Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Battle Hymn of the Republic
Battle Hymn of the Republic[edit]
A surprisingly complete recording - all five of the verses originally published. The quality degrades a bit near the end, as it often does on cylinder recordings, but not excessively, and what we end up with is a stirring professional recording. I doubt me that we'd get such a lavish recording - and this is lavish, with all the interludes showing off interesting variations on the tune - today, or in any other recording we could expect to find.
- Nominate and support. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support: A great quality recording, considering its age, of a historically and culturally significant song. Dendodge TalkContribs 00:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I do not know what makes this recording historically significant. This is not a good recording of the song as it is too old. I would switch my vote if it can be argued as to why this performance is historical or that something better could never be made today. Zginder 2009-02-24T04:41Z (UTC)
- Too old. That's you're only objection to a recording of a American Civil War Song. Because I'm sure that later recordings are far more authentic than ones in living memory of the Civil War. And I'm sure that these modern, perfctly authentic recordings are neither in copyrighted arrangements, include all the verses, and aren't extremely rare because lengthy five-verse religious songs are sung all the time in high-quality recordings. Can we use a little common sense here, please? And unless you intend to pay for your theoretical free-licensed modern recording, not attack a recording merely for being in the public domain as is required. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- The criteria say that the quality can be lower only for historical reasons. In other words, the recording itself is significant e.g. File:Enrico Caruso, Titta Ruffo, Giuseppe Verdi, Sì, pel ciel marmoreo giuro! (Otello).ogg, for some other reason a better recording could not be made. I do not believe this is a historical recording and this song is still preformed today in the U.S. My objection is not that it is to old but that the quality to not good enough for no reason. This is Featured sounds not a listing of all recordings on the wiki. Zginder 2009-02-24T16:13Z (UTC)
- Except they don't say what you say they say. When we start getting large amounts of content creation, then your suggestion would be reasonable to add, but at the moment, it's just rejecting high-quality recordings because they're from a timeperiod suitable to being public domain, based solely on fame of the singers, not quality. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- The criteria say that the quality can be lower only for historical reasons. In other words, the recording itself is significant e.g. File:Enrico Caruso, Titta Ruffo, Giuseppe Verdi, Sì, pel ciel marmoreo giuro! (Otello).ogg, for some other reason a better recording could not be made. I do not believe this is a historical recording and this song is still preformed today in the U.S. My objection is not that it is to old but that the quality to not good enough for no reason. This is Featured sounds not a listing of all recordings on the wiki. Zginder 2009-02-24T16:13Z (UTC)
- Too old. That's you're only objection to a recording of a American Civil War Song. Because I'm sure that later recordings are far more authentic than ones in living memory of the Civil War. And I'm sure that these modern, perfctly authentic recordings are neither in copyrighted arrangements, include all the verses, and aren't extremely rare because lengthy five-verse religious songs are sung all the time in high-quality recordings. Can we use a little common sense here, please? And unless you intend to pay for your theoretical free-licensed modern recording, not attack a recording merely for being in the public domain as is required. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Zginder --Vejvančický (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Per Shoemaker's Holiday and Dendodge. It is historic by virtue of its age and professionalism. It was recorded for sale at the time, so it gives a window into the patriotic spirit of America 100 years age. Do you consider daguerreotypes "too old" because newer photos are available? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I would can a daguerreotype too old if it is replaceable with a current photo. If it was historical I would not object. The question here is not rather it is too old or not, but rather it is historic and age does not matter. Zginder 2009-02-26T22:28Z (UTC)
- Maybe not "historical" in whatever context that is meant, but in the world of music such recordings are valued and are usually hard to come by. I do not know where this one came from, by many are cleaned up by specialty record/DVD companies and cost extra to buy because of their "historical" value to the music collector. I have later recordings that are considered "collector's items". —Mattisse (Talk) 00:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I would can a daguerreotype too old if it is replaceable with a current photo. If it was historical I would not object. The question here is not rather it is too old or not, but rather it is historic and age does not matter. Zginder 2009-02-26T22:28Z (UTC)
- Support I do not see why its age should preclude this nomination. It's a fine recording with excellent encyclopedic value, and I have no issues at all about it being featured. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment: My objection is not that it is too old but that the quality is not good enough for no reason. (slightly modified sentence by User:Zginder). This is the reason of my opposing. Historically non-significant recording, moreover with bad sound. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Promoted Battle Hymn of the Republic, Frank C. Stanley, Elise Stevenson.ogg --Xclamation point 00:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)