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.

October 23

The culture page mentions the origins of polyphony which conflicts with the polyphony page itself.

the culture page states: "Pygmy music has been polyphonic well before their discovery by non-African explorers of the Baka, Aka, Efe, and other foragers of the Central African forests, in the 1200s, which is at least 200 years before polyphony developed in Europe. Note the multiple lines of singers and dancers. The motifs are independent, with theme and variation interweaving. This type of music is thought to be the first expression of polyphony in world music." With the reference being a documentary film.

The polyphony page states: "Although the exact origins of polyphony in the Western church traditions are unknown, the treatises Musica enchiriadis and Scolica enchiriadis, both dating from c. 900, are usually considered the oldest extant written examples of polyphony." Which is more than 200 years prior. I also don't see the relevant references required to make a claim for the development of polyphony being so much earlier in pygmy music. Reference in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_from_the_Forest Azlowe (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. Nanonic (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiu Azlowe. I don't myself think there is necessarily a contradiction.

The Culture photo caption refers to the development of European polyphony, which it appears to indirectly date to the 1400s (though the language could be clearer), and contrasts it to a Pygmy cultural practice apparently well established by the 1200s.

Yes but my point is, who recorded pygmy song in 1200? Most nomadic hunter-gatherers are not literate. Alansplodge (talk) 11:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Polyphony passage refers to the oldest known examples of the former, dating them to ca. 900. A thing can be invented, but remain relatively undeveloped for a period before its further spread (consider Leonardo's sketch in the 1480s of a helicopter, a full-size example of which first actually flew in 1907).

Those written examples, theoretical 'textbook' suggestions, may not have been widely taken up, performed and enlarged on until much later – the further pre-14th century examples the article mentions are sparse. You will notice that the Polyphony article explains that the Church disapproved of polyphony, and outright banned it in the early 14th century.

I agree that the assertion about Pigmy music polyphony could stand to be better sourced. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how it can be proved that this music originated in the 13th century, if it was not written down at the time? Alansplodge (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, if polyphony was observed that long ago in pygmy music, who knows how far back it goes in their culture? Possibly many millennia? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but my point is, how do we know Pygmy polyphony existed in 1200? The article doesn't say. Alansplodge (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The caption in the Culture article says in part:

". . . their discovery by non-African explorers of the Baka, Aka, Efe, and other foragers of the Central African forests, in the 1200s. . .".

Presumably those non-African explorers remarked on their music. Now we need to know who these alleged explorers were. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not Europeans in 1200, nor Chinese. Ibn Battuta (died 1369) apparently didn't make it far enough south to encounter any Pygmies, as far as I can tell. That doesn't leave a host of possibilities. Alansplodge (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A quote from the voyage report of the explorers: To our great Wonderment theſe primitive Savages engaged in the Art of polyphonical Musicke Centuryes before we in the civilised West would developpe the Concept. --Lambiam 18:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Lambiam, which explorers are we talking about? And how would they know that an oral tradition was centuries old and not a couple of generations? Alansplodge (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were the non-African explorers through whose reports we now know about the pre-1200 polyphonic Pygmy music. The text above is a reasoned reconstruction of the relevant part of the actual original reports, which (as well as the identities of the explorers) have, regrettably, been lost to history. Only by a prescient insight in the development of Western music could these explorers name their discovery as being polyphonical Musicke. --Lambiam 18:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see your drift now. Alansplodge (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The chess endgame of rook, bishop, and wrong rook pawn versus rook

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Is there a good source on the specific case of this endgame when the pawn is on R7 and the enemy king is blocking it (something like the diagram)? (If the pawn were anywhere else, this would be a lot easier.) It seems from playing with the tablebase and Stockfish that you need to march the king toward the pawn, using the mate threats thus created to force the enemy rook to its back rank, and then give up the pawn at the right moment to force a favourable R+B vs R ending that can be converted to Philidor's position. But I would be interested to see if this is discussed in detail in some endgame manual. (Alas, Müller and Lamprecht spend less than a page on it.) Double sharp (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 26

How to stay out of trouble when editing

Hey, I'm a new editor on Wikipedia, making my first edit just a few minutes ago, but it brings up the question, what's seen as acceptable in the world of making edits? I plan on making edits to mainly rock music and video game related articles, being they are my two main interests, but what edits are seen as productive, and what is not? I know we need sources for most edits, but I'm also aware that not all sources are necessarily reliable. I've also gone through the edit logs of some articles and seen the word "sock puppet" be thrown around. My apologies, but what does that mean? I similarly have to ask about the word "fringe". I have a lot of questions, but am looking forward to editing, but before I do anymore, I'd just like to get a run down of everything and how I should go about making contributions. Thank you and hope I'm not being annoying. ThePainkiller90 (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WP: Teahouse is billed as "Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia" and is primarily orientated for new editors. Of course, you'll also get some friendly advice from here. And, the WP: Help desk is probably best for specific questions. 136.56.165.118 (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ThePainkiller90 besides the recommendations to visit the Teahouse and help desk, you might also find WP:Glossary, WP:ABBREV, and WP:SHORTCUTS helpful. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "sock puppet" in the context of Wikipedia editing refers to a secondary account created by an individual, often to engage in deceptive practices, typically including:

Bypassing Blocks: Users may create sock puppet accounts to evade bans or restrictions imposed on their primary accounts
Manipulating Discussions: They can be employed to skew consensus in discussions, such as voting multiple times in deletion discussions or edit wars, thereby creating a false impression of support for a particular viewpoint
Deceptive Support: Sock puppets may also be used to praise or defend individuals or organizations, making it appear as though there is broader support than actually exists

► See: Sock puppet account, Wikipedia: Signs of sockpuppetry, and Wikipedia: Dealing with sockpuppets

--136.56.165.118 (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, does that mean I'm a sockpuppet? I just looked into my IP Address and saw that an alleged sockpuppeteer named Diskyboy, shares it. Does that mean I'm gonna get banned now? I've never used Wikipedia before, so I'm not bypassing any blocks, and I created my account without issue, so what's going to happen? ThePainkiller90 (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, as long as the account isn't being used for nefarious purposes as listed above. I believe there is a place for declaring multiple accounts for the same IP, but the Help desk would be more likely to have folks knowledgeable about such things. --136.56.165.118 (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThePainkiller90, please explain how a new editor with five edits would know which IP address a blocked editor may have used. Please explain the interest in Black Sabbath that you share with both the blocked editor and the IP editor. Cullen328 (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've read about what a sockpuppet was, and decided to look into it for myself. That's what led me to look at my IP Address and see the coincidence. I'm mainly here to fix up some Judas Priest articles I saw weren't in the best of condition, but also interested in bands such as Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, etc. I'm guessing whoever the blocked edit was used a VPN, because I live outside Philadelphia and have never used Wikipedia before. I'll be going to the help desk linked by the other used listed above, but from the sounds of it, sockpuppets aren't a good thing, and I'm not here to condone or support that behavior, just to make Wikipedia a better and more accurate place. Thanks for your concern and have a nice day! ThePainkiller90 (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wp:deny
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia editors being what they are, a "sockpuppet investigation" has been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Diskyboy. Functionaries known as "CheckUsers" can usually sort this out, as they can gain access to all the IP addresses used by registered editors over the last 90 days. 31.96.49.117 (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, okay. Does this mean I'm getting blocked? I've read up on all of Wikipedia rules, hence why I looked into this "sockpuppet" thing. I supposedly have the same IP adress of whoever this sockpuppeter is. What is a "CheckUser"? Am I a "CheckUser"? I'm sorry, this making an inconvenience, I came to Wikipedia to fix up some Judas Priest articles that weren't in the best of condition, but also edited an article this Diskyboy also did. I'm so scared, am I gonna get banned? ThePainkiller90 (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The principle of Wikipedia:Assume good faith applies here. Editors don't get banned without discussion unless they're blatant vandals. Play by the rules and you'll be fine. Putting some brief details about yourself on your user page (it's a redlink at the moment) might help to dispel any doubts about your intentions. Alansplodge (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:CheckUser. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 27

Johnny Bananas season of the nickname

What was the first season of The Challenge that Johnny Devenanzio was referred to as Johnny Bananas? (78.18.160.168 (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Devenanzio earned the nickname "Johnny Bananas" during his time in college at Penn State. Because of his crazy antics at PSU, friends and classmates would often comment that his pranks were "bananas" and the nickname stuck. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so this was before his first season of The Challenge? (78.18.160.168 (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]

First attestation of octave equivalence in the use of letters A to G as notes of music?

What's the first attestation of |A, B, C, D, E, F, G, a, b, c, d, e, f, g, aa, bb, cc, dd, ee, ff, gg| as notes of music (or any other system based on the letters A to G that assumes octave equivalence)? What's the first attestation of the low Γ (Gamma) added below the low A? What's the first attestation of the round b and round bb (minuscules; no round capital B) to refer to B flat in the middle and high octaves? (No B flat and so no round capital B in the low octave, at least in the Guidonian system, since there cannot be a solmization hexachord that contains it, but other theorists possibly did accept a low B flat).

Boethius mentioned in Letter notation does not assume octave equivalence. His notation uses A to P for a two octaves system, the first octave (starting at our note A) being: |A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H| and the second octave being: |H, I, K, L, M, N, O, P|. (There was no letter J yet). Our note A is notated A or H or P depending on the octave. So Boethius is not the answer to my query.

178.51.16.158 (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The American Cyclopaedia (1883) calls it "St. Gregory's Notation", "that of Pope Gregory in the 6th century".^[1] A Dictionary of Music and Musicians (1895) confusingly states that this system was formed "[b]efore the 6th century, certainly during the time of Gregory the Great".^[2] (Pope Gregory I's reign was from 590 to 604.) However, The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Music (2011) dismisses this claim, stating there is "no direct evidence of chant notation until around the middle of the ninth century".^[3] --Lambiam 06:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Helmholtz pitch notation? --136.56.165.118 (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dialogus de musica (c. 11th c.) is a music treatise formerly attributed to Odo of Arezzo. The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory (2002) describes innovations in letter notation introduced in this treatise, referring to its author as "Pseudo-Odo", as follows:

Pseudo-Odo names these notes (except for gamma) with the same octave-based series of Latin letters that we still use today (A—G). He also introduces two graphic conventions that remained in use well beyond the end of the Middle Ages: the use of capital, lower-case, and doubled lowercase letters to differentiate octave related notes (A—G, a—g, aa); and the use of two forms of the letter “b” for the two pitches available as alternative forms of the “ninth step”: the “square b” (b quadratum), written ♮ as the symbol for “hard b” (b durum), our “b-natural,” and “round b” (b rotundum), written ♭ as the symbol for “soft b” (b molle), our “b-flat.” (The modern symbols for “flat,” “natural,” and “sharp” derive from these.) See Table 11.7. Guido keeps all of this, and adds four more notes above aa, notated as ♭♭/♮♮ cc, and dd. The note ee was later added to complete a hexachord on g (see below).^[4]

Historically, it would be better to refer to the letters as majuscules and minuscules, as this predates the adoption of bicameral script [added 12:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC): and movable type]. --Lambiam 17:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. ~~Or "capitals" and "minuscules".~~ (Possibly the term "capital" is only used in the context of a bicameral script?)

Does the Cambridge History of Western Music Theory say whether pseudo-Odo accepted the low B flat?

Like I noted above Guido did not. There's a funny passage in his Epistle to monk Michel (Epistola ad Michelem) where if I remember correctly he goes (more or less, I'm obviously paraphrasing): "A low B flat? Are you nuts? What next? An F sharp?" Incidentally my mention of ff and gg above is in practice erroneous. The notation can express those notes, but in the Guidonian system they cannot exist for the same reason that the low B flat cannot exist: there is no (complete) hexachord that contains them: to get an ff and gg you would have to have a hexachord placed on cc but the 'la' of that hexachord would be a super-high A: aaa that's outside the system, which would make that hexachord incomplete. So, in practice, for him the highest note is the ee which is the 'la' of the hexachord placed on g. For some reason Guido only accepted complete hexachords. Similarly a low B flat could exist if Guido had only accepted a hexachord placed on a super-low F below the Γ but such a note is again outside the system, which would make that hexachord incomplete and Guido won't have it. 178.51.16.158 (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forget to add a link to the cited passage, now inserted. Immediately following it is this table of the scale of Pseudo-Odo's Dialogus:

“Step:”

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Γ

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

a

♭

♮

c

d

e

f

g

aa

t

s

t

s

t

s

t

s

t

There is only one B, a tone up from A and a semitone down from C. --Lambiam 18:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 31

Parody song?

I believe this (warning: slightly risqué content) re-uses the tune from another song. Does anyone recognise it? Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:F42E (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really borrow the tune, but the start obviously references Lola by The Kinks. Matt Deres (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 1

Movie in anthology series

Back in 1984, when I was 13 years old, my teacher showed me and my class a movie about the Mayflower. One of the performers in it was John Dehner. I asked the teacher when the movie was made, in the 1960s or the 1970s. She told me she believed it was the 1960s, and she'll check the copyright. But during some commercial breaks, there was this image of some popcorn with a scoop. The caption read Sunday Playhouse. What's the movie's title? When was it made? Was there ever an anthology series called Sunday Playhouse? Anyone know?2603:7000:8641:810E:AFB5:A06F:298:5D33 (talk) 07:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be Plymouth Adventure? 68.187.174.155 (talk) 11:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since John Dehner is in its cast, that's probably the one. Does the OP concur? {The poster formerly known as 76.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one.2603:7000:8641:810E:AFB5:A06F:298:5D33 (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Sunday Playhouse" seems to have been a tv slot for showing movies in the early 1960s [5]. A couple of other possibilities:

The Pilgrims (1955) "This classroom film dramatizes the Pilgrim’s flight from religious persecution in England to the Netherlands, then 12 years later their ocean voyage on the Mayflower, and the founding of Plymouth Colony in 1620".
The Beginning at Plymouth Colony (1954) "This Cold War classroom lecture film argues that the Pilgrims' early collectivist economic system failed, leading to a more successful capitalist system based on individual responsibility and private ownership".

Alansplodge (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Playhouse must've started airing sometime in the 1970s.2603:7000:8641:810E:AFB5:A06F:298:5D33 (talk) 02:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the collected volume of TV Guide Vol. 9 Issues 1–13 linked by Alansplodge is dated as published in 1961, which is consistent with the magazine itself having started publication in 1953. Evidently then, films were being broadcast under the Sunday Playhouse title around 1960. Obviously these were not new made-for-TV movies (which was I suspect not yet much of a thing), but TV showings of existing movies, Plymouth Adventure, for example, having been released in 1952. Sunday Playhouse broadcasts were doubtless repeated in subsequent years. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frauenliebe und -leben

Resolved

Has any male singer recorded Schumann's cycle? I know Matthias Goerne has performed it, but can't find any recording.

(After all, the premiere was given by baritone Julius Stockhausen with Clara Schumann accompanying...) Double sharp (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classical label Hyperion does not suggest it might have been recorded [6]. It's a work absolutely neutraly qualified one Singstimme but the particular occurrence allows the reviewer to offer extended hinsight into admitted ~~procolary~~ protocolary attitudes, unfortunately not addressing your point specifically if I'm reading him correctly. --Askedonty (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Askedonty, purely for interest, can you rephrase your second sentence, whose meaning escapes me? 'Procolary', for example, is so obscure that it does not appear in my OED, and although I have been able to get 'Singstimme' translated as 'singing voice', I cannot make sense of ". . .neutra[l]ly qualified one Singstimme . . .". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. The German term Singstimme is the standard word for "voice" used in the composer's voice and instrumental prescription as it appears in the song cycle genre in German. --Askedonty (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Askedonty. So you were saying that the work itself doesn't demand any particular type of (male or female) voice, but its unusual performance by a baritone allows the critic to discuss the conventional attitudes that expect a female singer? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, though I'm feeling quite dishearted now not having had enough perseverance for also being able to state that I was commenting only and perhaps even partially the introduction to a fully thorough presentation of the work, and the unconventional aspects in its genesis. --Askedonty (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, recordings were a very newfangled invention in 1862 when the premiere was given. I mentioned the premiere not because I thought it might've been recorded (of course it wasn't), but rather to explain why using a male singer for this is not quite as odd an idea as it may seem. Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, there is a recording on YouTube of the the second song alone by baritone Olivier Gagnon. I really enjoyed it, but still I haven't found the full cycle. Double sharp (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a recording of the full cycle by baritone Roderick Williams. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz: Thank you!! Double sharp (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 4

Why do Germans (and their friends) notate B𝄫 with Heses and not Bes?

The German notation of B𝄫 is Heses. The logic of it escapes me. It'd seem more natural to use Bes. Hes doesn't even exist (it's B) so why should Heses? Anyone's got an idea? 178.51.16.158 (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alteration by a chromatic semitone downwards is indicated in German by appending -(e)s to the name of the tone, and alteration by two chromatic semitones downwards is indicated by appending -(e)ses. This is also the logic governing Heses. Note that double flats made a relatively late appearance in Western music. The real question is then, why the German name B instead of Hes? The roots of this exception are historical, B being the majuscule of earlier b, going back to Guido of Arezzo's notation of ♭ for a semitone up from a, while h stood for his ♮, a full tone up from a. Confusing as this already is in view of the English and Dutch notations, using Bes for B𝄫 would only have added to the confusion. --Lambiam 07:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you were saying three questions earlier Guido borrowed from pseudo-Odo. Remember? (A fun name! Try saying it three times in a row!) And I believed you. So credit where credit's due. And in case anyone wonders why Lambiam brought in the Dutch: in the Netherlands B is B, Bes is B♭ and there is no H. That is relatively new I think. Post World War II. 178.51.16.158 (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps post the Napoleonic Wars.^[7]

While the use in Pseudo-Odo's Dialogus de musica is the first known use, these names might have been forgotten but for their adoption by the influential Guido van Arezzo. --Lambiam 11:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the Dutch have actually been doing that for hundreds of years. I've learned something new. Thanks. 178.51.16.158 (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 6

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment