Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Satie - Gnossienne

Satie - Gnossienne

It sounds good, appears in Gnossiennes (Satie), and was uploaded by La Pianista.

• Nominate and support. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• 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 Manguard Wha? 05:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support All as uploader. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 05:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• 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)

NOTE: A discussion on this issue has been raised in the talk page of FSC. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• I completely agree, Tony. After having thought it over (for approximately three seconds), I've struck my vote. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 06:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• 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. Jujutacular ^talk 22:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • OK, that's easy to fix next time. Is any reverb added in the post-production? Tony (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Nope. The hall itself is incredibly live. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 06:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• 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 Manguard Wha? 05:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
    • 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 Manguard Wha? 05:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• 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 Manguard Wha? 17:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support all Well played and the sound is excellent. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

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 Manguard Wha? 07:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC) 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) 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) 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 Manguard Wha? 03:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Promoted all (That is, 1-3) --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)