Two recordings of the 3rd of Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto from the batch of files recently released to Wikipedia by John Michel, Professor of Music at Central Washington University. One is with him as the soloist (don't be misled by the title - it's actually a violin in the recording) and one is with Carrie Rehkopf. Both are to a very high standard and naturally add enormous value to the article Violin Concerto (Tchaikovsky).
- Nominate and Support. - Centy – – 16:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support - High quality, great music. -- Grandpafootsoldier 05:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support The recordings will definitely add an enormous amount of value to any article they're put in :) Absolutely beautiful. Cheers, ( arky ) 02:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Something is fishy! While listening to both recordings I became suspicious when I heard the same clarinet squeek in the opening orchestra passage. Examining both files in an audio editor, I've come to the conclusion that both are in fact the same performance. So who in fact is the violinist? When was the performance? What orchestra performed? Who was conducting? Without some better documentation I cannot support. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Sam. Plus Criterion 5 is failed miserably. The violin is miked too closely and lacks depth (Criterion 2). It's an OK performance only, musically speaking. Glitches in pitching. Tony (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, per Sam's concern about the orchestra, and per Tony's comment about the violin performance itself. Eh. -- RG2 11:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment They are indeed the same recording. The fact that the performance isn't spectacular shouldn't affect whether it should be featured; it's already among the best I've heard on Wikipedia. I've emailed Carrie Rehkopf for confirmation as to the actual soloist; hopefully we'll get a reply soon. Also, this is irrelevant but Carrie Rehkopf and John Michel appear to be married now.--M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to express appreciation to the performers for contributing their work. It was very kind of them to do so and we should all appreciate it. And I agree that this recording will enhance relevant articles quite a bit. However I don't quite follow why we have 2 versions. Let's get down to just one. But more importantly (and I am no music expert, mind you), unlike recorded speeches or historical events which we get one shot at capturing (once the event happened, the speech was made, etc, it's never to be repeated), Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto isn't going anywhere. Anyone could (with sufficient resources and interest) record this again at any time. So if the music and sound experts are saying that this is a good but not great recording, perhaps, as we get a larger body of featured sounds, we should not feature the merely good if we can get the great with patience. Therefore, with some sheepishness because I do so based on the evaluation of others as to the quality, I oppose. ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted --Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 03:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This speech was recorded in 1921, and it is therefore in the public domain. The ogg file is used in the Marcus Garvey article. It is important to United States history and the history of Africa.
Like my previous nomination, this speech was reproduced in the companion audio CD to "Say It Plain: A Century of Great African American Speeches", edited by Catherine Ellis and Stephen Drury Smith, 2005. ISBN 1-5658-924-8. I transferred the recording to ogg format using Audiograbber. There is less hiss than in the Garvey recording, but it is still prominent. As before, I don't see this as an obstacle.
- Nominate
and support.– Quadell (talk) (random) 14:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support struck out because self-nominators can not support. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 02:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have the same concern as I have for Featured sound candidates/Booker T. Washington namely: I am not sure this is in the public domain, because if Catherine Ellis and Stephen Drury Smith edited the recording they can claim copyright as of 2005. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 18:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- The book claims that this is a faithful reproduction of the original speech. If you listen to it, you can tell that Ellis and Drury made no alterations. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, you convinced me to the public domain status. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 02:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- The book claims that this is a faithful reproduction of the original speech. If you listen to it, you can tell that Ellis and Drury made no alterations. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. The sound description page should have more details on the recording itself, as here. Also, we should have a Wikisource transcript.--Pharos (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I agree with Pharos, there should be more information. Like, where did the authors of this book find the recording? Following the link they actually do provide some info, but after reading this I'm not so sure on copyright again now.. e.g. Malcolm X died in 1965, Marcus Garvey in 1940, that's 25 years difference, so may very well be that it's enough that copyright expired for one and not the other, but I couldn't really tell myself. --Allefant (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- The U.S. bases copyright expiration on the year of publication, not on the year of death of the author. All works first published before 1923 are in the public domain in the U.S. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sound recordings made before sometime in the 1970's I do not remember exactly when, are copywrited under State not Federal law. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 15:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- The U.S. bases copyright expiration on the year of publication, not on the year of death of the author. All works first published before 1923 are in the public domain in the U.S. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose—See my reasons below. Tony (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- The criteria for featured sound require that an item either be striking to the ear, or that it illustrate content well. Marcus Garvey is historically quite significant. There seem to be concerns around copyright, around quality, and around relevance/significance of this speech. It would be nice if the quality were better, and if someone wanted to try to clean it up further without degrading the voice, that would be great. But given the age, the quality is about as good as could be expected. Even though the quality was not that good by modern standards, I found the speech "striking to the ear". Mr. Garvey is a dynamic speaker. Further, I found the speech to be particularly illustrative/relevant of the Marcus Garvey article, since it deals with his foundation and it's fundamental purpose, while also advocating for it. I think others have addressed the copyright issues satisfactorily and therefore I support this sound as a Featured Sound. If someone could do a Wikisource transcript, all the better but that should not be a blocking objection.. ++Lar: t/c 15:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose CommentSupport—Criterion number 5 reads "Sound description page. The page contains an extended description of the file, including:… (viii) for a voice recording of linguistic text, unless inappropriate, a transcript or a link to such a transcript." I must therefore oppose. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 15:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)- 5(iii) the date and venue of the recording, where they are recoverable;
- 5(iv) the name(s) of the recordist/producer, and for historical and field recordings, a brief description of the recording equipment, where known;
- Is this information known? Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 18:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Link to transcript added (along with recording duration observed) here. It took me longer to write this reply than it did to add the link, just about. ++Lar: t/c 16:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I've expanded the sound description page to my own satisfaction. This is really important information, and we should make it a habit to research this provenance stuff first. But now that it's there, I support this important historical recording.--Pharos (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support as the description page provides now enough information. I guess the version on that CD is the same as available from the UCLA library. --Allefant (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Interesting. Didn't know there were any recorded speeches by Garvey. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Per above. Wish the sound quality was a little more clear, but the historical significance of it overrides it. Zidel333 (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Per above. --Tewy 22:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Promoted Marcus Garvey, speech, 1921.ogg --Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 22:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)