Miscellaneous desk
< June 14	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 16 >

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

June 15[edit]

What's this violin song?[edit]

Reminds me of the Imperial March and the Funeral March but not close to either. More upbeat than the Funeral March and faster. My guess is 1700s to Beethoven era. Not staccato or fast like Vivaldi's Winter (or that season that sounds like everyone's rushing through last second Christmas shopping 18th century style). It might be an anthem I heard in the Olympics. Or from the Red Violin or a Mozart movie. Or maybe not, I haven't seen those films in over a decade. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That'a an outstanding collection of contradictory and/or ambiguous clues. 1700s to Beethoven era cannot sit in the same ball park as The Red Violin, which was by John Corigliano, who is very much alive. As it's "not close" to either the Imperial March or the Funeral March, what is it about those pieces that reminds you of it? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the movie was set in that time period and had music of its style. National anthems can predate the Olympics. The range of the 8-10 notes I remembered is small (A# or B — D or D# if my whistle to frequency app's any good) (the phone's been dropped so much it effed up the microphone so take that with a grain of salt)). First note, then up 2 or 3 semitones, then play 1 semitone above that 3-4 times (quicker notes), then down to 1 flat below Note 1 in a few steps, then first note's pitch again. It sounds a bit ominous but not as much as the Imperial/Funeral March. If it's a national anthem I heard at the Olympics it's one of the more martial ones of the post-fascist era (I don't actually know what the Nazi/Vichy/Tojo/Franco etc. anthems sound like, they might actually be mild like Mussolini's instead of super-martial like the Imperial March for all I know). I'd be more exact but Vivaldi's rushing Christmas shoppers song became an earworm for awhile and I forgot the tune I'm asking about after that. It's bowed, not plucked. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you try Musipedia.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something, Sagittarian Milky Way? Did you link to the clip? Otherwise it's a bit hard to see how we might be able to help. --ColinFine (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure that's where I heard it. More information above. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where's that? At no point above have you either linked to the piece in question or mentioned which movie you heard it in. Is this a telepathy test? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu of anything resembling Musical notation we are asked to recognize "something ominous" that goes First note, then up 2 or 3 semitones, then play 1 semitone above that 3-4 times... Nothing could be more......_{satisfactory.} AllBestFaith (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Sagittarian Milky Way, I can't help, but unlike the others, I don't think you're totally crazy for asking, or for thinking that someone might be able to answer based on description. This kind of thing gets solved regularly on Ask Metafilter. You can try there and I give it roughly even odds of getting you the right answer, but it will cost you $5 for your lifetime account. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Maybe later. I'm on maximum save mode till September. I realized there would be a high chance no one knew (at least @ WP:RD). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Professions that get out from the office[edit]

Why aren't there many stable professions that don't involve being chained to a desk or cubicle all day, other than doctors? 2A02:C7D:B954:1900:7076:5C65:BDAA:C722 (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But there are. See List of professions.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of hard to skim that list for things that don't largely involve sitting at a desk. Off the top of my head:Park ranger, Surveyor, health inspector, police officer, fireman, EMT, paramedic. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed many jobs that don't demand sitting at a desk most of the day, but you're not wrong to think that desk jobs are very common. Here [1] is some NPR reporting on the stats from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. While not explicitly sorted by "desk job", the chart makes it easy to see that most Americans' employment involves a lot of sitting at a desk, and that this percentage has probably grown a bit since 1972 (e.g. manufacturing dropped from 23% to 9% in that period). As to why - I'm not sure. Probably something to do with capitalism and a move away from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. These stats are for USA but UK, AU, and CA have all seen decline in manufacturing jobs over the past 50 years. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion here: the author of Shantavira's list (and I) would recognise very few of SemanticMantis's list of jobs as "professions". Professions, in our view, are generally prestigious jobs, and societies frequently attach more prestige to sedentary occupations. Nothing to do with the shift to a service economy. Henry ^Flower 17:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a digression on the semantics of "profession"

"A profession is a vocation founded upon specialized educational training". It takes specialized training to do all of the things I listed. Heck, there's even police academy, which is a specialized institution to give said specialized training. If OP is interested in prestige or salary or anything else, he should say so. Maybe you don't assign much prestige to these professions, but that's not really something I was considering when framing my response ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be better to respond to what I actually said, rather that what you'd like me to have said. :) Henry ^Flower 18:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken everything except the first two sentences, which are solely response to what you actually said. To reiterate for clarity: there's nothing about prestige in the definition of "profession," though I acknowledge that words can have different connotations in different contexts. Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a very modest start. Unfortunately, your first sentence is a partial definition (how did you manage to mislay the rest of it?), and not the one used on the list which we were discussing. Perhaps a little more striking? Henry ^Flower 20:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These days, all workers, from the US President down to the lowliest shelf stacker, are expected to operate "in a professional manner". But, at least according to the traditional nomenclature conventions, only a very small proportion of workers get to say they have a "profession" as distinct from an occupation, job, career, etc. I think that distinction is either fast approaching, or has reached, or is well past, its use-by-date. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More striking? Why? My responses are fine. If you don't like them, that's fine too, but I'm not going to jump through hoops at your request. I am under no obligation to make quotes of a certain length nor will I change anything else I wrote. Anyone is free to read the article or other definitions and come to their own conclusions. It's very simple: you said the things I was talking about were not professions, based on prestige. I think that they are professions, based on specialized training, and I think this is in accordance with the definition given in our article, and other definitions I've checked, including NOAD and Wiktionary. It is perhaps a fuzzy and nebulous concept, all the more reason why I see no reason to argue about classification- we don't have to agree. I honestly am very confused by your position. I think it's very clear that police officers and paramedics require specialized training. They also have to be licensed or certified in some manner, as do health inspectors and firemen. But that's not really the point. As I said, we don't have to agree, I'm just spelling out my rationale. I am fairly certain OP didn't come here to watch us argue over what is and isn't a profession, and whether the term should be construed narrowly or broadly. I tried to help as I could, and provided some references. I suggest you either do that, or move on, because this is not helping anybody. As such, I'm collapsing this up to the last response relevant to OP. Have a nice day, SemanticMantis (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]