Entertainment desk
< June 24	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment 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.

June 25[edit]

Theme Music[edit]

I heard this song on the Weather Channel of all places...and I've heard this before but I can't place it. It might be some sort of classical music, but I'm thinking it's a theme song of some show. Any help would be much appreciated. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyvWSJiYznM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.65.110 (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the second part of Layla --Frumpo (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plainchant notation[edit]

Do we have an article about the early musical notation used for plainchant, and the like, as shown in the image to the right? Our article Modern musical symbols is only about the familiar modern notation descended from the system I mean, while the more general Musical notation article mentions it but doesn't go into detail. Failing that, does anyone know of a website where I could learn to read the early notation? I already know how to read to modern musical notation, and I can figure out probably 80–90% of the early notation, but there are still details that remain a great mystery to me. +An gr 14:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article on neume. This Idiot's Guide to Square Notes might be a start.---Sluzzelin talk 14:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, those are exactly what I was looking for. Out of curiosity, I went to a Tridentine Mass for the Nativity of St. John the Baptist yesterday, and there were pamphlets with the chants (among other things). I sang along to the best of my ability, but was occasionally hampered by not always knowing how to read the notation. +An gr 14:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the authors of the guide make a good point about how already being familiar with modern notation is both an advantage and a disadvantage. Of course being used to read music that reflects both time and pitch in a similarly almost linear way is more of an advantage, but the temptation to translate is always there and annoying. It's a leap, but an enjoyable experience, trying to forget the five line notation and starting from scratch. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I think they overstate the case for its untranslatability into modern notation (and the fact that they believe the plural of ictus is "icti" doesn't help their credibility much). The 1982 Hymnal of the U.S. Episcopal Church does a very good job of translating chant into a notation that's easily readable by those familiar only with modern notation: no stems on the notes and no bar lines, but the familiar treble clef on a staff with five lines. Of course you have to know something about singing chant, but even with modern notation you have to know more than just how to read music if it's going to sound right. +An gr 19:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up with the Missa de Angelis: our church had little booklets with it in neumes, but really you learnt the tune by listening and used the booklet for the words and general shape. When I visited another church that also sang it, they handed me a handout with it written in modern notation. The rhythm as indicated in the written music was somewhat different to the rhythm I was familiar with, and the melody looked slightly different in places. The congregation sang the chant almost exactly the same way that we did, presumably using the handout only for the words and general shape. Modern musical notation usually tries to be quite precise about rhythm, in a way that doesn't really suit plainchant, so I can see a problem if you actually tried to rely on the written music. You can't really indicate the way the rhythm and tempo stretch and compress to fit the phrasing and words, and the main difference is that the traditional notation doesn't really try! I've seen half-way modern notation that approaches this (particularly for psalms), but it tends mostly to be used for things that don't change note very often: often, it's all written with semibreves. 86.164.57.20 (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are neumatic notation and mensural notation related in any way? --Bavi H (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

questioning[edit]

why is it theres no nominated awards for britney spears? all was received awards only............. please edit it..... nominated awards are important also..... please i begging you,,,,,,,,,,,, thanks and more god bless —Preceding unsigned comment added by Son4300 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She has an article List of awards received by Britney Spears which is probably waaay more information about her career than anybody needs. Beyond that i'm not sure what you mean - do you mean the main article should have more references to her many awards? I suppose it could be linked to directly from her article in the 'see also' page (it's within the portal but not listed on the page). Either way it's best to either be-bold and edit or raise this on the talk-page for Britney Spears. ny156uk (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP wants to know about awards Britney's been nominated for, but not won. Our article on List of awards received by Britney Spears actually has a bit of this, but not a complete list or anything. To be honest, a list of nominations would probably be more encyclopedic than some of the crap we've now got in the article. 'Britney Jean Spears hold the honorific titles: "Popstar princess" and "Queen of pop"'... uh-huh. Matt Deres (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, that example is simple enough. It doesn't belong unless it's cited, or at least until it's given a citeable claim. Poof! — Lomn 18:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a reasonable question, and the answer, I think, is the same as for most content that is notable but not yet in the encyclopedia: No one has bothered to do it (yet). It is not uncommon to compile lists of both awards and nominations.[1] decltype (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ebook readers: Sony vs Nook compatibility[edit]

So as I understand it, the Sony Reader and the Barnes & Noble Nook (and possibly others) are primarily using the EPUB book format these days. EPUB supports adding DRM, and again as I understand it, both readers' stores are using DRM (I think both are using an Adobe DRM standard). Does anybody know if there's any cross-compatibility between the devices/stores, though? For instance, can a Nook read stuff bought originally for a Sony, or vice versa (or so forth for some other third party)? — Lomn 19:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A 90s videogame including Rednex - Cotton Eye Joe[edit]

Good evening,

My 1997 PowerMac 7200 were shipped with a video game, including the song Rednex - Cotton Eye Joe.

This video game were a sort of point and click adventure game, with the action set in far west.

The CD were labeled Including Rednex - Cotton Eye Joe.

Could you help me to remember this video game's title? --Dereckson (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it "In Bred With Rednex"? (Not sure which countries featured a 7200 bundle with this game, but it wasn't bundled thusly in the US.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it's that.

It were a corporate program, for Belgacom employees.

The Mac were shipped with Daedalus Encounter, this In Bred With Rednex, Myst 3 and some others stuff, as a sorry pack for some months (9 if I remember?) late. --Dereckson (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Least crap free music-making software?[edit]

Yeah, what is it? I was hoping to try my hand at remixing a song and while I have Audacity already I cannae do nowt with just that, can I? Or is there any other free software specifically designed for remixing you can recommend?

You might want to try REAPER as a free DAW (rather than a wave editor like Audacity), though I've never used it so can't vouch for it. If you're getting more serious you might want to look at something like Ableton. It's about $450. matt (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tried REAPER myself and it's a great piece of free software. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 22:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Least-crap, free" or "least crap-free"? I read the title three times wondering why you'd want software with the most crap in it :) --70.129.128.178 (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he had meant crap-free he would have written as such. He wants something which is the least bad of all the free music-making softwares. 92.15.15.76 (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:) Thanks, I figured it out. Just found it humorously confusing: Without a comma or hyphen, it could be read as (least crap) free or least (crap free). --70.129.128.178 (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be an incomplete truth to call REAPER free, REAPER Purchase says "REAPER is free to download and evaluate for 30 days. After 30 days, you must purchase a license". The Wikipedia REAPER article says the software will remind you about the license cost, but doesn't say if it stops functioning after the 30-day evaluation, so the must above might be a really strong should. --70.129.128.178 (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Digital_Audio_Workstation#Free_and_open_source_systems, http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-music-software.htm and the Related Links from there. 92.15.15.76 (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]