Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/December 2010

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.

Performed by the uploader, used in Piano Sonata No. 7 (Beethoven).

• Nominate and support. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 00:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretfully oppose - fuzzy static-y background noise, no issues aside from that. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 8:05pm • 09:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Fridae'sDoom. Zginder 2010-11-11T04:16Z (UTC)
• Beautiful piece, wonderfully performed, but I agree with the others on the background noise. Sorry, another oppose. Imzadi 1979 → 22:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Bencherlite^Talk 11:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of a speech where Eisenhower stated the need for "a vast new highway program". This program was enacted some three years later as what we know today as the Interstate Highway System. Eisenhower's vision and campaign for such a system has been honored when the system was renamed to the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. I feel that the quality of the recording provided by the Federal Highway Administration meets the criteria. The sound file helps illustrate the vision of the man to create the system, and adds to the article on the Interstate Highway System.

• Nominate and support. Imzadi 1979 → 06:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Inspirational speech about the creation of an important but often overlooked part of US history. Dough4872 00:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—The quality is acceptable, just. Interesting how much higher the standards of public speaking are among modern-day presidents. Sorry to be a bore, but could the documentation follow MOSNUM? "1m18s, 34kbps", all jammed together, should be spaced properly: "1 m 18 s, 34 kbps". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That can't be fixed, unfortunately. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - one thing, this file is hosted on Commons but I can't seem to be able to find the length etc. looks like we'll have to make do with what it is now. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 4:59pm • 05:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The file description page lists it as "Ogg Vorbis sound file, length 1m18s, 34kbps", which gives the file length. Imzadi 1979 → 02:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I see no issues with this. --Admrboltz (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Cadillacsquareexcerpt.ogg --Bencherlite^Talk 11:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the few recordings of Joplin by Joplin we have. It also demonstrates his physical condition prior to his death.

• Nominate and support. Major Bloodnok (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can't say I'm an expert on piano playing. However, I do fear that the peculiar sound of his playing may simply be due to the fact that it was recorded on piano roll and then converted into midi. The source of the file doesn't mention anything about the playing that I could see. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would generally agree with you; conversion from one format to another can throw up peculiarities and the copy may not match. In this case, however, we have a very good source (Joplin's first biographer) who heard the original roll and thought that it was "distressing" and "disorganised"; further information is on the Scott Joplin page. There is an issue about how accurate Piano Rolls were, but there is another roll from the same year, again cut by Joplin, which is much smoother (although it feels as though it's been corrected in the editing process). Should there be more about this on the description page? Would that help? Forgive me, but this is the first time I've done this!Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I see that information in the Scott Joplin article, thank you. Wanted to make sure we weren't conducting original research. I think the file description page is fine, as long as the statements are cited from reliable sources in the article. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of original research and reliable sources. As far as possible the article attempts to show the various points of view about the nature of piano rolls, and this one in particular, and letting the reader make up their own mind. Thanks for your help! Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral If there was a more realistic sample of this file in quality condition I'd support without a doubt but I'm not sure I can support a MIDI file as a faithful example of a music recording. Normally I'd oppose but the fact that the original recording is on a piano roll (and therefore subject to different authentic playbacks) complicates things. I have to think about this for a bit. ThemFromSpace 01:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is another sound file on the Scott Joplin page - another rag he wrote, which has since been discovered by the same collector who had the Maple Leaf Rag. This time it's a recording of a player piano. It's interesting mainly because it was thought lost. I'll nominate that when I get a chance.Major Bloodnok (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that would be a valuable addition! Its scarcity alone would make it a prized sound file. ThemFromSpace 12:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the lack of realism mentioned by Themfromspace. If a more advanced software piano was used to create the sound, or the piece was run through an actual player piano like your other nomination, I could possibly support. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I disagree about the realism. It sounds pretty good to me, actually better than the other nomination. In terms of EV, the context within an article would be important. In the Scott Joplin article there is reference to the fact that Joplin wasn't directly recorded. So the expectation of having this file be generated from a player piano seems excessive. The player piano and the computer are equally unable to reproduce the quality of the original. Case Craver 2010 (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I know player pianos. The rolls are "digital", as it were, and there is no issue to my mind in transferring them to mp3. This is a valuable historical artefact. Tony (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - for its rarity and historical value. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 4:43pm • 05:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Granted, a piano roll rarely is a digital record of the keys struck. They were commonly "corrected" at the factory, as evidenced by audio recordings versus piano rolls by other period pianists such as Gershwin. But it is a nice rendition and probably shows some of the technique of the composer/performer. Edison (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Maple Leaf Rag - played by Scott Joplin 1916 sample.ogg --Bencherlite^Talk 01:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this video/sound as it demonstrates the usage of the former national anthem of Russia in one instances which is mandated by law. The video/sound is used at National_Anthem_of_Russia#Patrioticheskaya_Pesnya and at Patrioticheskaya Pesnya in the infobox, and comes from the Presidential Press and Information Office and is licenced under CC-BY-3.0. A performance of the singing of the current national anthem is found at File:Russian national anthem at Medvedev inauguration 2008.ogg and is already a featured sound. A video of an instrumental version of the current anthem is also a featured sound (File:Russian anthem at Victory Day Parade 2010.ogg)

• Nominate and support. Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 12:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A much-needed illustration to the article. Informative, illustrative, and of a good quality.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 7, 2010; 14:27 (UTC)
• Support and bonus points for sorting out the permission. Very informative material for the articles, and of a high standard. Bencherlite^Talk 07:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning towards oppose. For a modern recording, it's not all that flash. The balance is OK, but the quality of the brass is just not great. Also, the players are not always in tune, amazingly. The documentation doesn't say where the recording was made, or who made it (Russian state TV?). The source is in cyrillic script; can we have a translation of the piped text in square brackets after it? The fact that it's freely available as a propaganda piece on the presidential website doesn't fill me with enthusiasm as to making this featured content on a WMF site. Tony (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per Tony, the quality of the video is horrible, everything is blurry, the brass section is fuzzy and the percussion is just about the only thing that sticks out, the cymbals particularly. The piece has absolutely no balance. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 11:02am • 00:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Low quality, per above. ThemFromSpace 06:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Low quality as above. This could be excused if the event itself was especially notable, and it is not clear that it is (although I suppose that is arguable).Major Bloodnok (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not to pile on, but the quality is not there. Imzadi 1979 → 08:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Bencherlite^Talk 16:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears in George Frideric Handel, Choir and History of classical music traditions. The uploader was Raul654. The audio is of high quality and there is no static present in the file, you can hear each verse being sung clearly no unrecogniseable sounds or anything of that sort.

• Nominate and support. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 1:51pm • 02:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some problems here, but I think we can overcome there:
  • The source link is dead. However...
  • This current link, which provides access to recordings of lots of MIT concerts (including the 2005 Messiah concert striking this part of my comment for clarity as this recording predates the 2005 concert), says that the licence is "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0", which is not an acceptable licence here.
  • Looking through the Wayback machine, I've found this and this, which refers to a CC 2.0 SA licence, from just 3 days before Raul uploaded the file. The use of the number "44" on the website and on Raul's file is particularly telling. So I think we've got confirmation that the file was released under a proper licence even though that licence has been changed subsequently, but I'd like you to double-check my reasoning and update the file page.
  • If this can be overcome, there's a cleanup tag to get rid of the applause, with which I would agree.
  • Incidentally, the rest of the Messiah seems to have been uploaded: see Commons:Category:Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Music. I've not listened to it, but there's a possibility of some more gems here. Bencherlite^Talk 11:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree about removing the applause. I was aware of the existence of the complete Messiah suite but the Hallelujah chorus is what grabbed my attention. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:23pm • 10:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice recording, both the choir and the orchestra sound good. No problem with the applause, it is a live performance. Btw, I added the file to the Messiah (Handel), which is in my opinion a relevant place for this hit. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as well. I'm neutral on the applause issue. Imzadi 1979 → 22:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fine performance and recording.Please fade out the applause after 4 seconds or so rather than including 45 seconds of it. Note that the US chorus says a more euphonic "for evah and evah " rather than the normal US rhotic pronunciation "for everr and everr" Hope that sounds right to British listeners. Edison (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support The quality sounds fine to me (although I'm not sure if it's spectacular - it sounds a little too tinny to be totally first-rate), and it is of a well-known piece of music, performed well. I think I heard an error in the Brass section shortly before the end. I don't think that takes very much away from the recording. Major Bloodnok (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral It's not that spectacular of a recording (aesthetically and technically), nor is it historically significant. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but I don't know if it's of featured quality. I went ahead and cut most of the applause and added a fade-out to the file hosted on commons. ThemFromSpace 06:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Source link has been updated, applause edited and clean-up tag removed. No remaining issues, so Promoted Handel - messiah - 44 hallelujah.ogg --Bencherlite^Talk 16:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A nice audio file of the Northern Mockingbird singing.

• Nominate and support. --ZooFari 20:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very clear recording. As a side note, when I started to play the sound file, my puppy woke up from a sound sleep and started wandering through the apartment to look for the bird. I guess you have Max's vote too on the quality. Imzadi 1979 → 22:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support That's a pretty clear recording. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Mimus polyglottos.ogg --Sven Manguard Wha? 02:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just was perusing her works when I realized this has a lot of clarity and is pretty solid all around. It appears in the article Three Preludes (Gershwin) and was created by La Pianista.

• Nominate and support. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with much naturally inflated egotism as uploader. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 07:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Despite the fact that I find the piece itself kind of weird, from a technical standpoint, this is an excellent clip of fine art. Kudos to La Pianista. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Why is the composition in the public domain as it was first published after 1923? Zginder 2010-12-24T22:24Z (UTC)

Not promoted per Zginder's concerns --—La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 07:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of Rachmaninoff's most popular works, performed by a notable interpreter of his works.

One thing I must ask, though: File:Prelude_3_2_Rach_playing.ogg is the original. Can you be hard on the restoration, particularly the timing of the first three chords, which had some extra damage, and which I think I fixed successfully. If there's problems, I want to know and fix them, not coast by, so please, double-check my work and don't let me get away with anything.

• Nominate and support. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 20:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• ? Lots of background white noise in there. Is this an old recording?   Nezzadar ☎   02:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1919, but, of course, later recordings wouldn't be public domain recordings of him playing his own work. Added year of performance to the description. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 09:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments 2:08 - 2:25 seems to have more clipping than the original, an artifact of restoration? In that area, I actually prefer the original recording. Also, is there a reason the original is 194kbps but the restoration is 66kbps? The timing of the chords at the beginning sounds fine to me. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent for a 1919 acoustic recording. The fact that it is an interpretation by the composer, in his prime, is especially compelling. Edison (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Jujutacular. I noticed the clipping and then listened to the original and did not hear it. It could be a compression artifact as 66 kbps is small for so many notes are being played simultaneously in that stretch. Zginder 2010-03-16T16:12Z (UTC)
• Support. Is there much difference in the "clipping"? I find it hard to detect. This is a valuable recording. Tony (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support: I agree that this is a valuable recording, and very much worthy of featured status on that basis. I was picking up some distortion myself a bit. I'll let better ears weigh in on that, but I'm inclined to support otherwise should the others come to a consensus on that point. Imzadi 1979 → 23:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Distorted in comparison to the original recording. Why 66k? Sounds like listening over a telephone circuit. Such a valuable recording deserves a better transfer. Edison (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You !voted on this over a year ago, with a different opinion ThemFromSpace 06:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Struck earlier !vote. Edison (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not the best transfer (probably a dirty disc?) requires too much distortion to bring to a listenable state. I wouldn't be opposed to a clean transfer of this recording. I actually have a clean copy of this disc, but no machine to play it on. :\ ThemFromSpace 06:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, perhaps, the mountain this file has to climb to reach a super-majority is too great at this time. Participation at F.S. being what it is, I doubt this will see another three supports in any reasonable amount of time.

Not promoted --Sven Manguard Wha? 06:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds quite great due to the quality of the acoustics and the recording. This appears in Preludes, Op. 32 (Rachmaninoff) and was created by La Pianista.

• Nominate and support. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as uploader. 'Tis my pet recording. :) —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 07:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support tis excellent. I am impressed yet again with both La Pianista's technical skill and the quality of the audio recording. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 'tis excellent playing; sensitive to the nuances of the prelude. Echo Sven above on the technical skill and audio quality. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 03:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very good quality and tone. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Consensus to promote, no issues. Promoted Prelude in B Minor, Op. 32, No. 10.ogg. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:27pm • 02:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]