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.
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...
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)[reply]
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 ManguardWha?02:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ManguardWha?05:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Jujutaculartalk22:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ManguardWha?05:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 ManguardWha?05:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 ManguardWha?17:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 ManguardWha?07:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ManguardWha?03:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elfentanz (Dance of the Elves), Op. 39, by composer David Popper. Performed by Hans Goldstein (cello) and Mellicia Straaf (piano)
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.
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 ManguardWha?19:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's The Magic Flute, performed live by the 2006 Bangkok Opera
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.
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)[reply]
SupportComments. (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)[reply]
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 ManguardWha?20:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"Swansong", the winning song in the Ubuntu 10.10 Free Culture Showcase, written and performed 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.
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)[reply]
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 ManguardWha?21:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
New piano sound by Jujutacular from Adam's MIDI sequence
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Jujutaculartalk18:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
First movement of the C minor piano sonata by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, composed in 1784 and performed in 2010 by Wikipedia user La Pianista
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.
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.
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.
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).
24.5 s: wrong note. (Just a tech. point: is it nowadays easy to graft the right note on from a different take?)
Some lovely lyrical bits in the recap before 3 m.
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.
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.
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)[reply]
I completely agree. I cringe every time I hear them.
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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 ManguardWha?09:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 ManguardWha?03:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A 1919 performance by the Nicholas Orlandos Orchestra of the 1918 song Till We Meet Again, written by Richard A. Whiting with lyrics by Raymond B. Egan.
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.
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Jujutaculartalk07:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 ManguardWha?04:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ManguardWha?03:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
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)[reply]