Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 06:14, 12 January 2025

Welcome to the entertainment section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/E

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

December 30

What's the difference between a free reed and a beating reed?

I read that although there were so called beating reed instruments in Europe since at least the 14th c. (e.g. the regal) the first free reed instruments only appeared in Europe at the end of the 18th c. (e.g. the harmonium, the accordion, etc.) but I've just realized that I don't even know the difference. Could someone explain? 178.51.7.23 (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This website https://www.patmissin.com/history/whatis.html seems to have an expanded explaination on free vs beating reeda. As I know nothing about the subject I can not judge it. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the article Reed aerophone and the Template:Reed aerophones with all the links contained in it will help...? --CiaPan (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all authors use the same definitions, but in this contrast I suppose "beating reed" corresponds mainly to the Hornbostel–Sachs categories 422.1 and 422.2 (the single and double reed instruments, such as the clarinet and the oboe), in which the vibrating single reed beats one edge of the mouthpiece and the vibrating double reeds beat against each other. The "free reeds" are then presumably a combination of category 412.13 (the free-reed instruments, mainly the accordions and harmonicas) and category 422.3, a very small group of Chinese instruments, in which the vibrating reed vibrates freely, not striking anything else. --Lambiam 14:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you certain? Aren't the beating reeds Hornbostel-Sachs 412.12 (so called "percussion" reeds defined as "a single lamella strikes against a frame"). In any case where on earth are the reed pipes of church organs and reeds of the regal (a kind of medieval organ with only beating reeds and no pipes)? Couldn't find them either in the file mentioned above or in List of aerophones by Hornbostel-Sachs number. 178.51.7.23 (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote, different sources have different definitions. The Encyclopædia Brittanica identifies "single reed" with "beating reed".^[1] Other authors distinguish between "single beating reed" and "double beating reed".^[2][3] I can't be certain without seeing the context in which these terms are used, but as far as I'm aware no common current instruments fit Hornbostel-Sachs 412.12. The confusing conceptual duplication of sections 412 and 422 has encountered some criticism, as in the book Reed Instruments: The Montagu Collection: an Annotated Catalogue: "I have taken the liberty of of dividing those instruments which should come together under 412 into their types, taking the concussion reeds (412.11) with the double-reed instruments (422.1), the percussion reeds (412.12) with the single-reed instruments (422.2), the free reeds (412.13) with the free-reed instruments (422.3), and placing the ribbon reeds (412.14) at the end, followed by the category, unrecognised by Hornbostel & Sachs but established by Henry Balfour, of retreating reeds, giving these the new number of 412.15."^[4] Reed organs (and reed pipes of multi-register organs) tend to be free-reed instruments; see the mentions of organs in Free reed aerophone. --Lambiam 00:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually List of aerophones by Hornbostel-Sachs number lists under 412.122 "earlier organs", so not empty. Most of the reed pipes (the earlier ones) in normal organs (leaving aside reed organs) are not free reeds. See Reed pipe. Some of them are (cf. their paragraph in that article) but they are a new thing. If we are to believe Pump organ the free reed was introduced in Europe only at the end of the 18th century, yet there have been reed pipes in organs and there have been regals in Europe since as early as the 14th century. That there are terminology and classification issues in organology I can well believe. There are such problems in biology and linguistics so why wouldn't there be in organology. Jeremy Montagu's critique of the usual Hornbostel-Sachs may well be valid. Maybe it does make sense to put percussion reeds with single-reed instruments and get rid of that category. I couldn't say say, since 24 hours ago I had no idea even what a beating reed was. 178.51.7.23 (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not empty, but IMO "earlier organs" cannot be considered common current instruments. --Lambiam 15:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 31

Anyone's tried "triple" reeds?

I'm about to experiment with my oboe: I'm planning to insert a little piece of reed between the two reeds of the (European) mouthpiece of my oboe, and then blow and see what happens. (A great December 31st activity!) But before I ruin a good oboe (European) mouthpiece I'd like to know if anyone has tried that already and what happened? 178.51.7.23 (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but if you're going to fiddle with making/adding a handmade reed, make sure on your inhale you put your tongue forward incase anything comes loose causing you to choke. You could of course, buy a triple reed.

This safety announcement is not endorsed by Wikipedia. Knitsey (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. Thanks a lot. Gotta make sure I don't swallow that little piece of reed and choke on my experiment. Surely, that would be a bad joke on a December 31st! Are there triple reeds for oboes? Really? 178.51.7.23 (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I played oboe in uni but that was many, MANY years ago. No such thing then but I googled triple reed and yes, you can buy them. Knitsey (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

Joe Bonamassa's "Mind's Eye" starts a lot like some other song?

Joe Bonamassa's "Mind's Eye" (both live and studio) starts really really like some other song by some other artist I can't quite put my finger on. Very annoying. If you get a chance to give "Mind's Eye" a listen see if it rings a bell? Joe Bonamassa seems to like to "borrow" at times: The live version of "This Train" (for example at the Sydney Opera House or at the Red Rocks Amphitheater, in Morrison, Colorado) uses the intro to Jethro Tull's "Locomotive Breath" totally unashamedly. He's not even trying to hide it. Does one pay royalties for this kind of use? The studio version of "This Train" doesn't do that. 178.51.7.23 (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't recognise it myself, but others might.

Overt 'borrowings' or 'quotations' like this, a variety of tribute, have long been used by classical (in the broadest sense), folk, blues, jazz and rock musicians, and of course Bonamassa works in the blues tradition.

It's usually (in my understanding) considered a compliment to the original composer, and would not usually attract a royalties claim unless the quotation is extensive (in which case the user might well proactively arrange to pay royalties, as they would for a Cover version), or the original's copyright is now owned by heirs or lawyers who might ignore musical tradition and hope to to make easy money. This is distinct from covert and unacknowledged Music plagiarism such as that which was alleged (and ruled to be a 'subconscious copy') for George Harrison's 'My Sweet Lord', for example.

The use of Sampling is another development of this phenomenon, and its legitimacy and legality have been contentous issues.

You've prompted me to think about buying a ticket for Bonamassa's upcoming tour – thanks! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.84.253 (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"My sweet Lord (do-lang, do-lang, do-lang) / Ah, may Lord (do-lang, do-lang)" etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Converting a speech contour into notes?

Does anyone know of a piece of software that can convert a pitch contour (a continuous pitch trace: speech, or laughter, or whatever) into a discrete sequence of (written or MIDI) notes. That involves "quantizing" the continuous pitch trace to (say) the frequencies of the chromatic equally tempered scale or any scale of your choice and the durations to some note value of your choice. 178.51.7.23 (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

isn't that precisely what an autotuner does? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. First there's this possibly minor difference that an autotuner doesn't produce a score (I didn't make it clear I'm looking for a piece of software that produces a score, written notes). Then again you might consider this to be a minor difference: score, MIDI file, sound file, who cares. More important is that I have the feeling though I can't be sure (since I have not examined either the algorithm of an autotuner or of that hypothetical piece of software) that there must be a difference between adjusting/correcting the off pitches of someone who's trying to sing a song and not succeeding in singing the intended pitches quite in tune, and quantizing the much wilder trace of something that was not intended to be singing in the first place. If you compare the trace of a song and that of usual speech or laughter, they look very different. There are intermediate things half-way between speech and song (rapping, whooping, Sprechgesang, etc.) Maybe laughter is also such a half-way thing. 178.51.7.23 (talk) 09:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

doctors

trolling

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

for example, dumb woman is faking pregnancy etc.

dumb woman lies about miscarriage.

if doctor’s machine checks dumb woman’s stomach,

can doctor’s machine still prove 100% that dumb woman was never pregnant etc?(124.123.161.159 (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)).[reply]

In general, no. Intelligence has nothing to do with this. Most spontaneous abortions happen very early in pregnancy, often before a woman even knows she was pregnant,^[5] in fact, many have no symptoms at all.^[6][7] If a female has clearly not yet reached puberty, or is clearly post-menopausal, one can be certain – barring miracles – that she has not recently been pregnant. No medical examination is required for this conclusion. --Lambiam 19:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really have to answer questions where the word "woman" is paired with the attribute "dumb" throughout? --Wrongfilter (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was posted on the Entertainment page. Maybe the OP is using sarcasm in a desperate attempt at some kind of cheap humour. But then, I don't know which is being stretched beyond its elastic limit: their sense of what constitutes humour; or my adherence to assumption of good faith. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]

At least the user isn't "angry" and "can't sleep" because of plot lines in some Indian soap opera. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know dumb woman is not the name of a character in such a show? —Tamfang (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

angry 😡 oh my gosh specifically in hindi tv mangal lakshmi,

for example, dumb woman sowmya is faking pregnancy etc.

sowmya lies about miscarriage.

if doctor’s machine checks sowmya’s stomach, can doctor’s machine still prove 100% that sowmya was never pregnant etc?(49.206.38.246 (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)).[reply]

pregnancy

angry 😡 oh my gosh specifically in hindi tv mangal lakshmi,

for example, dumb woman sowmya is faking pregnancy etc.

sowmya lies about miscarriage.

if doctor’s machine checks sowmya’s stomach, can doctor’s machine still prove 100% that sowmya was never pregnant etc?

say yes or no?(117.202.160.34 (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)).[reply]

January 3

Portable keyboards?

One of the standard instruments in a rock band is the keyboard, even if only some bands use it. Kind of like an electric piano but less bulky than an actual piano. Still, it is bulky enough that it has to be on a fixed location of the stage and the keyboardist has to be right behind it all the time.

A pair of days ago I saw the video "Fairy of white" by the band The Big Deal (only one album in an indie label, not notable for wikipedia, but that's not the question here). The band has two singers, one of them, Nevena Branković, is also the keyboardist... and she has a strange keyboard in that video. Clearly a keyboard, but small and portable enough that she can hold it in her hands, and that seems to grant her the freedom of movement in the scenario that we would usually expect only from the singers, guitar and bass players. Is this a new type of keyboards? Cambalachero (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're called Keytar and were fairly popular in the eighties. If you ask me (but you don't) they've always looked ridiculous. --Wrongfilter (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One was "popular" with Edgar Winter as far back as 1973: [8] -- probably before the term "keytar" was coined. --136.56.165.118 (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, the term is basically as old as the instrument. Circa 1963. I know it was used in the mid 1980s. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But look at the orphica! I had no idea there was an acoustic keytar. Due for a revival. Card Zero (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Acoustic keytar" has broken my brain. But that is exacty what that is. ---User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Beethoven wrote for it, so it was really happenin' in 1798, man! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.84.253 (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Portative organ was also a thing, re-popularised from the 12th century onwards, but used by the Ancient Romans – one was found in Pompeii (Reverb ad: 'some restoration required'). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.84.253 (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A scene from a 1990s American sitcom?

There's a scene in an episode of a 1990s American Black sitcom, maybe The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (then again maybe not) where a pianist enters a classroom together with the teacher (the actor playing the pianist was in all likelihood a real professional jazz pianist making a guest appearance in that episode) and asks a student to say something (the student does it in a kind of rap-like rhythmic sing song) and the pianist immediately proceeds to play the pitch contour of what the student had just said (there's a piano in the classroom) and all the students are amazed. Does anyone recall such a scene and where it is from? 178.51.94.220 (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're referring to "A Touch of Wonder", the 18th episode of the 2nd season of The Cosby Show. Stevie Wonder guests and samples the voices of the Huxtables (or possibly just Theo; it's been decades since I saw the show). No classroom as I recall; just the living room and (I think) a studio. Matt Deres (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 4

La Marseillaise in "All You Need is Love"

Does anyone know the exact recording of "La Marseillaise" sampled in the opening to the Beatles' "All You Need is Love"? Lizardcreator (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on he song says the Beatles were "accompanied by a thirteen-piece orchestra. I assume that orchestra played the piece. HiLo48 (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Before 'sampling' was a thing, real musicians used actually to perform, or pay colleagues to perform, all the music they wanted on their recordings. [/grump] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.84.253 (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Though it's unlikely the Beatles hired a man with a tape recorder up his nose. Actually, according to Lewisohn's book on Beatles recording sessions, p.120, they brought in 13 musicians to play that segment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 5

music supervisor vs music consultant

Is it wrong to use these two terms interchangeable? Trade (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Music supervisor, but not one for Music consultant, which however does return results from websearching, for example, [9], so perhaps we should.

From these, broadly, a Music Supervisor advises on and/or controls the use of music (and perhaps more) in an Audiovisual project (such as a TV show, film, etc.), including the licencing and other legal aspects, while a Music Consultant advises musicians about how to proceed in and develop their careers. Others may have more informed insights.

So, not interchangeable terms, but there's no reason why the same person could not perform both roles. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 897.81.230.195} 94.6.84.253 (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat generally, I'd say that the term "music supervisor" identifies a role within a project team, whereas "music consultant" identifies a profession. A music supervisor is more likely to be on the payroll of a film studio or game developer, while a music consultant is generally a self-employed professional who bills their clients, typically aspiring musicians, for services rendered. --Lambiam 15:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there zarzuelas in Portuguese?

I've noted zarzuelas exist in at least one other language than Spanish (namely Catalan). In what other languages have zarzuelas been written in: Portuguese (Portugal or Brasil)? Galician? Valencian? Basque? Article Zarzuela only mentions Catalan (besides Spanish). 178.51.8.23 (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you mean the opera genre, not the fish stew. I am less sure what you mean by zarzuelas existing "in a language". Do you mean zarzuelas whose libretto is written in that language?

The first sarsuala with Catalan text premiered in 1858. Catalan sarsuales had their heyday at the turn of the century, but then fizzled out, with Spanish becoming more popular.

However, the Philippine sarsuwela is alive and well, using a Tagalog text. --Lambiam 15:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had in mind the libretto for the fish stew. 178.51.8.23 (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one in Turkish. --Lambiam 21:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of Russian Playboy

Playboy#Former says Russian edition was closed in 2022, but for some reason I can't find any reliable source, neither in Russian nor in English, about the Russian closure. I was only able to find a marketplace source saying that the spring 2022 issue was the last one. PlayboyRussia.com doesn't work anymore and their Facebook page hasn't been updated since 13 March 2022, implying that's indeed the case. Could someone help with an RS about Russian closure? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last cover captured by the Wayback Machine is that of the Winter 2021–2022 issue.^[10] (Curiously, here is another cover of the Winter 2021–2022 issue, with the same model and the same cover text.) But we know the Spring 2022 issue was still published, from the cover image at your marketplace source. I found nothing for Summer 2022.

This is all OR, but the statement appears to be correct. --Lambiam 22:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 7

Looking for a country song by a female Canadian singer-songwriter...?

There is a great country song I heard only once and I've been trying to find its title ever since: the lyrics are about a woman who is forced to kill a beautiful mountain lion that is attacking her colt and how bad she feels about it afterwards even though she had to do it. I remember the singer (I believe she also wrote the song) was female and from Canada. The song must have been recorded between 1980 and 2010. Does this ring a bell, anyone? 178.51.8.23 (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 8

Van Heflin in World War II

Van Heflin's article says first he served in a United States Army artillery unit (Smithsonian article, Oklahoma Historical Society), and later in the article as a United States Army Air Forces combat photographer in Europe as part of the First Motion Picture Unit (Smithsonian again, [11], [12]). It seems odd and unlikely to me that he did both, but I suppose it's not impossible (though none of the sources I've found mention both together). Can somebody figure this out? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heflin had been a successful film actor before the US entered WWII in December 1941, as in the 1940 hit Santa Fe Trail. So when Owen Crump started recruiting in earnest for the First Motion Picture Unit from the Hollywood studios, it was not strange that they scooped up Heflin from active duty, just as they had done with Jimmy Stewart a few months earlier. While Heflin, like other First Motion Picture Unit actors such as Clark Gable, played a role in films shot by the 1st Combat Camera Unit, I do not readily see that he was active in the Combat Camera Unit itself. This would in fact have been strange, since he had no experience behind the camera. --Lambiam 13:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strange or not, the statement that Heflin served as a combat photographer can be cited to a RS – but this was before he joined the FMPU. --Lambiam 10:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 9

Effect of cricket ball hitting obstruction

I'm on the train heading home from a Big Bash League match where a long shot hit a seagull: seagull was inside boundary, ball landed on seagull, ball bounced past boundary. It didn't have enough distance to be a six, but was obviously going to be a four if the bird hadn't been in the way, and it still ended up being a four, so there was no effect on the game. But let's imagine that the ball bounced backward, away from the boundary. Would it be awarded a boundary anyway (since its trajectory was changed by something that didn't belong on the field), or does the seagull interference get accepted just as if it hit a fielder? Not familiar enough with cricket to know how they handle wacky situations. But it does make me think of is baseball pitcher Randy Johnson when he accidentally hit a bird, which the umpires decided to rule not to be a pitch at all because it wasn't covered by the rules. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Particular competitions might have a special rule, but from

https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/boundaries . . .

19.2.6 An obstacle within the field of play, other than as in 19.2.7, shall not be regarded as a boundary unless so determined by the umpires before the toss. See Law 2.3.1.4 (Consultation with captains).

19.2.7 A person, animal or object coming onto, or coming over the field of play while the ball is in play shall not be regarded as a boundary unless the umpires determine otherwise at the time that contact between the ball and such a person, animal or object is made. The decision shall be made for each separate occurrence. See also Law 20.4.2.12 (Umpire calling and signalling Dead ball).

and the Umpire calls the ball Dead when (amongst various other circumstances),

20.4.2.12 he/she considers that either side has been disadvantaged by a person, animal or other object within, or over, the field of play. However, if both umpires consider the ball would have reached the boundary regardless of the intervention, the boundary shall be awarded. See Law 19.2.7 (Identifying and marking the boundary).

Unusually, Kent's St Lawrence ground in Canterbury had a tree growing within the boundary, for which there were special laws. This however, was a fixed object, not a transient one. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.84.253 (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 11

Highest-grossing films

Which is the highest-grossing Australian film ever? The top 50 highest-grossing films all-time were either made by US or backed by US. Which is highest-grossing film ever that does not have any US involvement at all? --40bus (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the highest grossing Australian film is either The Great Gatsby (2013 film) or Crocodile Dundee. I might have missed one, but those are obvious hits. As for the second question The Battle at Lake Changjin surpassing Wolf Warrior 2 appears to be the answer. Other candidates will probably appear on List of highest-grossing non-English films since big-budget English language projects almost always have at least some Hollywood money/involvement because the North American box office is so much bigger than any other English language market. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for this one: Cinema of Australia#Highest-grossing Australian films ? HarryOrange (talk) 06:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 12