Entertainment desk
< January 15	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 16

Identifying Music

I would like to put this on the Language Desk, as we may have more Russian speakers there, but this may also be appropriate here. Anyway, I would like to know if the music in this video is actually based on existing Russian music, or if it is an original composition made specifically for the game Command & Conquer Red Alert 3 (even though in this video I have used it with Men Of War Red Tide - ignore that tiny fact). Cheers. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's James Hannigan's very own "Soviet March" (google composer + title for comparison). In my opinion the composition emulates the feel of Soviet marches of the time in theme, harmony and particularly in orchestration. The rhythmic pattern of dum dumduh dumDUM is typical, though the composer took license with the final syncopated "DUM" (especially at the end of the verse, where it sounds atypical). I don't know who wrote the lyrics, but they're in Russian and can be found online too. (And I don't think there are any authentic Soviet songs going "everywhere they'll sing 'The capital, vodka, our Soviet bear!") ---Sluzzelin talk 08:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My, but it is catchy, isn't it. Makes you wanna go out and kick some Capitalist pig butt :) Anyway, in case you wonder how the real thing sounds like, here's an actual Yugoslav WWII Partisan march, and there is some similarity, even if it is less orchestral. But you can forgive that - drudging along through forests dodging Germans was difficult enough without dragging the philharmonic orchestra in tow, I imagine. The lyrics are nothing revolutionary (no pun intended), "On brethren, fight on, the day of Freedom gleams afore us all!", that sorta thing. And another one. TomorrowTime (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another famous and catchy one which also employs the (unsyncopated) dum dumduh dum pattern is the revolutionary "Warszawianka". Here is the Red Army Choir's famous version (taken at a deliberately slow and haunting tempo, but you can find more obviously martial sounding versions, more like Hannigan's march, online too) . Some of you might be more familiar with the theme in its Spanish adaptation "A las Barricadas" [1]. Yet another famous, perhaps the most famous dum dumduh dum song is the National Anthem of the Soviet Union. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even after listening to the video I'm not quite clear on what the dum dumduh dum pattern is, but the general topic reminds me of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 11, 4th movement, which slowly builds to a rather Darth Vaderian theme in time. I quite suspect John Williams used it as fodder for his Star Wars music. Quite impressive. Pfly (talk) 11:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dum dumduh dumDUM can't be heard until the choir starts to sing. I can't post scores, but the first "dum" is a quarter note, "dumduh" are a dotted eighth note and a sixteenth note, and the final "dumDUM" in Hannigan's march are an eighth note and a (syncopated) quarter note (in the other original examples, it's just a "dum", just a quarter note). Compare the first-three-beat pattern in the scores of the Warszawianka, the Soviet Anthem, and Hannigan's "Soviet March" (the latter with the mentioned syncopation at the end of the musical phrase). ---Sluzzelin talk 11:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha - so, I can surmise from this that the song is a very well orchestrated fake (pardon the intended pun)? Cheers for the excellent answers! --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fake? How do you get that? It doesn't claim to be something it's not - does it? (I'm assuming your pun was on the word "orchestrated" and did not extend to "fake".) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something does not need to claim to be anything for it to be labelled a fake. I once had what everyone I knew called a 'fake Rolex', despite the fact that Rolex wasn't written on it anywhere. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See fake. There are probably dozens of watches that have been designed deliberately to resemble Rolexes, but make no explicit claim about such a resemblance. They rely on people noticing the similarity (or in some cases believing gullibly they are actually are Rolexes), and desiring to own something that's relatively inexpensive but that will give them the appearance of wearing a Rolex (and in most cases they won't be subjected to a closer inspection, so the appearance will linger). That's vanity marketing for you, and there is an implicit fakery involved. But I wouldn't call a piece of music that just happens to remind me of, say, Shostakovich, as "fake Shostakovich", because that would suggest the composer deliberately set out to write something that would make listeners think they were actually listening to Shostakovich when they weren't. A lot of Mozart sounds like Haydn, but do we ever call it "fake Haydn" - hardly. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the beauty of language, Jack. We are completely at liberty to use words in whatever way we want to use them, and then it is up to the listener to either understand the words as they were intended, or not to understand them as they were intended, or, as is the case here, to simply refuse to allow a word to be used in a certain way. Certainly you understand exactly what I meant by the word 'fake', even though my use of the word runs contrary to your experience as a native English speaker. As for the analogy of the Rolex, your explanation confirms what I said. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you differ on whether the element of intentional deception is prerequisite for somtehing to be "fake". Online definitions include "not what it seems to be" and "having a misleading appearance" which both don't necessarily require intent. Semantics aside, I actually think the composer is intentionally trying to deceive us, the same way a costume designer or an actor is trying to deceive us in a film. They all want our suspension of disbelief to remain free of disruption by reality. (Had Hannigan not succeeded, this question might not have been asked :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 20:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Trying to deceive us" - but what about? What exactly is it that some people think is true about his music but really isn't true? Trying to create a particular mood and feel - yes, I willingly accept that. Composers wanting a martial feel will adopt martial (= march-like) rhythms, but that doesn't mean they're pretending, lying, deceiving or faking anything. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I just have a more fuzzy hearing when it comes to words. Where would you draw the line? Is David Blaine trying to deceive us? What about mentalists? Maybe just some of us? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't even attempt to answer your question. I guess people aren't supposed to think too much one way or the other about the music's authenticity, but if I have to come up with something we're being deceived about, that's what it would be: The music's authenticity. Unlike with costumes and acting, a viewer cannot know in advance whether the music is original or borrowed, and he can't tell when it is made to sound like the real thing. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I just noticed another thing Hannigan's march has in common with a lot of Soviet marches: The main theme is rooted in a grim minor tonality, while the middle part (or bridge, if you like) is held in the triumphant relative major tonality. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sluzzelin and User:JackofOz: you are both likely too young to recall Franchellie Cadwell's advertising years, and one of her most famous tag lines- "It's not fake anything. It's real Dynel." (And, even if you are old enough to recall 1963, you were not on the same continent.) Dynel was a synthetic (plastic) fur. Now we can ~~argue~~ ~~debate~~ ~~discuss~~ consider "real" music versus "synthetic" music. :>) Bielle (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1963? I was well into puberty by then. I remember ... no, I'd better not go into those details here. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Stage and work times for entertainers

How much extra work time do experienced entertainers typically do in addition to the duration of the time they are on stage? Such time would include travelling to and from the venue, etc. I'm thinking of for example rock musicians giving a concert, or comedians appearing in cabaret. Thanks. 92.29.122.203 (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would vary a lot depending on the nature of the tour, how hands-on the performer is, etc. A musician or comedian playing a different venue every night will have to travel to and from hotel and venue, and may have travelling time of anything from an hour to several hours (check tour schedules); other bands may allow free days for travelling, or play multiple nights in the same venue. Musicians typically do sound-checks before the venue opens, which may take a few minutes or an hour - longer if there are technical problems. Higher-level acts (who play big venues) will have roadies to pack and unpack equipment, but a band who is starting out may have to collect their gear, drive it, unload it, set it up, tune it, etc, and some more senior musicians like to be hands-on. A band may arrive at a venue 4 or 6 hours before they go on stage, although there will be a lot of time spent waiting rather than working. Some acts will spend a lot of time in makeup and getting dressed, while others will walk on stage in their day clothes. There are other uses of time: talking to managers or tour managers to plan future shows, publicity work (TV, radio, or press interviews). It can be long hours for the duration of a tour, from morning radio appearances or early travel, till the evening performance.

In contrast, a stand-up comedian doing a short set in their home town may turn up a short time before, walk out on stage, do their show, and leave, with no sound check or real preparation, so it might take 3 hours or less from leaving their home to arriving home. But even then, they will have to arrange their appearance with promotor or their agent, write material (especially if they do topical stuff), travel to and from the show, wait till it's time to go on, and may be expected to stay and watch the other acts, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And then there is rehearsal time, practice time and often writing and/or composing time. Bielle (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beattie Feathers

How do you pronounce his first name? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I must say that nobody seems to want to tell us. I googled for "Beattie Feathers" pronounced and got dozens of seemingly relevant hits, none of which actually bothered to spell out how it was pronounced. Honestly, the writers mention how "Kuhn" is pronounced, but assume everyone has heard of Beattie Feathers. I'm afraid I have nothing more useful to tell you other than that it is probably one of the pronunciations listed here. Sorry :( Maybe someone else will have more luck for you. Matt Deres (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the expected pronunciation for that spelling in standard British English would be "BEET-ee". Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the Tin Man costume from "The Wizard of Oz"?

I known what happened to the Cowardly Lion costume and the Scarecrow costume and the Dorothy dresses but I wanna know about the Tin Man costume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.128.55 (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you're talking about the 1939 film, and not any of the other stage and screen adaptations, the answer appears to be that it was destroyed. That's what the Daily Mirror says anyway. --Antiquary (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it was just "destroyed" HOW did this happen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.128.55 (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. The Wizard of Oz wasn't considered a classic right away. Even for more initially successful films, props were routinely reused or thrown away. The studios were making dozens of pictures a year and didn't have unlimited storage space. "A lot of stuff was literally thrown away and pulled out of dumpsters".[2] An "enterprising" costumer named Kent Warner claimed he found Humphrey Bogart's trenchcoat from Casablanca in a bin scheduled to be burned(!) and "rescued" it.[3] Warner also found the ruby slippers, which had been put in a box and misplaced for decades. The studios were just clueless about the value of film memorabilia until a landmark 1970 MGM auction. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. I can also tell you that the news doesn't seem to be as bad as I first thought. This Wizard of Oz site only says that the costume was "largely" destroyed, which of course implies that it partially survived. (The site seems to be off-line at the moment, which is why I've linked to a cached version.) Another site (same problem, same solution) claims that the headpiece of the costume was saved, was bought by the film star Debbie Reynolds, and, unless I'm misinterpreting it, that it's now at the Motion Picture Museum at Belle Island Village in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee. --Antiquary (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the museum and Belle Island Village both went bankrupt before opening. Reynolds' collection is to be auctioned off by Christie's by June. (See Debbie Reynolds#Film memorabilia for the freshly-added references.) Maybe you can pick up what's left of the costume, if you've got lots of $$$. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Storage is expensive. Why keep something around if you're never going to use it again? (As others have indicated, there wasn't necessarily any thought towards movie memorabilia at the time.) The other thing is that most movie props and costumes aren't necessarily made to last. They're made to look like their real (but aren't necessarily real), and made to last through shooting, but aren't really intended to be kept around longer. What looks like a metal tube on film might just be a piece of cardboard or paper mache tubing painted silver. I've heard of instances where they're literally duct taping props/costumes together near the end of shooting to keep them from falling apart. (They hide the duct tape with judicious use of camera angles.) Alternatively, there might not be one costume/prop, but multiple ones, using the new one when an old one wears out. (Depending on what they're doing, that could happen very rapidly.) Or you could have one costume for each day of shooting, where the actor gets glued into the costume each morning and the costume has to be destroyed to get the actor out of it at night. (All that said, I don't know what category the Tin Man costume falls under. I'm just making the point that props and costumes aren't viewed by the industry with the same "permanence" we look at the items and clothing we own.) -- 174.21.229.4 (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say nowadays the studio would at least auction off stuff they no longer wanted to store. I recall seeing a news item ages ago about how they decided to sell off all the props from Barney Miller, and I have heard of stars themselves making sure they get the trophies they want out of a film or show. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 08:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese media

Why does it seems a lot of Chinese stars that make it big are from Taiwan or Hong Kong or either were born elsewhere but later move there? Why isn't there more mainland stars? Maybe there is actually alot more than I think but they are not as well known as Taiwanese or Cantonese stars? Does Communism have anything to do with this?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Until the 5th generation of Chinese cinema, mainland Chinese films were little known outside of China, while Taiwan and Hong Kong films had much more widespead distribution before that. For example, it was Raise the Red Lantern (winner of a BAFTA in 1992) which brought Chinese cinema to my attention, while I was already well aware of various "Chopsocky" films from Hong Kong while I was growing up in the UK in the 70s. I think it is quite likely that communism is in part responsible for lack of a mainland Chinese presence on the World Cinema circuit, with many films and film makers being subject to restrictions. See the rest of the Cinema of China article for more information. Astronaut (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just from the same director, Red Sorghum won a Golden Bear for Best Picture at the 1988 Berlin International Film Festival and Ju Dou was nominated for a foreign film Oscar in 1989. So mainland films weren't totally unknown in the late 1980s. Rmhermen (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good mp3 blog for new dance/pop music

Does anyone have recommendations for an mp3 blog with good, danceable pop music? I like basically all danceable music, from stuff that's more latin/tropical (example) to dance-y hip hop (example) to straight-up pop music (example). I don't care for stuff that's too EDM. (David Guetta's latest stuff is fun, but something like this I don't like.) Indie-type stuff (example) is good occasionally but I don't want a blog that focuses on this type of music too much. Looking for a blog with a lot of new stuff, and potentially older things that are less well known. Thoughts about a blog that matches my taste in music?? I'd like to be able to keep up with new releases. Thanks!!! Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]