Entertainment desk
< February 25	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 27 >

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

February 26[edit]

If most of the radio stations are top 40 how they add new songs to rotation?[edit]

I was reading about the top40 format (stations plays the top40 most played songs on stations) and this question came into my head: If most of the radio stations are top 40 how they add new songs to rotation? In fact this stuff is so "headscratcher", that the question I am making here sounds like one of those logical questions people create as sort of challenge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.115.232.197 (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Radio 1 used to have a show called "Round Table" in which they played new releases, and the ones with the most positive ratings from the panel made the playlist. "Top40" format doesn't just mean the most played songs: here in the UK it means the top 40 selling singles, which makes it easier for new tracks to be played. Actually now it means the most downloaded tracks. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

payola Gzuckier (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs) claims it is based only on airplay. The answer to the puzzle though is probably that the stations are not restricted to playing only 40 songs. Rmhermen (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guy that made the question here. I found some answer to my own question, well sort of it, the question not apply to reality but would work if this was some sort of logic puzzle. Imagine some station plays 100 hours of music per week, if the station plays only 1 hours songs and played the same 1 song over the week, this song (only counting this station) will be played 100 times, if the same station play 2, 1 hours songs over the week, playing them the same amount of times, you would have both songs having a play count of 50 times.
To some song enter the top40 rotation the song would need to be the one of top 40 most played songs of the week (lets assume week charts here), this could be archieved by the non top40 stations playing songs with smaller average lenght, or having a higher play time per week (minutes of music played by week).
Lets assume 80% of the stations are top40 (saw that info somewhere today, but forgot the website) and 20% are the others.
The math would be something like this ((x/y)/z)*20>((a/b)/40)*80.
x=Amount of minutes of music the non top40 play per week.
Y=Amount of minutes a song they play will have at average.
Z=Amount of different songs they play at average.
A=Amount of minutes of music the top40 stations play per week.
B=Amount of minutes the songs those top40 stations play, will have at average.
For the sake of simplicity, this assume they try to play all their songs they will play at the week, the same amount of times.
An more complete formula (that also assume that the non top 40 station will play at least 41 or more songs at average: ((x/y)/z)*20>((a/b)/40)*80, 0<y<x, 0<b<a, 41<=z
Wolfram alpha link of this formula:http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28%28x%2Fy%29%2Fz%29*20%3E%28%28a%2Fb%29%2F40%29*80%2C++0%3Cy%3Cx%2C+0%3Cb%3Ca%2C++41%3C%3Dz Of course this is not what happens in real life, some songs played on the not top40 stations not actually get more airplay per week than the ones on top 40 and then actually jump to top 40.

Rmhermen said: "The answer to the puzzle though is probably that the stations are not restricted to playing only 40 songs."
By what their station format implyes (top x most played songs on station) this would just increase the value of X from 40 to another one, because the value of X will still be a low value (top 40 stations doenst have a huge variety of songs on their rotation) the same thing/problem would continue to happen.
Anyway, I know/discovered of payola BUT, MANY guys says it doenst exist. So I was expecting some sort of answer that doenst involve payola. In fact IT NEED to have some sort of answer that doenst involve payola (the math one I said doenst count because it not what happens on real life) or those guys (that say payola doenst exist) would be actually calling us dumb, sort of saying "no payola doenst exist, and 'this logical flaw' has some answer, the answer is f*ck you, thats the answer".

177.179.75.28 (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The mistake I think you're making is that you think that all charts cut off at 40, whereas in fact it is possible to rank every sale/download/play in order. So if (as I understand from the article) the bot picks up every play of every tune in the US, the top 40 would then have a natural churn as the selection is from the widest possible set. It's not just selecting from a subset of itself, in other words. To explain the lack of variety, one has to then consider the categorisation of radio stations and music types. You could set "Top 40 plays" to exclude rock and classical stations (which is what I would expect), or to include them. Hope this helps. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart's K. 98 symphony[edit]

Does anyone know where I can find the complete score of this symphony? I have only found incipits. Double sharp (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it for free, or are you willing to pay?--TammyMoet (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge University Library has a (non-borrowable) copy (according to its catalogue), if that's any good to you. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yay: 1, 2, 3, 4. Double sharp (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and I am now wondering why on earth the last movement is written in 2/4 rather than 6/8, since the triplets are everywhere. Double sharp (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have actually heard this symphony, I personally don't think it's authentic Mozart. But then, I might be biased by the fact that it's not real instruments playing. Double sharp (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article does say that there is a lot of doubt whether it's by Mozart. As to the 2/4 vs 6/8 issue, perhaps it's just the way it's been transcribed rather than how it is in the original, though it could also be an oddity of notational practice at the time it was written or published (I can definitely feel a visit to the UL coming on to check this). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]