'm not capable of re-recording these because the hall is tightly scheduled, and I don't really have the time to polish up old rep, since I have lots of new repertoire and competitions coming up this semester.

1. As much as I respect your personal opinion, how does this point relate to FS? I understand your issue with pedaling and coordination, but don't you think dynamic treatment in Mozart is more up to personal taste? I would better accept your argument if, for example, I had made some huge stylistic error, like using exaggerated rubato or pedaling. But this style of Classicism isn't quite as unorthodox; imho, it makes for a more colorful and lively Mozart.

I see no difference between this and exaggerated rubato or pedalling. To me, it's a matter of harmonic and periodic logic. The departure from the tonic requires at least as much emphasis as the stable tonic itself. This is the reasoning behind giving greater emphasis to a suspension than to its resolution (which at first seemed counterintuitive to me). Tony (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

1. I completely agree. I cringe every time I hear them.
2. I know it's easy, but I have an ethical issue with it. I refrain from any post-recording editing, period. I love the audience and hate the sterility of recording; this is one of the few times that I've uploaded a recording that wasn't live.
3. Again, how does this relate to FS? From my perspective, playing the chord in time only emphasizes the suddenness of the last c minor chord, like the last twitches of a freshly dead corpse well, it's descriptive :p.

Withdrawing my comment about the second-last chord, on relistening. Tony (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

My technique has improved since then - or, at least, I hope it has. I was fifteen years old at the time and very nervous. If you listen to the Beethoven, which is a little more recent, you'll hear that the quality of coordination has improved. I am familiar with relaxation and basic piano technique and do make use of them regularly. Unfortunately, I'm only human. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 08:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Responses on La Pianista's talk page. Tony (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I've read the comments above and while I can hear the odd mis-phrase I'm not convinced that this is enough to prevent it from being FS. I don't think the fact it's only one movement affects that either, at least for the moment. Very well played (especially given La Pianista's age when recording it) and a great demonstration of a piece by a very well-known composer. Therefore Support. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Just fyi, I don't think my age should be taken into consideration here, though I'm highly flattered. :) A sound file is a sound file, and it should be reviewed based on its merit alone. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 00:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• My focus is a bit different from Tony's - his is on perfection, but, coming at this from a singing background, I've known far too many recordings that are note-perfect, and completely lacking in any life or understanding of the feel of the piece. While there are flaws, I think that they're minor and do not detract unduly, but the expression and feel of the piece are there. While I can sense a bit of nervousness in the performance, it fits the piece's mood. Hence, I feel I can Support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I will withdraw support from the main page thing if we are going to keep promoting clearly flawed musical recordings. You cast my objections in terms of wrong notes. That is only one issue. Tony (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Come now, no need to do that. I'm withdrawing this FSC. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 15:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 15:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Cavalleria Rusticana

I've listened to this a couple times, and, although the applause was hugely indulgent of them to leave in (3 minutes of applause in a 6 minute recording?!), it's a very good recording, with good balance and, although I'm not an expert on Cavalleria rusticana, I don't hear any really obvious problems, though I found a few minor quibbles when I really went searching for them (a chair noise near the start, that sort of thing). An excellent recording of the emotional music of verisimo opera.

If someone can losslessly trim oggs, I'd suggest that trimming right before the start of the applause (you always want to let instruments "ring" for a couple seconds) would probably be wise.

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Chopped out the clapping and left as much pre-clapping silence as I could. I am now proceeding to upload the clapping as a seperate file, as applause does not have a sound. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Heh. I actually wondered whether it'd be useful to have the applause as a sound. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • It's at File:Applause.ogg. Oh, and by the way, I'm abstaining in order to close for this nomination. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Screw it, X! (or someone else) can close this one, Support - It's a beautiful piece, it's technically sound, and I'd hate to see it go to waste from lack of voters. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Although I think it sounds a bit muddy it is a fine version of this piece by an orchestra with a mixture of pro and am players. Major Bloodnok (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Absolutely stunning --Guerillero | My Talk 01:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Pietro Mascagni - Cavalleria Rusticana - Intermezzo Sinfonico.ogg --(X! · talk)  · @132  ·  02:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

La plus que lente

It's a superb performance by a Wikipedian. Exactly what Featured sounds should celebrate. =)

• Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support La Pianista floated this one by me a little while back. If I remember correctly, I commented on it not being loud. It's sufficiently loud as to not really be any reason to oppose, which is why I'm surprised that she didn't nominate it herslef. Either way, Adam has rectified the situation by nominating it himself. Yay, Sven Manguard Wha? 03:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Played very well and recorded very clearly. Top stuff, well done. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support clear recording, great stuff. --haha169 (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support sounds excellent --Guerillero | My Talk 03:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Promoted File:La Plus Que Lente.ogg --(X! · talk)  · @147  ·  02:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Till We Meet Again

Found this in the good old Internet Archives, sounded rather good, and not like anything else I remember from FS (although I haven't listened to every FS, so it is possible there are similar things around.) This was, at the time, considered popular music, which we don't have much of on Wikipedia. I donno, maybe this is FS quality, maybe it isn't. I certainly can't hear anything wrong with it, however as we all know, that doesn't say much.

• Nominate and support. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support It sounds good for the time, and according to this page was a big hit in 1919, which makes it notable. I'd prefer a better source, but I think it's fine for a quick 2 minute internet search, and is enough to satisfy me that this is a worthwhile tune to have as FS. Major Bloodnok (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Sounds over-processed to me, which removes much of the warmth of the sound. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose—what is that weird instrumental solo? Not the greatest performance all-round. Tony (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Adam, Tony. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 15:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

--Withdrawn and thus Not Promoted Sven Manguard Wha? 04:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Take Me Out to the Ball Game

Very obvious historical significance, at least from an American standpoint. Best quality possible from a recording from that time period, ripped from a 78 RPM gramophone recording.

• Nominate and support. haha169 (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• [Citation needed] - What source do we have to indicate this is the first recording of the song? I like the recording, but the source of the file seems a little iffy. Jujutacular ^talk 04:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I got that piece of info from its related Wikipedia article, Take Me Out to the Ball Game, but it doesn't seem like that article was properly sourced either. Let me do a little snooping. --haha169 (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Google results find that all major sources (Major League Baseball's site, for example) completely ignore the singer of the first recording. Some Youtube videos cite Meeker as the first, but that's hardly reliable. So I will remove that tidbit for now. --haha169 (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • This book looks like it MIGHT say Meeker was first, but the key page is missing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Haha, well a classic case of Murphy's law... no copy of this book at my local library chain either. --haha169 (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Update [1] seems to say that Meeker was the first. It doesn't explicitly say so so it probably isn't compatible with Wikipedia's guidelines.
          • Use the "Search Inside" function for Meeker on http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/142343188X/themusicbuffsweb#reader_142343188X - on page 68, it says the Haydn Quartet was first. They were September 8, 1908 - same month as this - so this was very early, but, at least according to the only reliable source we have, not first. We can still say "One of the first". Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Comment The composer, Albert Von Tilzer, needs credited. This sould also appear on his page, I think. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Done --haha169 (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Support: Surprisingly good recording for the year. Even if it's not the earliest, it's still very early, and that's an advantage, as it puts it in the original context better. It'll need cited if it's to be used on WP:FS, though.

Is this really a 78RPM gramophone, though? I thought Edison Records were all phonograph cylinders. This site says it was a cylinder. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what the source of the file says. Actually, I traced the file all the way back to [2], which calls it a "78 RPMs & Cylinder Recordings". --haha169 (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Edison Records only released cylinders before 1912. Edison_Records#Edison_disc_records. It's a phonograph cylinder =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

These sources obviously cannot be trusted. :P Thanks for pointing that out, I will change it. --haha169 (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I've worked with cylinders a lot, and this is a particularly good one, but we want it properly documented. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• N.B. Made some tweaks to get it ready for use on WP:FS, should it pass (which it should). Also - a little off topic, but the article on this song, while not terrible, is a horribly disorganised mess. For example, let's say you wanted to know the year it was written and the composer of the music. See how long it takes you to find them in that article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support A great period recording, and an interesting find, especially given its source. Major Bloodnok (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• N.B. I've done a little work dstributing it to articles. In addition to Take Me Out to the Ball Game, it now appears in: Jack Norworth, Albert Von Tilzer, and Edward Meeker. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Note: I did a little noise removal on this file and found that the result was rather nice. --haha169 (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, it creates a lot of these quiet mechanical sounds. I can't support the noise-removed version. Try mixing the noise-removed version with the original at about 20-50% volume. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I tried mixing them like you suggested, the problem still persists. We could always revert it, the noise in the previous version gave it an air of authenticity, but it is a little distracting. --haha169 (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I'd say revert it, and upload the edit as a different file. It's a bad idea to change the file being voted on this late anyway. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Sure. --haha169 (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Thanks for the info digging Adam and Haha. Looks like we've got some good knowledge of this recording now and I'm happy to support a great find. Jujutacular ^talk 07:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, but if fixed, count this as a comment—Description page problems: No links for the artists or publisher in the summary. I see we have an article at least on the first-named. Why not put more of the info from the original site in the description page summary? The performance and recording are good for the day. --Tony1
  • If you're going to oppose things solely on the basis of description pages, there are two options that I would steer you to for the future. 1) Fix the issues yourself, or 2) Make the request for me to fix it at User talk:Sven Manguard/Sandbox. I posted in Talk:FSC that you should just list the description pages that need work there when you see them from now on, I'm good at fixing those. I would certainly hope though that if you believe the performances themselves are up to standard, you'd remove the opposes when the file descriptions are fixed. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I did some linking and expansion of the description. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Sven, we went through this at FAC about four years ago ... reviewers were sometimes told to fix things themselves and not complain. Fortunately, it was made clear that reviewers review. I do believe it's up to nominators to fix the SDP. The exception to reviewer collaboration might be if a reviewer is skilled at cleaning up files, just as they help out at featured pics occasionally. But it's only if they want to. Tony (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
        • That's all well and good except for two things. First, most people don't really know how to do a good FDP, and second, I would hope that if a reviewer's only reason for opposing something is that the FDP is bad, that that reviewer will at the very least strike the oppose when the FDP is fixed. I don't know about FAC, but I know that at GAN the reviewer will list things that need fixing, then give it time for them to be fixed. If everything is fixed, the reviewer passes it, "well it started off wrong so it'll fail even though what was wrong was fixed." If there's anything that is easily fixable during the course of a nomination, its an FDS.
        • TLDR You have the right to say "Oppose: FDS is wrong, go fix it." I have the right, even if I'm not the nominator, to fix it myself. I would hope that once I do so, you would reconsider the oppose vote. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Indeed, on the FAC as well, it is considered bad etiquette to leave suggestions and not come back to re-consider once the critique has been addressed. Your suggestions were valid, of course, and prompted me to seek out the composer to find more information and for Sven to surf Jamendo to clean out the description table. If you still don't like it, it would be nice to know what needs fixing. --haha169 (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• "it is considered bad etiquette to leave suggestions and not come back to re-consider once the critique has been addressed"—a bit strong. Tony (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Not untrue. But this discussion is drifting into irrelevance. Let's fix the FDP first; I don't care who does it (heck, I'll do it myself if someone will tell me how). And then we'll all hopefully listen to some Haydn and calm down. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 15:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Problems have been fixed, at least to my satisfaction. Unless there are more concerns? --haha169 (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• • • • The only concern is waiting out the clock for the seven day minimum for time ;D Sven Manguard Wha? 07:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Promoted MeekerBallGame.ogg --Sven Manguard Wha? 00:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A Long Way to Tipperary

Delist nomination

This one is over-processed. I suspect what happened is that noise reduction was applied using Audacity, but Audacity has very aggressive noise reduction, which only sounds at all good if you mix in the unedited file at a lower volume, to put back the otherwise completely missing frequencies. Restoring older files is very difficult; but I think we could and have done better than this. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Nominate to delist, replace with unedited original. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delist per Adam. Tony (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delist, replace. The original was better without the artefact removal which didn't solve all of the problems with the source. Major Bloodnok (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Delisted AlbertFarrington-ItsaLongLongWaytoTipperary1915b.ogg,
Promoted AlbertFarrington-ItsaLongLongWaytoTipperary1915a.ogg
--Sven Manguard Wha? 22:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Beethoven - 32 Variations in C Minor, WoO 80

Annnnd the low-volume mic strikes again. :) However, I'm quite happy with the performance here, although the tempo in the theme is a bit brisk. Nevertheless, the bass in the 31st variation is chilling, if I may say so myself. credit the Steinway D I had the luxury of playing, not me :3

• Nominate and support. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 06:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Not a piece I know. Well played and recorded (even if some parts are rather quiet). Major Bloodnok (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Wanted to give this my full attention before voting, and haven't had the time until now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support—There are some minor slips, but not enough to oppose. This style suits the performer much more than some other styles. Tony (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Beethoven - 32 Variations in C Minor, WoO 80.ogg --Sven Manguard Wha? 06:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Chopin - Scherzo No. 3

Sound quality is hopefully better than the others - I was able to get the mics upped just a little more than usual that day. Unfortunately I was nervous as hell - hopefully the slip-ups aren't too intrusive. :) —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 05:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 05:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support An excellent performance, with a great deal of expression. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Fabulous. Well done. An Excellent performance. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Chopin - Scherzo No. 3.ogg --Sven Manguard Wha? 06:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)