Entertainment desk
< September 1	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	Current desk >

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

September 2[edit]

Vibraphone in Classical Music[edit]

Repost from the vibraphone talk page; Many of the sources I've found (e.g. James Blade and Britannica) place Berg's Lulu as the first use of the vibraphone in classical music. This contradicts another piece in the vibraphone repertoire, Grofé's Grand Canyon Suite composed in 1931, 4 years earlier, which uses it in the second movement albeit as more of an effect. Can anyone weigh in? I would hate for something so notable to go uncorrected. | Why? I Ask (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen some other sources, such as yours, list Milhaud's L’Annonce faite à Marie (1933) as the first use of the vibes. Unfortunately, I can not find the piece's sheet music or any recordings anywhere so I have taken that notion with a grain of salt. I am not quite clear on what you mean by "used" vs. "scored." The sheet music you linked is only the fifth movement which I'm fairly certain doesn't have the vibes (the vibes do appear in the score of the second [1] movement above the piano). This still leaves Grofé's use of it as its first use in an orchestral setting nonetheless, right? Edit: Above user deleted his reply. | Why? I Ask (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Me? Uhmmm, my reply was mostly wrong: I made the distinction between the 1st use vs. 1st score; however, I did find that the Grand Canyon Suite vibraphone part was actually scored. My deleted reply did have a semi-useful quote, however: The vibraphone was first scored for the orchestra from about 1933... Vienna Symphonic Library --2606:A000:1126:28D:3D84:1399:DBD4:E6F2 (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the piece that "The vibraphone was first scored for the orchestra from about 1933..." references is supposedly Darius Milhaud's L’Annonce faite à Marie, Op. 117 (according to your source, written in 1933; on his Wikipedia page, written in 1932). However, I have not been able to find any actual recordings of it or its sheet music to verify this claim. Even if it did have a vibraphone scored, the Grand Canyon Suite would still undeniably predate it. Would it not? | Why? I Ask (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For WP editing purposes, claiming "first" for GCS might be considered WP:OR without a source to verify -- but yes, 1931 does predate 1933. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC) [editor formerly known as 2606:A000...E6F2][reply]

Would it not technically fall under Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Conflict_between_sources and Wikipedia:Counting_and_sorting_are_not_original_research; a conflict between a secondary/tertiary source (Blade) and a primary source (sheet music from 1931)? Unfortunately, this is a niche subject and I doubt that there will ever be more research into it considering Blade covered most of the bases (all of the sources I have found that say Lulu was first all link back to Blade's book). If I got a noted musicologist to publish a short article on the web about vibes' use in classical music (assuming I'm right) would this be sufficient? Why? I Ask (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this will help: New York Philharmonic Database: Cloudburst Maineartists (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, check my original post; that website is what started this darned discussion. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Efron (once again)[edit]

At List of Jewish actors, he is referenced with an article on a comical (!) appearance of his, allegedly proving his Jewishness. But how can this comedy performance actually serve as a real "proof", as implied by the mentioned list? (It does not seem evident to me, in fact, whether his "revelation" there really fits the facts …)--Hildeoc (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is "it doesn't". --Jayron 32 14:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, there are several interviews where he publicly identifies as ethnically Jewish and religiously agnostic. See [2] and [3] for example, you can find many more examples. Whether or not those references would be better than the used in the list you found, I'll leave that up to you. If you think one of those, or one of the many other ones out there where he discusses the matter, is better, feel free to fix the article. No one else here is more responsible for fixing mistakes than you are. --Jayron 32 14:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current reference [4] was added by 142.222.95.22 on 17 April 2014 in the same edit which added Mr. Efron to the list. That edit also added the unreferenced note "Efron's paternal grandfather was Jewish, and Efron has referred to himself as Jewish" which was subsequently removed.

Jayron's second reference (Evening Standard) says, "He is of Jewish ancestry (Efron means lark in Hebrew) but agnostic." which is better than nothing and certainly better than the current reference. Jayron's first reference (Rolling Stone) only addresses being raised agnostic.

IMDb's Zac Efron Biography / Trivia states, "Zac's last name, "Efron", which is Hebrew, is taken from a biblical place name. Zac's paternal grandfather, Harold Efron, was born in New York, the son of Nasko Efron and Dworja Klein, who were Jewish emigrants from Bocki, Poland, and Zac has described himself as Jewish. Zac's other ancestry includes English, German, Scottish, one sixteenth Irish, and very distant Dutch and Belgian (Flemish)." I wouldn't think such a reference would be sufficient, though it might provide a start for further searches, but quick searches I've done on his name and either a name of one of those two great-grandparents or their Polish town only turn up quotes and paraphrases of the IMDb trivia entry. -- ToE 23:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a specific science-fiction book[edit]

Over a year ago, I recall finding a science fiction novel about a robot that murders humans, in critique of Issac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. I can't remember anything about it, other than that the title of the novel was the name of this robot. His name was a typical one, something like 'Reggie', or 'Danny', or something. I've been racking my mind for a while, can anybody help me out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMidnightSnack (talk • contribs) 03:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of Asimov's most famous Robot books is The Caves of Steel, which revolves around a robot accused of committing murder. One of the main characters is R. Daneel Olivaw. --Jayron 32 12:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the main suspect is a robot named Sammy. --Jayron 32 14:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But it turns out the murder is not committed by the robot, nor is it "in critique of Asimov's Three Laws" (whatever that means), nor is the title "Sammy". So... --174.88.168.23 (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Christopher's 2015 Made to Kill: A Ray Electromatic Mystery?John Z (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in most of Asimov's books, his three laws are the source of much of the conflict, they are often tested, stretched, outright broken, or the major source of conflict. The entire point of inventing the three laws as a plot device was to break them. That's why a good author does things like that. Asimov himself several times when discussing his laws notes this, and it is also well analyzed by literary critics as the real purpose of the laws: they are meant to be broken. See Three Laws of Robotics, which discusses this very thing. --Jayron 32 11:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to Asimov, the point of inventing the three laws was that robots committing murder or other evil acts had become a cliché and he wanted to avoid it. "The point was to break them" is an exaggeration; testing the limits of the laws, without breaking them, was a way to get interesting plots. --174.88.168.23 (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think its fair to say that Asimov did a lot with his laws to make his writing varied and interesting. --Jayron 32 14:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it's not my topic (and not my language, either) I did some search and here Howstuffworks - 10 Evil Robots I found Ultron. But it turns out a miss, as that was a comic books series, not a novel.

--CiaPan (talk) 06:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a "typical name", but maybe Isaac Asimov's Caliban? Staecker (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a typical name either, but the name of the title and the robot: Tik-Tok? ---Sluzzelin talk 12:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what it was! I must have confused the title for a different novel. Thanks a lot. TheMidnightSnack (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]