Humanities desk
< July 20	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities 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.

July 21

how to explore World Music

Which world music would be nice to hear? say chinese or russian like that? Have anyone experimented? If possible, tell the shoutcast station for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.23.17 (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

try mbalax from senegal specifically Ismaël Lô very good stuff, an i usually listen to metal. Its very techincal in its guitar work, and has some great melodies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my view there is no better introduction to world music than the Rough Guide series of compilation CDs from around the world. Take a look at this page, about Volume 1, and follow the links from there. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another recommendation is the world music section of cdbaby ([www.cdbaby.com]). You can listen to samples. There's good and bad music from most parts of the world, but most people have their own preferences. I like world fusion (mixing modern western styles with non-western music). Cold Fairyland from China, Haydamaky from Ukraine, Corvus Corax from Germany, Ozomatli (Mexico/California) are some that have caught my attention. Steewi (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"World music" is an ethnocentric term ("everything that is not from my culture"); you will have to tell us where you are from. If you are not from North American/English culture, then some suitable "world music" might include Guided by Voices, Spoon, The Beatles, John Coltrane, Radiohead? Etc. etc.? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an accepted term and it's quite clear what the questioner was asking about. From World music: "...a shorthand description for the very broad range of recordings of traditional indigenous music and song from around the world." In any case, you are wrong to list those artists, who cannot be described as world music no matter where the querent is from. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 06:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted by whom? It is an ethnocentric term, and my reply was challenging that. Some other culture, say the Khoikhoi, may refer to non-Khoi music as "world music", in which case those bands would be included. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted by many people such as the Rough Guides (see my first link), who can hardly be accused of ethnocentrism. Your understanding of the way the term is used in everyday language is flawed. It does not mean "everything that is not from my culture"; it means music that is closely related to the indigenous music of the region of its origin. Thus, Radiohead cannot be described as world music by anyone from any culture, because their music (guitar based rock, for the most part, with recent leanings towards electronica) is not closely related to the indigenous music of the British Isles. Whereas someone like Martin Carthy could be described as world music, because his music (traditional folk) is related to the indigenous music of the British Isles. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting Twas Now. So would it be odd that in the "World Music" class I took we studied traditional bagpipe music from various parts of Britain (and Ireland)? Or how about the Appalachian folk songs we studied? As Richardrj pointed out, the term "world music" usually refers to music which is strongly influenced by indigenous musical traditions regardless of their geographic origin.--droptone (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One definition of "indigenous peoples" is a "cultural group who formerly or currently inhabits a region, alongside other cultural groups, during the formation of a nation-state". The Beatles and Radiohead almost certainly qualify, but you insightful people are right: the other three examples may not have had ancestors in America by 1776. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't get it. It's not about indigenous peoples, it's about indigenous musical traditions. Most cultures have traditions of music making going back centuries (hence those traditions are exclusively about acoustic music). Whether something is world music or not is defined not by where it comes from and who makes it, but by what it sounds like, i.e. do its musical properties (rhythm, harmony, timbre, melody and so forth) conform with the indigenous musical tradition of the region it comes from. There is no indigenous musical tradition, anywhere in the world, of guitar-based rock, hence neither the Beatles nor Radiohead qualify as world music. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 22:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, because electric music is not an old enough tradition, it doesn't qualify? It would be imprudent to predict that electric music will continue to be a mainstay of British and American music, but I have a feeling that might be the case, and eventually such music will be considered "traditional". I guess the only problem is that we haven't reached the point where we can call it that. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, rock music will never be considered traditional, because there will always be traditions that precede it. I reiterate: the Beatles cannot, and never will, be world music, no matter where in the world it is being looked at. Hence, your accusation that the term is ethnocentric is baseless. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I wasn't aware that only the oldest musical tradition in a given region is considered world music. Is it the oldest known tradition or the absolute oldest tradition? If it is the latter, then most (or all?) world music is extinct. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

book writing

I want to read a book, however i dont think there is one writen with this subject, how would i get some one to write this book, or is there one already? Enoch from biblical times is born and lives his life, but never dies, and continues on having adventures through babylon, rome ect, becomes the wandering jew in the bible continues to live on through the dark ages, becomes napolian, but does not die, lives on to become Rasputin, and finally hitler, escapes and lives on. I think this would make an interesting story, fiction of course but is there such a book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of such a book, though can recommend The Source, a historical novel by James Michener that pretty much covers the time period you describe. The plot is structured around an archaeological dig in modern Israel, with a story taking place in the time period for each of 18 levels – and in each story, there's a character who's a descendant of the previous one (but changing ethnicity). -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and for the benefit of those who might not follow the link you provided, I wouldn't call the Wandering Jew "biblical." Rather, the figure is based on a legend arguably linked to the Gospels, but certainly not the Old Testament. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of interesting books with similar (but not nearly the same) themes are The Meq by Steve Cash (about somewhat immortal beings through history) and Between The Rivers by Harry Harrison (about Sumerian Gods, immortality and the rise of the thinking man). Steewi (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be a wet blanket but I don't think the character development in the storyline would be believable. According to the Torah story Enoch was taken away because he was a good man but the rest of your story is stuff you associate with bad men. Unless you can really fandangle a way to either make him bad or make those other people and events good the disconnect would lose me as a reader. Otherwise I think it's clever and epic. Maybe find some other guy to be your immortal or have Enoch be, like, Ghandi or something. -LambaJan (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? A "wandering Jew" becomes Hitler? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your character could pick up some segue tips from this guy who started out in 1710 (but why start there?) and just goes on and on... Julia Rossi (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simenon's Maigret

Hello,

I am almost finished reading Simenon's first Maigret mystery, Maigret and the Enigmatic Lett, but I have a few questions. I really am enjoying the novel, but I am puzzled by two things. First off, how is Maigret pronounced? I am not sure if the "t" is silent, or if there are any other ways to pronounce the name. Also, how do you picture Maigret? For some reason, I am having trouble seeing him in my mind's eye. I know he is very tall and has brown hair, but beyond that I'm at a loss. Thanks a lot! I'm sure I will enjoy reading the Maigret novels more after I know a little more about him.

Mike MAP91 (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually pronounced "May-gray". And here's Rupert Davies in the role, from the old BBC series, to give you one interpretation of what Maigret looks like. Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The one that Simenon called his "perfect Maigret", no less. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added an image at Jules Maigret. Xn4 (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a man who wrote a hell of a lot of words, Simenon had a curious take on writing: Writing is not a profession but a vocation of unhappiness. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Real Estate

Does anyone know how to buy Iraqi real estate?--Elatanatari (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it's quite similar to any other country. First you would need to agree to a price with the owner, then sign and file the proper transfer of property documents with the appropriate Iraqi agency. However, there may be quite a few properties where the ownership is disputed for "ethnic cleansing" reasons. A Kurdish-owned property that was confiscated and given to a Sunni family may officially be listed as belonging to the Sunni family, but a court may later decide that the transfer of ownership was invalid and that any sale of that property is therefore void. StuRat (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and when you are all finished, there you are in the Middle East with a scrap of official paper stating your claim to occupancy, but no-one who knew your great-grandfather, no brothers of your brothers-in-law, all with rifles in the house, no neighbors of your uncles or cousins to take your part... just the paper...--Wetman (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I figured the process would be similar, but does anyone know any of the details, intricacies, agencies, quirks? Stuff like that. --Elatanatari (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "buying" Iraqi real estate? What rights do you want to purchase? The right to say that you own it? The right to farm it? The right to assets and resources on the land? The right to sell it? The right to bequeath it? Property rights are not monolithic. What westerners mean by "property rights" is usually a collection of separately enforceable rights that may or may not be legislated in other jurisdictions. In a race to the bottom versus Myanmar and Somalia, Iraq is the third most corrupt country in the world, and property rights are more or less meaningless in a country that lacks basic law and order. Plasticup ^T/C 17:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you don't want to know about real estate in Somaliland because you need to be related to a high ranking warlord [1]. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

19 year olds

how many 19 year olds are their in the united states? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.239.144 (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to [2], there were 2,107,162 19-year old males and 2,020,693 females in 2000. (That's makes for over 10 million pimples, in case anyone is counting.) For 2008, you might want to look at the figures for 11 year olds in 2000, which was almost identical to the number of 19 year olds. StuRat (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For various reasons, not all 11 year olds turn into 19 year olds. Plasticup ^T/C 17:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But StuRat said "almost identical" :D − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it more accurate to say not all 19 year olds living in the US in 2008 were 11 year olds living in the US in 2000? There are two causes of this, 11 year olds who die before their 19th birthday and net migration (both legal and illegal). I'm very sure the US has a net immigration (more people moving in then out). According to [3] (an anti-immigration site, not exactly the sort of source I would rely on but most of their figures are referenced). "Each year there are approximately 4 million births in the U.S. and 2.4 million deaths.24, 25 The growth due to natural increase (total births minus deaths) is therefore 1.6 million per year. Yet according to the Census Bureau's decennial census, U.S. population is growing by approximately 3.3 million per year.26". (I presume this includes illegal immigrants are resonably accurate as possible) The figures somewhat agree with immigration to the United States "Bureau figures show that the U.S. population grew by 2.8 million between July 1, 2004, and July 1, 2005" (3.3 million is bit high compared to 2.8 million but perhaps it's gone down since the last census?) and [4] states the preliminary number of U.S. deaths in 2004 was 2,398,343. In any case this leads to a net migration of ~ 1.2-1.7 million. This is lower then the number of deaths but bear in mind the vast majority of deaths are not in the 11-19 range. Of course most migrants are not in the 11-19 range either but some would be (some refugees, whole families, people bringing their children or adopted children in) my guess is the number of 19 year olds in 2008 in the US could very well be higher then the number of 11 year olds in 2000. It's probably not that different likely within the margin of error of the census but there's no reason to presume there are fewer 19 year olds in 2008 then 11 year olds in 2000 IMHO. Nil Einne (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]