Welcome to the entertainment section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

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.

April 10

Cleaning-ears-with-handkerchief-gag

Like that.... When was this gag performed for the first times in the movies? GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 07:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an answer for you, just a guess...very early short silent films often featured vaudeville performers doing popular stage tricks, so it wouldn't surprise me if it would've first appeared in that format. If you go to http://www.open-video.org/index.php and do a search for "vaudeville" you can see similar gags and tricks on film. OttawaAC (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TV Tropes has a whole entry on "In One Ear, Out The Other", but the only handkerchief example they mention is the one you already gave (Lloyd Bridges in Hot Shots!). For earlier non-handkerchief examples it has "Happens a few times in The Three Stooges. For example, in one episode Moe throws a feather duster through Shemp's ears and has to help him pull it out". I found another example in They Stooge to Conga involving a screwdriver in one ear and a light bulb in the other, but I found no Stooges scene using a hanky. TV Tropes also gives the example of Delusions of Grandeur (film) (1971), but that scene uses a towel, not a hanky. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the leads. Yes, I was thinking about silent movies. GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 05:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

title of the song

Hello, I've heard a song that is like that in the chorus, unfortunately, I don't know the lyrics of this song. What is the title of this song please ? Fort123 (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tough one. Can you narrow it down at all? New song, old song, in between? Woman or man singing? Genre? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, April 11, 2014 (UTC)

This song is in F♯ major. Fort123 (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cher - Believe (Cher song) (queued up on youtube) --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot ! Fort123 (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great use of audio. Was instantly recognizable to me too :) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now, it's extremely obvious to me, too, and I can't see how I didn't hear it before. One of those things. Thanks, Rhodo. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, April 13, 2014 (UTC)

April 11

Popularity of baseball vs American football in the USA

It's my impression that in my lifetime of over 60 years there been a change in the most popular sport in the US, from baseball to football (the American kind). Firstly, am I right?, Secondly, if true, how and why did it happen? HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, yes (at least within the last 30 years). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a LOT of analysis tied to this; the big difference has been tied to American Football as a TV friendly, while Baseball is a radio-friendly sport. See this article which has a pretty good overview of why American Football works so well on TV. I can't remember where I first read that analysis, but it has been made by numerous sports writers and historians. I think it was probably someone like David Halberstam, he wrote an important book about the 1958 NFL Championship Game, which has been called "The Greatest Game Ever Played" and with good reason. It was the first NFL Championship Game that was broadcast nationally by a major TV network, AND it just happens to be one of the most exciting games every played as well; being the only NFL Championship to go into sudden death overtime. The 1960s was the decade where the NFL really blossomed. A second league was formed (the American Football League) and was successful enough to force a merger. Now, I did most of the work to bring History of American football to featured status, so I hope you won't mind if I add some personal observations and speculation as to what made football supreme in the U.S. Color television was becoming a thing in the 1960s; that really made the colorful football uniforms pop and gave visual interest to the game. Baseball uniforms were basically two colors: Gray and White. The flow of the games are different, which makes football work on TV so well: Football consists of short bursts of action (5-6 second plays) with about 20-30 seconds for analysis by the sportscasters. It's fairly rhythmic in that way: play-break-play-break-play-break. The pacing is perfect for keeping a television viewer glued to the set. Baseball is much more leisurely; there can be 10-20 minutes between a ball being put into play, good for listening in on radio while you do other stuff, not so good for keeping eyeballs on TV sets. The NFL has done a good job using its labor contract to maintain league parity: There's not really an advantage to being in a major metro area; teams have national followings regardless of where they are, and a team from small town like Green Bay, Wisconsin can still compete every year for a championship. MLB still offers HUGE benefits for being from a major metro area. You've maybe got 4 teams that are "in it" every year, and then a random number of small market teams occasionally make a run for a year or two. In the NFL, no team is terrible forever, and you've got more teams that have a shot every year so fans of all teams feel more connected for a longer time. Also, season length has something to do with it. MLB has 162 games in a season; they play almost every day. That decreases the interest in any one single game. Unless its a major rivalry like Red Sox-Yankees, no one needs to watch every game, because any individual loss or win doesn't mean much. The NFL plays 16 games in a season, essentially all on the same day of the week (Sunday) with a featured game on other nights (one on Thursday, on on Monday). Every game makes a difference, so every game matters for the fans. While a mid-season Royals-Astros game in Baseball means absolutely nothing to most baseball fans (even to Royals and Astros fans), a midseason game between the Chiefs and the Texans could mean the difference between either team making the playoffs or not, so it's still likely to attract considerable interest. And that's my belief in why football has become supreme: TV. --Jayron32 13:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of live attendance, MLB still wins with almost 75 million tickets sold in 2012 versus 17 million for NFL.[1][2] with baseball attendance setting records but football attendance declining slightly. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Divide the baseball numbers by 10 to get the real figures. Baseball teams play 81 home games per year. NFL teams play 8. That means, on a per-game basis, Baseball games have less than half the attendance of NFL games. You'll note your source is MLB.com; that source has a vested interest in making their numbers look better. Lies, damn lies, and statistics, my friend. --Jayron32 13:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR is pretty popular too. About the NFL, I recall Howard Cosell talking in the late 60s or so about how it seemed to fit (more than baseball) with the America of that time: action-packed, violent, etc. The violent side has come under much closer scrutiny in recent years, but the NFL remains at the top of the popularity list. And you're right, the NFL (or football in general) is perfect for TV. Baseball is better on the radio, or in person, where you can chat with others or wander around without much fear of missing something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, here's some less filtered numbers, which aren't interpreted to make baseball look better: here is baseball's number, and here is the NFL numbers, both by ESPN. There are 3 sets of numbers: total attendance, average attendance per game, and "pct" which is the average percent of "capacity" (i.e. tickets sold divided by number of seats) for each team in both sports. Here's the relevant comparables:

In the NFL, 11 of the 32 teams averaged 100% attendance or better (more than 100% means that there would have been standing-room-only) in home games. In MLB, none of the teams averaged 100% attendance or better. The closest was the SF Giants, who got 99%. The median percentage of seats sold was 73%. In the NFL, the median was 98.9%. No team in the NFL averaged less than 80% capacity. In baseball, only 8 teams did better than that.
In the NFL, every team averages per-game attendance was better than every single MLB team. That is, the best attended home team in MLB was the LA Dodgers, with 46,216 per game. The worst attended home team in the NFL was the Oakland Raiders, with 50,444 per game.
If you want a real apples-to-apples comparison, the Oakland Raiders (football) and Oakland A's (baseball) play in the same stadium (the last such team to do so; it used to be more common for teams to share a stadium, but currently that's the only two teams to do so now). In the same stadium, the Raiders average 50,444 per game. The A's average 22,337 per game.

There you go. NFL numbers have plateaued recently (or even slightly declined) largely because the league has already been essentially at capacity for a long time. When just under half of your teams literally sell out every single game, it doesn't take much to drop a bit. Baseball, OTOH, has lots of games with half-filled (or barely filled) stadiums. They have a lot more room to go up than the NFL does. The NFL would have to literally reconstruct their stadiums to sell more tickets. Baseball just has to find ways to fill the seats that are regularly empty, and there's a lot of them. --Jayron32 14:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about per event attendance and am puzzled by your fixation on only it as a valid statistic. NASCAR per event attendance [3] far exceeds football but does not not approach capacity, or football's (much less baseball's) season totals. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The best estimator of a given sport's popularity might be the total revenues taken in, not just from attendance, but also from product licensing, TV contracts, and whatever else one can think of. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you want to know what America's most popular sport is, you ask people: Harris Interactive poll shows a longitudinal study of the most popular sports in the U.S. Baseball has seen the biggest decline, losing 7% of it's support as someones "favorite sport", while the NFL has had the biggest gain, with Pro Football seeing 10% increase. Other sports have remained relatively constant, losing or gaining less than 3% of their popularity over that time frame. --Jayron32 20:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack of BBC One series Death in Paradise

Is there a website where I can get the soundtrack of Death in Paradise, all seasons 1, 2, and 3? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.60 (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Composition for Guitar versus Piano

A friend of mine who plays and writes for the guitar is curious is there is any significant difference in composing for the two instruments. That one bends notes and plays with a slide on the guitar seems relevant. I'd also assume there are no two-handed compositions for guitar. But I am actually almost entirely ignorant, and neither read music nor play an instrument myself. Can anyone point out if there are differences I am missing and any good articles or references to recommend? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not an answer to your question, but still an interesting point; there is certainly piano-style two handed playing of guitars. Two handed tapping allows for the playing of keyboard music on guitars. Fgf10 (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For players who play fantastic 2-handed guitar (that is, fretting and striking notes with both hands) check out Ben Lapps or Zack Kim. Also, while it is strictly true that you can't bend the notes on an acoustic piano, electronic keyboards are surprisingly versatile in allowing such note bending. Many high-end synthesizers such as the Yamaha Motif have nobs and such that produce a pretty good facsimile of guitar note-bending. --Jayron32 23:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for Medeis, some of these discussion forums may have some good info for you: [4]. --Jayron32 23:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, one question. In two-handed piano playing does anyone ever play more than six notes at a time? I assume that would be the limit on a six-stringed guitar? Like I said, I am personally quite ignorant here. μηδείς (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A piano player can play 10 notes at once. And guitars can play more than 6 notes if they have more than 6 strings. See Russian guitar. --Jayron32 02:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may recall that Tom Lehrer referred to his piano as an "88-string guitar". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely, for one song (The Folk Song Army) he invited his audience to "pretend that I am playing an 88-string guitar." —Tamfang (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, most piano players can play 12 notes at once. The thumbs can easily play 2 notes each, and depending on the shape of the thumb, may even be able to play 3 each, making 14 notes in all. But very little music ever calls for such dexterity. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, strictly speaking, piano players usually also have forearms and elbows and the like, and can probably play dozens of notes at once. To do so in a sonicly pleasing way, however, is the trick... --Jayron32 03:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But being required to play 6 notes with one hand is far from uncommon, particularly in music by Romantic composers such as Liszt, Scriabin and Rachmaninoff. Scriabin went a bit weird in later life but the other two always inhabited the world of sonic pleasure. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(I will be referring to the six-stringed modern classical guitar and the way it is played in classical music, not to guitars with more strings, or two-hand tapping)

You already mentioned that you can change a note's pitch on a guitar (and also modulate the sound, add a vibrato etc) which you can't do on the discretely tuned piano, yet in terms of melodic and harmonic possibilities, composing for the piano is less restrictive than for the guitar. Compared to the violin, say, the guitar does allow for more harmony and polyphony. Skilled players (which is whom a composer is often composing for) can play counterpoint, self accompaniment, and so forth, but the guitar still allows for less of all that than the piano. One of the reasons being the hands and fingers employed, as mentioned above. In addition less simultaneous combinations are possible on the guitar. The way the strings are laid out and especially their limited number (six) in combination with the physical limits of what hands can do, even make certain constellations of six or less notes impossible to play in standard tuning. (For a very simple example: You cannot play the minor third e^I-g^I (only two notes) as a harmonic interval, because both of those notes can only be played on the lowest strings (but not simultaneously) Then again, on a guitar you can play two notes in unison, something the piano can't).

On the piano too, of course, not every constellation of ten (or twelve or whatever) notes is possible. There are even constellations of only three notes that can't be played simultaneously on the piano (unless you use your nose or chin). But this is only because of the limits of the human being, not of the instrument. A player piano can play the works of Conlon Nancarrow or anything written for the 88 keys, a human being can't, but nor could a "player guitar". All in all, the piano allows for many more possibilities in terms of polyphony.

The article on classical guitar repertoire starts out with "To a greater extent than most other instruments and ensembles, it is difficult to compose music for the guitar without either proficiency in the instrument or close collaboration with a guitarist. As a result, a large part of the guitar repertoire consists of works by guitarists who did not compose extensively for other instruments." This is a sentiment often heard among classical guitarists. I personally believe that one of the reasons is the history of negligence of classical guitar in the tradition of conservatories, which probably lingers on to this day. The vast majority of students of composition can play the piano (whether as a first instrument or not, they'll know their way around the instrument), but only very few play the guitar. In classes, more emphasis is placed on members of the symphony orchestra, maybe some other instruments such as the organ too, but not that much, if anything at all, on the guitar. (This is a very general statement. I'm sure there are plenty of conservatories that include the guitar in their teaching about instruments and instrumentation, and times are changing and have changed).

Because the guitar does allow for astonishing harmonic complexity in comparison to most solo instruments (just not the piano), and because this is something composers might wish to exploit, the suggested lack of knowledge and practice (in comparison to their familiarity with the piano) would make it quite a challenge, even with the help of a guitarist. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the problems you note with the Guitar not also applicable to other instruments, except moreso? Other stringed instruments used in the classical repertoire including the violin family have only 4 strings; their limits are identical to that of the guitar excepting they have less of a range. No, my suspicion as to the lack of attention to the guitar among classical composers (which established the tradition and thus it carries forward to this day as the way standard "orchestra" composing works) has to do with the type of music that guitars were originally suited for. Classical gut-strung guitars were and relatively quiet instruments. Like lutes and other predecessors, guitars were well suited for intimate settings: a small room with a few people listening in. They just weren't "concert hall" instruments. Instruments for the concert hall had to either be able to fill the hall themselves (big, brassy wind instruments, pianofortes, etc.) or have the ability to play a large group of them to reinforce their volume (violin sections). There's just no place for a guitar among the tradition of composing for the classical concert hall. Modern developments in the guitar (such as the introduction of steel strings and larger and larger body types such as the Dreadnought, and of course, electric amplification and electronic signal processing) have made the guitar a MUCH more versatile instrument in modern times. And of course, LOTS of people do compose for the guitar, just not in the "classical orchestra" frame. There's libraries of guitar music out there, written by excellent modern composers. --Jayron32 18:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greater limitations when compared to a piano exist for most other instruments, sure. What makes composing for the guitar more challenging, in my speculation, is that you do have far more possibilities, polyphonically speaking, than with a violin, cello, etc (where you can't employ much more than the occasional multiple stopping), not to mention than with a wind instrument (multiphonics are possible, but very limited and unusual). If you want to make use of the complex possibilities the guitar has to offer you need a deeper knowledge of the guitar which is often lacking among composers who don't play the guitar. A violin's limitations are easier to understand, and it will mostly be employed purely melodically. A harp's harmonic possibilities are also complex, but students of classical music have typically learned more about the harp than about the guitar, because it is used in symphony orchestras more often. You are of course correct that guitars weren't concert hall instruments, but many composers (particularly more recent ones) like composing for chamber music, smaller ensembles, unusual combinations and unusual instruments too. But they'll be quicker in understanding the scope of possibilities of a shakuhachi or brake drum than that of a guitar.

I limited my answer to "classical" music because this is the field where you will find most compositions written out, specifically, usually note by note (not just melody and chords, e.g.) and intended to be played by other musicians. (It also makes the question easier to answer, because you are absolutely right about the vastness of ever-increasing possibilities the electric guitar has to offer). ---Sluzzelin talk 04:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The variety of four-handed and even six-handed compositions playable on a single piano notably exceeds any polyphony possible on a guitar. In an orchestra, string instruments such as guitars must generally be manually retuned by their players to agree in pitch with the available piano for which any tuning is a major operation. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am cut-and-pasting this to my friend, whom I suspect will be impressed by the help so far. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing that occurred to me: Visually (and also physically, in terms of arm position) a piano keyboard is an almost linear replication of the whole musical scale at a pianist's disposition. Guitars and tablature aren't as transparent in comparison. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do realize, by the way, that your friend might be interested in a completely different kind of answer, being a guitarist themselves. My answer was intended from a "neutral" (or at any rate non-guitarist, so much for neutrality) outlook. Your friend might wish to know more about the difference between what composing means to someone who is a pianist and composes on the piano, and someone who is and does the same on the guitar. I found one study that might be interesting (but I can't access more than the abstract): "Music motivation and the effect of writing music: A comparison of pianists and guitarists" (Peter D. MacIntyre and Gillian K. Potter, published in Psychology of Music 2013).

This PsyPost article writes:

"MacIntyre and Potter also found a big difference between guitarists and pianists when it came to composing music. Nearly twice as many guitarists reported writing music than pianists. In addition, 40 percent of pianists said they had no intention to learn to write music in the future compared to only 13.5 percent of guitarists.

I am surprised that there are not more studies on the motivational effects of writing music,” MacIntyre told PsyPost. “In our study, we found that almost 90 percent of guitarists either write music or plan to begin writing music. As a group, guitarists show a lot of diversity but have at least two things in common: calloused fingers and a desire to write music.”

We found this result intriguing. Most often, I think of writing music on the piano rather than the guitar, but our sample shows guitar players are creating their own music in large numbers.”

Jayron is absolutely right about the "libraries of guitar music out there", but, once again, they seem to be written by guitarists! ---Sluzzelin talk 05:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused... Do people who write for piano typically not know how to play piano? That seems a bit incongruous... --Jayron32 00:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, yet there are a number who composed for the piano, but for whom the piano wasn't necessarily "their" instrument; though they had learned to play it, they wouldn't consider themselves pianists. Example: Paul Hindemith. And on the other hand, the majority of classical compositions for clarinet or cello or harp were not written by clarinetists, cellists or harpists. ---Sluzzelin talk

April 12

the Turkish Susie Dent

What is the name of the word lady on Bir Kelime Bir İşlem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.233.194.156 (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be Yeliz Doğramacılar. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 13

Canada's two original six franchises, their cities, provinces, and their success before/between/after the expansion

How come Canadiens/Montreal/Quebec are more successful then their Maple Leafs/Toronto/Ontario counterparts are though out their histories?

I for one I'm really interested in knowing more about it for quite some time now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 00:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because Montreal had better players and coaches. Per List of Montreal Canadiens award winners and List of Toronto Maple Leafs award winners, as just one example, the Habs have had 16 Hart Trophies awarded to their players (regular season MVP). The Leafs have had 2. Other than the Calder Trophy (awarded to Rookies), the Canadiens dominate all of the other player awards. Better players and better coaches leads to more success. --Jayron32 01:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the rational answer. However, hockey history is rife with superstition and symbols. A durable rocket or a crashed donut?

A more commonly accepted Leafs curse was popularized in "Fifty Mission Cap". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:01, April 13, 2014 (UTC)

If Montreal is terrible, people will stop coming and the team will lose money and may be forced to move...well, that was the case in the 30s and 40s anyway. If the Leafs are terrible, people will still fill the seats and the owners will make billions of dollars no matter what. Toronto sucks because it has no reason not to. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal would need to be really, really awful for people to stop coming to the games. The fan base there is just as irrational as the Leafs', they just have had better teams to cheer for (and for the past 20 years, since Montreal won its last Stanley Cup in 1993, the two franchises are largely indistinguishable in terms of success on the ice). One factor that was important until the start of the 1970s however, was that Montreal got first dibs on all the best French-Canadian players coming into the pros, and used that advantage to build very powerful teams. --Xuxl (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Montreal still typically makes the playoffs. That distinguishes the two, Cups aside. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:34, April 14, 2014 (UTC)

Links to U2 fanfiction

My understanding of fanfiction is that it's supposed to be available for general consumption. Can anyone find links that I can access for the U2 fanfiction "Mysterious Ways" and "Lost Highway" so I can email it to a friend with limited web access? Thanks. (PS, I have found stuff, and it raises all sorts of warnings on my browser.) μηδείς (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lot of stuff at www.fanfiction.net titled "Mysterious Ways" and it does not appear to have any warnings in the browser (but I'm not on Windows). However, I'm not sure if there is a connection to U2 as there seems to be mentions of "sparkles" and "vampires". CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 14:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I also found Twilight fan fic with those titles. And extra googling just found this question. Are you sure it's fanfic about U2, and not fanfic that just uses u2 lyrics/titles? Of course author info would help too. But if perchance your are interested in fanfic about Roy Orbison and terrapins, that is rather easy to find [5]. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meatloaf songs unavailable

Why are Meatloaf's songs Bad Attitude and Nowhere Fast unavailable in iTunes and Spotify?68.117.161.44 (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many pages are in category Category:Films_by_decade_of_setting ?

How many pages are in the category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_by_decade_of_setting ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt me (talk • contribs) 18:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:CatScan is a utility you should be able to use to find this out... --Jayron32 00:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None. It's full of other categories. But Jayron's suggestion of using CatScan will tell you that drilling down a maximum of 5 categories (I just picked that number semi-randomly) there are 6899 articles under that parent category in various child categories. Dismas|^(talk) 13:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 14

Warm-up comedians

Late night talk shows here in the US such as those starring David Letterman, Craig Ferguson, and Jimmy Fallon often have warm-up comedians that come out before the show starts taping to get the audience excited and laughing before the star comes out. (I think sitcoms have them too but I'm less sure about that.) I'm wondering about the profession though. Are these comedians hired for X number of weeks/months/etc? Or do they take the job until their own career starts to take off and they leave the show? Or do they get on with one show and stay there for years as the entirety of their career? I'm guessing that it's not the same for everyone of these people but just in general, what happens?

And before this gets hatted, no I am not, nor am I thinking of becoming, a comedian, warm-up or otherwise. Therefore this isn't a financial question. Nor is it by any stretch of a reasonable imagination a medical question. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 07:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You make find this article helpful.http://www.laweekly.com/2013-01-17/news/sitcom-warmup-comics-Mark-Sweet/ Hotclaws (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article for Warm-up comedian, but I also saw this article which seems to suggest the same comic will often do a particular show for a long time, e.g. "Kelly, who has been with "The View" for six years...". It also gets into whether it's a help or a hindrance to comics' careers (answer: it varies). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the significance of St James Secret Garden Secret Map Block Puzzle by Cornelia Sand

I have a St James Secret Garden Block Puzzle. It is a set of 12 wooden blocks in a wooden box. Each block has different parts of a scene around some or all of the sides which form a Secret Map when all are turned the right way. One block is stamped on a blank side, "Opening Night April 25, 1991 St James Theatre." The box is also marked inside, "Designed and Produced by Cordelia Sand." I know that Secret Garden was a story that was turned into a musical which opened at St. James Theatre on 4/25/91 but can't seem to find information on where the blocks came from, who is Cordelia Sand, what is the significance of the blocks i.e. Were they give-aways on opening night or were they special presentation blocs or were they perhaps a commercial product and are they worth anything. Can you help please?

The local for this question would be New York City.

I found this which mentions another give away http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=--gCAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=st+james+theatre+secret+garden+give+away&source=bl&ots=JhDpY1nN1L&sig=8HmOFUrBGtNApGOJNlMdweKzwqQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VapLU_6BPOip7AaurIFw&ved=0CGUQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=st%20james%20theatre%20secret%20garden%20give%20away&f=false Maybe the New York Magazine or the theatre itself might know more. Hotclaws (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejerryg (talk • contribs) 08:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Chaplin, working on his film music with Kurt Weill and someone else (Schoenberg?)??

I don't remember where I heard that anecdote, but apparently some of Charlie Chaplin's own film scores were realized this way: Charlie Chaplin would whistle his melodies to Kurt Weill, who would notate them, then they would bring that piano score to Arnold Schoenberg (I'm not sure about him), who would write the arrangements.
The only movies that fit the timeframe of the latter two living in the US are "Modern Times", "The Great Dictator", and Monsieur Verdoux".
However, Schoenberg was in Los Angeles, and Weill in New York, so this whole thing doesn't really add up. Can someone resolve the mystery? And/or, perhaps, provide the origin of this (true or false) anecdote)? -- megA (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have David Robinson's unread book Chaplin: His Life and Art on my shelves. I consulted the index, but there's no mention of either Weill or Schoenberg. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This talks about Chaplin whistling tunes to people such as Hanns Eisler and Georg Kreisler, who would then write them down and orchestrate them. Robinson does mention Eisler, but nothing about this.

This tells me he was friendly with Schoenberg. I can't find any evidence he ever even met Kurt Weill. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Mantle autographed baseball

Any idea of how much that would be worth? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends, but they go from hundreds up to $16K at least. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wow, that's quite a variation of prices on that page. Any idea as to why? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several things factor into the price of something like that: A) condition of the signature, B) condition of the ball, C) significance of the ball (home run ball, etc). Dismas|^(talk) 00:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One would hope that confirmation of authenticity would figure into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't doubt it's authenticity solely based on the signature being misspelled, in crayon, with every letter a different color, and actually on a tennis ball. :-) StuRat (talk) 05:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Mantle, Schmantle. I can let you have a genuine, 110% authentic Joe Schlabotnik for peanuts. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 15

"God bless the child that's got his own" what ?

Money ?

This Billie Holiday song is old enough that the lyrics must be public domain by now:

"God Bless The Child"

Them that's got shall have,
Them that's not shall lose,
So the Bible says and it still is news,
Mama may have, Papa may have,
But God bless the child that's got his own, that's got his own.

Thanks, StuRat (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Faith, my child! The Parable of the talents or minas, Matthew 25:29. OttawaAC (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it older than Steamboat Willie? —Tamfang (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The song was written in 1939 so it is almost certainly not in the public domain. Rmhermen (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, did you read the article's subsection "Origin and interpretation"? (I'm asking because you didn't link to the article, but to a disambiguation page). ---Sluzzelin talk 09:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that section, along with the rest of the lyrics, is why I suspect it's talking about money. But I don't quite understand how a child is supposed to have his own money, unless we are talking about an adult offspring, or at least a teenager, capable of earning a living. Does she mean an inherited trust fund ? StuRat (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can figure (I'm not an expert on American vernacular), she's referring to an adult as "child", something a lot of blues songs do (such as "Ooh Child (Things Are Gonna Get Easier) by The Five Steps, or Voodoo Chile by Jimi Hendrix.). The song is about people fighting about money... "rich relations give crust of bread and such"... but also about having your own faith, strength, and making the most of whatever gifts you have...I guess. That's how I interpret it. I think the parable allusion would've been a lot more clear to people back in the day.OttawaAC (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I love this song. Reviewing the lyrics all together (and hearing Billie Holiday singing them in my head), I think it's about forced self-reliance. Compare to the lyrics of "Nobody knows you when you're down and out" and Gillian Welch's version of "Make me a pallet on your floor." If I recall the biblical allusions correctly, they are about God giving more to people who have the courage to use what they have productively instead of hoarding it. A sort of bittersweet message about the pain of becoming independent?--Dreamahighway (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miley Cyrus

Has Miley Cyrus ever mentioned or been interviewed on why she completely alters her image - short hair, scanty clothing, almost nude, tongue sticking out? 140.254.227.101 (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if she's admitted it, but constantly changing your image is important to a celebrity to keep getting free publicity from the media. "The only bad press is no press" is a quote about how even getting into trouble might be good for their career, if at least it means they get noticed. Compare this to all the different looks Madonna or Micheal Jackson had. Madonna had conical, metallic bras, men's suits, etc., while MJ had the one bejeweled glove, then skin bleaching, then traded in his man's Negro nose for a woman's Caucasian nose, etc. Heck, he was completely unrecognizable when he finished with it all. And those celebs made millions over decades. Miley is trying to do the same thing. (I'm not sure why this is more important for singers, perhaps TV and movie stars get enough publicity from their screen appearance that they don't need to resort to such extremes.)

Note that both Miley and MJ were also child stars. In that case, they often feel the need to "break out" of their earlier roles to avoid being typecast and limited in their careers. In MJ's case, his Thriller album got the job done, and people no longer thought of him as "the little kid from the Jackson 5" after that. Another example is Elizabeth Berkely from Saved by the Bell, who did a nude role in the film Showgirls to try to change her squeaky clean image. StuRat (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's three interviews. Your exact question is not asked, but there is some discussion of her image/look and past: [6] [7] [8]. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 16

A comedy movie: man is having a house built... it burns down...

Can anyone identify this movie ?

It was broadcast on British TV in the late 1970s.

The main character is a man having a house built by a team of builders.

Near the end of the film, a small fire breaks out - possibly caused by a carelessly-discarded cigarette. All attempts to fight the fire fail - they have no equipment and no water.

The man runs out of the building site, to get help.

He arrives at a small fire-station. But, there are no firemen - they are away on another call or the fire-station hasn't been commissioned yet ?
There is only one man in the fire-station - he may be the station's cleaner or accountant, or a new recruit on his first day at the job.

( This man *might* be quite camp: "ooooo, you need a fireman" and so on... )

After much misunderstanding and delay, this man says there's an antique fire-engine in the back. And, well, he works there, so it can't be all that difficult to handle...

They both get in to the fire-engine, and proceed to drive VERY badly, for several miles in every direction but the right one. Cue scenes of the fire-engine crashing through the gardens of a street of houses.

At one point, the fire-engine crashes through what might be a furniture shop, and comes out dragging a mattress behind it - with a man desperately clinging to it...

By the time the fire-engine arrives at the building site, it's too late to save the house from burning down.

Any ideas ?
90.244.131.168 (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, not recalling such an episode, but this sounds a lot like Some Mothers Do Ave Em. Let me check... 86.146.28.229 (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess it could be the second episode, possibly. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

central division team wild card mlb vs. west divison

In 2006, Detroit Tigers won the wild card and faced the Yankees, who won the east division. If they did win the same title, is it possible that could have face the west division winner and their division champ conuterpart was facing the Yankees? Yes or no, please as the answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.150.185 (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are asking if two teams from the same division can meet in the divisional round of the playoffs (i.e. if the Wildcard team can meet the division champion from the same division in the divisional round). If that is the case, the answer is yes, under the current format they can, however under the previous format (in use from 1994-2011) they could not. See Major League Baseball postseason, which says "under the expanded wild card format the winner of the one-game wild card playoff faces the top-seeded divisional champion in the Division Series, regardless of whether the two teams are in the same division." (emphasis mine). Under the 1994-2011 system, the wildcard team could not play their own division winner in the first round. --Jayron32 17:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]