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 12

End of vinyl records playback quality

One aspect of vinyl record playback I've never, ever seen addressed when one is comparing LP audio quality to any other format whatsoever is this: when the needle is at the beginning of the record the radius it travels is a far greater distance in inches than the playback radius towards the center of the LP. The turntable is travelling at 33 rpm no matter what, on the inside diameter or outside, therefore the needle is travelling further on the outside at of the disc in the same amount of time. Now if vinyl is anything like tape, where 30 ips obtains higher fidelity than 15 ips and 15 ips higher quality than 7 1/2 because the greater distance traveled yields a higher definition in the audio reproduction because there's simply more room to store the information, therefore the info gets compressed in a sense at the center and the fidelity at the center is inferior to the outside. No? 108.54.90.60 (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does get discussed. It's mentioned in the Wikipedia article Gramophone record#Vinyl and there's a discussion of it here. --Viennese Waltz 12:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a record collector I can say: yes, the sound quality gets worse during playbayk towards the center of the record and exactly because the explaination you gave. Still, there are people who say that the sound quality of a record is superior to a CD because it's analog. A CD "cuts" the audio into 44100 "frames" per second, where a record plays audio continously. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 13:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A little tangential, but all this business of analog encoding and sample rate is very interesting stuff. Here [1] is a nice discussion about how the human ear resolves different sample rates, and here [2] is a nice video that demonstrates various things about how we hear A/D and D/A conversion, and clears up many myths/misunderstandings. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great video. -- BenRG (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 44kHz sampling rate of a CD only limits the maximum frequency to ~20kHz. It doesn't at all limit the wave to changing at discrete points 1/44100 of a second apart. Watch the video SemanticMantis linked, or at least the very end (starting at around 21:30) where he shows that the rising edge of a square wave can be placed with much higher precision than the sampling frequency. -- BenRG (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock Holmes cocaine habit in movies

What movies, if any at all, depict Sherlock Holmes consuming cocaine or morphine? --Scicurious (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was opium he used in the books. Note that many US movies would have been discouraged from showing that, under the Production Code. StuRat (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was mostly cocaine in the novels (which was perfectly legal in Victorian Britain), though there is also a description of him smoking opium, Morphine is one of the active ingredients in raw opium. http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/doyle/addiction.html 81.132.106.10 (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that article and my memory of the stories, I don't think it was ever suggested that Holmes used opium. He once went undercover at an opium den and pretended to be drugged out. He never used morphine in a story, but it was once implied that he used it (Watson asked "Which is it today, morphine or cocaine?", and it was cocaine). -- BenRG (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Sherlock Holmes (2009 film) --Jayron 32 16:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Seven-Per-Cent Solution (film). -- BenRG (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Granada Television series has a scene where Watson expresses dismay that Holmes is using cocaïne again. —Tamfang (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (this is the series), and I recall scenes where a desk drawer gets opened, and you catch a glimpse of his gear (a syringe carrying case, conveniently propped open within the drawer, showing the syringe), and of course Jeremy Brett acts out some of the effects of the drug, but I couldn't come up with a scene where you see him actually consuming it. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time period of "traditional church music"

Amazing Grace, Jesus Loves Me This I Know, Holy Holy Holy, Joyful Joyful We Adore Thee, and All Creatures of Our God and King all were created prior to 1920. Was that the era of Traditional Church Music? Also, aside from Jesus Loves Me, the songs all seem to be about praising God. Jesus Loves Me seems to focus on personal relationship with God. (By the way, what passage is this song citing? Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus loves children?) A modern song called "God Shaped Hole" seems to be about theology. It's not explicitly praising God at all, and it has a very upbeat melody. 140.254.77.186 (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Children covers your parenthetical question. --Jayron 32 16:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the historical development of church music, the Wikipedia article titled hymn has some good information. --Jayron 32 16:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this question can have a correct answer since it depends entirely on how you define "traditional". My first thought on hearing that phrase was the Liber Usualis. -- BenRG (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Church music has developed gradually over many centuries, and has always been strongly influenced by contemporary music. The hymns that many people are familiar with became fairly common from the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, as many protestant churches did away with the sung liturgy of the Catholic Church. Hymn tunes have generally reflected similar styles to those of the music of their days - which we now tend to call classical, but which was obviously contemporary at the time. Tow 19th century developments led to significant changes. The Sunday School movement introduced simpler melodies for children to sing (often referred to as choruses, rather than hymns). "Jesus loves me" comes from that movement. Then the Salvation Army started setting religious words to popular melodies ("Why should the devil have all the best tunes?"). Over the past 100 years a very wide range of religious songs have been written, some continuing in the classical tradition, while others used folk or pop styles to try and make them seem more relevant to the modern generation. Today, in different churches, you can hear everything from mediaeval plainsong chants to very modern pop ballads: each new style has simply added to the diversity of church music, rather than replacing what came before. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bandy in Somalia

How can they play bandy in Somalia? Is'nt it too hot climate there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.218.245.60 (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the same way they do bobsleigh in Jamaica or alpine skiing in Morocco. Note that athletes do not need to train within their home countries. Even among nations with a tradition of doing well in a sport, the athletes don't always train at home. Many former Soviet states had huge successes in Figure skating, and even have locally cold weather, but their athletes do train in other places, i.e. Oksana Baiul, the Ukrainian figure skating champion, trained at the Fred Rust Ice Arena in Delaware, as did Russians Irina Lobacheva and Ilia Averbukh among many others. So, it seems odd for Somalia to have a Bandy team. But not impossible. Indeed, for a fringe sport like Bandy, it is more explainable, especially when you read the background of the Somalia national bandy team, which explains how they came to play Bandy. --Jayron 32 19:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They don't play bandy in Somalia - but some Somali refugees living in colder parts of Europe apparently do play. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing mysterious about alpine skiing in Morocco - it happens at Moroccan ski resorts like Oukaïmeden. Hayttom (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do adults generally learn piano faster than young children?

When I was a child, I took piano lessons, but I don't think I progressed very quickly. Then, more than a decade passed, I returned. After years of no practice, it seemed that I'd forgotten everything except the C-E-G chord and the C major scale. But apparently, within 6 weeks time, I quickly rebounded, playing with both hands simultaneously, and taught myself all the major scales and some minor scales. 140.254.77.186 (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i think adults may be more dedicated to the learning. After many Yeats in school, you havet also learnt how to learn things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.218.245.60 (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would not assume that you forgot everything everything. It was probably on the back of your brain somewhere. --Scicurious (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation is key. If you were forced to take lessons as a kid, you may have not been interested in learning it. I'm reminded of the "Is it live or is it Memorex ?" TV ad showing a boy practicing piano, with the mother encouraging him from the other room, when the boy turns on a tape recorder, and escapes out the window to play football with his friends. StuRat (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the received wisdom that children learn music and language more quickly than adults do. With language, children learn it more completely than most adults ever can. A baby will begin to learn its native language, and within a few years will be able to speak it fluently. All children achieve this. But it's rare that an adult learning a new language will be able to speak it as fluently as a native, or to speak it without any trace of their own accent.

With music, accent isn't an issue, but manual dexterity and maturity of interpretation are. Children can learn technical skills more quickly and more permanently than adults can, which is why they often need to be encouraged/pushed to practise when they'd rather be outside playing, because they're too young to hear the inner beauties of the music, which can take decades to reveal themselves, and so they get bored easily; but if they don't get the manual side of it ingrained early into muscle memory, it will be much harder to tackle it later. Style and depth of interpretation often only come in adulthood, long after the acquisition of the necessary manual skills. Artur Schnabel said "Mozart's sonatas: too easy for children, and too difficult for artists". Work that out. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit more than just "received wisdom" on language acquisition, I think that's scientific finding. See e.g. Language_acquisition#Sensitive_period, and Second-language_acquisition#Age. On the other hand, Critical_period_hypothesis says there is still some debate and lack of evidence (albeit for a somewhat different claim). For music it's a little less clear, so received wisdom may well be the best term. We do have a brief comment on absolute pitch at Critical_period#Musical_ability. Also e.g. Suzuki_method does stress starting young, and there are some interesting age-related refs in that article. Anecdotally, I still remember some music drills and fingerings from when I was 12, and I feel rather slow learning keys as an adult, even though my interest, focus, and music theory are all much stronger now. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Play it, Baby, One More Time

The article refrain suggests the following theory:

While the terms 'refrain' and 'chorus' often are used synonymously, it has been suggested to use 'refrain' exclusively for a recurring line of identical text and melody which is part of a formal section—an A section in an AABA form (as in I Got Rhythm: "...who could ask for anything more?") or a verse (as in Blowing in the Wind: "...the answer my friend is blowing in the wind")—whereas 'chorus' shall refer to a discrete form part (as in Yellow Submarine: "We all live in a...").

What would be the result if you apply this theory to Britney Spears' debut hit Me Baby One More Time? While the follow-up hit Oops!... I Did It Again, according to this theory, clearly has a chorus, I think the former rather has a refrain? Now does this mean that these two all-too-similar songs indeed have a formally different structure? And a more general question: Which songs are around with a refrain and a chorus (this, I think, is another possible way to interpret the song in question)? --KnightMove (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

if I remember, the line "I'm not that innocent" from "Oops" works almost exactly the same way musically as the line "hit me baby one more time" does from "hit me"...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a clear chorus in "...Baby One More Time". I would say the song has a "Verse-Prechorus-Chorus" lyrical structure with three units:

The verses begin "Oh baby baby" each time.
The prechorus is the part that begins "Show me how you want it to be..."
The chorus is the part after that beginning with "My loneliness is killing me..." and ending with the tagline "hit me baby one more time".

Of course, these distinctions are a bit arbitrary, but generally the chorus is the part that returns for the coda of the song, which that part clearly does. If you want a pop song with a refrain but not a chorus from the same time period, may I suggest "Short Skirt/Long Jacket" by the band Cake, which lacks a formal chorus section, and instead features just the closing refrain line for each section "I want a girl with a short skirt and a long jacket" --Jayron 32 20:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prechorus is indeed the concept to understand the situation (and now I even see that the two songs indeed have the same structure, albeit Oops! I did it again has a clearer separation between the corus and the rest. Thx. --KnightMove (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. We don't have an article on prechorus but it redirects to the section Song_structure#Pre-chorus, which has some brief description, saying that prechoruses are "often harmonically probing", and are also referred to as "build", "channel," or "transitional bridge." SemanticMantis (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The harmonic and dynamic building purposes of a prechorus are often used in pop music song structure. A song that's been on my local radio a lot lately (and thus constantly stuck in my head, despite being about 10 years old) and has a VERY distinct prechorus that serves its purpose well is "Sugar, We're Going Down" by Fall Out Boy. You'll spot it right away. --Jayron 32 08:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 13

No article present on Wikipedia for "The Groop" -- a vocal group with the same name as another vocal group already on Wikipedia

Greetings! There was a late-1960s vocal group named "The Groop". I believe they were an American group. They released only one album ("The Groop") in 1969, on the Liberty Records label; this album was re-released with accolades not too long ago. They are mostly known for singing two songs on the 1969 Midnight Cowboy motion picture soundtrack; these (and other of their) songs are available on YouTube.

When I search Wikipedia for information regarding "The Groop", the only entry present is for an *Australian* vocal group with the same name from the early- to mid-1960s. According to the Wikipedia article, the Australian group released numerous albums, on the CBS record label.

I can find no information on the late-1960s American vocal group. How can I help resolve this oversight?

Cgwaters (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles appear because someone put in the effort to write them. If you think this group is of sufficient importance to justify an article, it is rather up to you to write it. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this The Groop you're talking about? (One of its members, Corlynn Hanney later appeared on a couple of Leonard Cohen albums: Live at the Isle of Wight 1970 and Songs of Love and Hate). You could request an article at Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Performers, bands and songwriters, though I don't think that will necessarily prompt the article's timely creation. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 14

Difference between Scene and Sequence..?

What is the difference between Scene (filmmaking) and Sequence (filmmaking)..?--Joseph 12:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a subset of the second. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide me a clear explanation?--Joseph 13:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me, at least, the explanation is clear from the first sentence in each article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

naturally, there's no strict, scientific definition for either (particularly what does/doesn't constitute a sequence)...so that's part of the problem and part of why the articles are pretty poor...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article explains it pretty well. Under one common theory of filmmaking, you can divide the narrative action into the following heirarchy: You have an individual shot, several of which make up a scene, several scenes make up a sequence, several sequences make up an act, and several acts make up the film. For example, take a classic film like Full Metal Jacket The film is obviously divided into 2 "Acts": The Boot Camp Act and the Vietnam Act. The Boot Camp Act is itself divided into several sequences: The introduction of the characters sequence, the Pvt. Pyle Keeps Screwing Up sequence, the Everyone Takes Revenge on Pyle sequence, and the Pyle Goes Insane sequence. Those sequences are divided into scenes: the "Pyle Keeps Screwing Up Sequence" for example has a scene showing Pyle messing up on the obstacle course, Pyle messing up with his gun, Pyle messing up making his bed, Pyle messing up on his diet, etc. Each of those scenes has individual shots, between the "start" and "Stop" of the Camera. I hope that makes sense. --Jayron 32 15:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With the proviso that any of those divisions of the film could consist of just a single of the next division down. So a film could have just one act, and act could consist of a single sequence, a sequence could be just one scene, and a scene could be done as a single shot. That is unusual - and you are not going to get a single film with that happening at every level (though there have been attempt to shoot short films as single shots). 81.132.106.10 (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Rope for good example of this - it only has one scene (all transitions between shots are via zooming and tracking, with cuts only at the reel changes), but three distinct acts - The Murder, The Party, The Confession. To answer the OP's question, a scene is a distinct component of the film itself, the visual images that appear on the screen; a sequence is a distinct component of the narrative, the story told by the filmmaker. Tevildo (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This also raises the notion of the Take, which is the recording of a scene or a song, for example. Rope was filmed in a number of continuous takes. Of course, there can be multiple takes, and the one deemed the best will be used for the final film or record. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course. There are different narrative forms, different ways of organizing a story in film, and as such, different ways to do it. The shot-scene-sequence-act-film hierarchy is common, but not mandatory. --Jayron 32 22:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I was thinking of Rope, and that it's possible there was more than one take of one or more of the segments used in the film. I was also thinking of the legendary story (true or not) than Stanley Kubrick once shot a hundred takes of an actor walking through a doorway. Presumably only one of those takes was used in the finished product. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 15

Football boots

In reports I could read that players of India did not wear boots. They played in 1948 Olympic Tournament barefooted. In addition there is reported that the IFAB did decree to wear boots in 1947? or 1948? or 1949? or 1950?. Do you have further information, please? Thank you in advance. --Gödvolltreffer (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

You can find further information in the Wikipedia articles titled History of the India national football team and Football in India both of which mention barefoot play. --Jayron 32 16:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1950 FIFA World Cup is also relevant, if only to finally lay the old myth to bed. Keresaspa (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can musicians play so loud without going deaf?

Concerts and bands and orchestras usually make a lot of noises. Do musicians ever suffer loss of hearing prematurely? 140.254.77.179 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They often suffer from tinnitus. Dismas|^(talk) 17:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They typically have the speakers pointed outward from the stage, so the audience gets the brunt of it, not them. They could also wear ear plugs, if they needed more protection. Of course, they often fail to take proper precautions, and do lose hearing, as do the audience members. StuRat (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestra members don't have the benefit of "speakers pointed outward". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, but then orchestras aren't as loud as bands with the amplification turned all the way up. Those orchestra members by the louder instruments could still use the ear plugs, though. StuRat (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few hits from Google Scholar - (this is after all a reference desk)

it is indeed a significant occupational hazard. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent news in the UK - an orchestral musician suing the Royal Opera House because of damage to his hearing - he claims it is because they sat him right in front of the brass section. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35938704 81.132.106.10 (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 16

Rambo

Is there any evidence that Rambo was in any way based on the legends surrounding Larry Thorne, the famous "Soldier of 3 Armies"? 2601:646:8E01:515D:D0CD:B3D4:E4C1:6232 (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The inspirations for the character are mentioned at First Blood (novel)#Development. Rojomoke (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So, right album but wrong song ;-) 2601:646:8E01:515D:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help finding insect evolution documentary

Someone told me about a documentary about what if insects evolved to become the dominant species & what if/ would insects evolve onto a intelligent, technological species, like Humans. But when I been trying to Google it I can't find anything that program or anything similar just stuff about what would replace Humans if we became extinct. Anyone got any ideas ? 194.74.238.137 (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been years since I've seen it (and the bit about insects becoming technological doesn't ring a bell), but the documentary may have been The Hellstrom Chronicle. Deor (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 17

April 18