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 17

You missed a movie

In the Monty Python list of films on their page you missed listing the film, Jabberwocky (1977) Though it wasn't written by most of the Python troupe (Terry Gilliam was co-writer with Lewis Carroll and Charles Alverson), two of the Pythoners were in the movie: Michael Palin and Terry Jones. I feel it should be mentioned in the article as a peripheral piece they had a hand in. Frankly, I thought it was a terrible movie, but I still think we need to mention their failures as well as their successes. According to IMDB it still got a 6.1 even though it wasn't a box office smash. Here is the IMDB link if you want to use it as a source. Jabberwocky (1977) - IMDb https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076221/ 72.35.124.250 (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles exist because volunteer Wikipedia editors choose to create them, not because of any "corporate" editorial decisions on what article should exist. As you seem to be new here, I probably wouldn't recommend that you leap straight into creating that article, but hang around, learn the ropes, and may you can do so. HiLo48 (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jabberwocky is a Terry Gilliam film, not a Monty Python film. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be ... something completely different. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do, of course, already have an article about the film: Jabberwocky (film). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.1905} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it were necessary to list every "peripheral piece they had a hand in", we would have to list every Terry Gilliam film (obviously) as well as many others like A Fish Called Wanda and Shrek. While they are known for Money Python, they are actors, writers, directors, and even some film producing. After 40 years, they've worked on a lot of movies and many of those projects involve more than one member of the group. It appears that the only two who aren't on speaking terms are Eric Idle and John Cleese. The others appear eager to work together when they can. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I presume none of them are on speaking terms with Graham Chapman anymore. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Jones might be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similar issue when writing Les Six#Collaborations. You may or may not like my approach. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

English Horn and (concert pitch) low D

According to Cor anglais (edit contributed by Jerome Kohl and sourced to Norman Del Mar Anatomy of the Orchestra pp.158-159) Antonín Dvořák's Scherzo capriccioso uses a low D on the instrument (whose lowest note normally is a low E) and yet (according to the article and presumably Norman Del Mar's book) an extension down to that note is unlikely to have ever been manufactured? Could someone explain? How is that note then produced? If you have access to Norman Del Mar's book, does he say anything? 178.51.16.158 (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a part score at Free-scores.com for the Corno inglese, we see in bars 90 & 92 a D₃ (notated A₃), but in an orchestral score at Free-scores.com the Cor.ingl. plays a D₄ in these bars (notated A₄). So I guess one solution is that the player plays these notes an octave up. --Lambiam 09:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to an informed answer (which I hope we get), I can offer a number of mostly unserious conjectures.

(1) Dvořák, not a woodwind player, didn't know (or forgot) that the note was below the instrument's range.

(2) He knew, and intended it as a joke. Perhaps he was pranking the player(s) in the particular Prague orchestra the piece was written for.

(3) He knew, but didn't care – the music demanded that note and it was up to the players and instrument makers to achieve it.

(4) He knew the particular orchestra had an unusual variant of the instrument (part of the oboe family, perhaps a forerunner of the Bass oboe) that could play the note.

(5) He had intended that the part be played on a bassoon, but forgot to indicate this in the score.

(6) It was a simple transcription error, which he was not immune to – see Antonín Dvořák#String quartets.

Have fun shooting these down. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a different, but also a very interesting question. Maybe the answer is something close to (3): that's what he heard, and even though he knew it couldn't be done, that's still what he heard that English horn doing. As to the practical solution, my guess would be that what people do is what Lambiam suggested. I even think in the part score that Lambiam mentions, in some places, someone wrote by hand a high A above the printed low A in the score. But there are several recordings of the piece on YouTube, so if you or anyone hears well and likes that piece or are curious about it, they could give it a listen and report back here what they've heard. Does anyone know of other such "ideal" unplayable notes in the standard literature? (Ignoring modern works that call for notes in the range of what's only audible to bats, where the note itself is a prank, the impossibility being the very purpose, meant to demonstrate something, although I'm never sure what.) 178.51.16.158 (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a story about one famous composer (who, I've forgotten) showing another musician a piano score he'd just written, which at one point had left and right hands busy respectively low and high on the keyboard while a single note was sounded around its middle. When his visitor protested that this was impossible to play, the composer commenced the piece, and at the crucial moment leant forward and struck the crucial key with his nose.

By the way, I should have included with my earlier suggestions: (7) It was an error by the score's publisher. As a former professional book editor, I am well aware that printed works are rarely completely error-free, and I'm sure this applies to printed music as well as to texts. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a high D₈ in Scriabin's Piano Sonata No. 6 that was not available on any piano during the composer's lifetime. (Nowadays it exists on Stuart & Sons' extended-range pianos.) Nikolai Zhilyayev's edition comments that the composer substituted it with a C₈ in performance. Double sharp (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

Unaccompanied solo voice in Western classical music 1600-1900?

Has anyone heard of a work (a real work, not a vocalise for singers) for unaccompanied solo voice in Western classical music from between about 1600 to about 1900? 178.51.16.158 (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "unaccompanied solo voice" produced a stack of results, including these likely candidates for further research: [1], [2], [3], [4]. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that except for songs outside the common practice period (plain chant, Hildegard von Bingen, Adam de la Halle, trouvères, troubadours, etc.) or folk melodies (not classical art music) those Google results are not real. Not your fault of course and I appreciate your trying to help. I did not check every single one but the first one in the first link is already spurious: Ghizzolo "Bella Ninfa fugitiva" is for at least 2 voices. On IMSLP when I searched for works for "1 voice" I got a bunch of results. Most seem to be some kind of folklore or other but I noticed a Debussy work whose score has only a single vocal part: Berceuse pour "La Tragédie de la mort"[5]. "La Tragédie de la mort" is incidental music for a play of that name and apparently that berceuse is indeed for an unaccompanied solo voice. It's probably sung by an actor, not a singer. It's from 1899. The extreme limit, almost. Something meant to sound like a folk melody. Would this be considered "Western classical music" though? 178.51.16.158 (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Debussy wrote is in that category. The concept of crossover music did not emerge till the 20th century; until then, if a composer was working in the Western classical music tradition (WCMT), then everything they wrote would also belong there. Now, Debussy was influenced by the gamelan music of Indonesia, and wrote at least one piece ("Pagodes") that emulated the sound and structure of the gamelan, but that piece is still considered part of the WCMT. These other people were similarly influenced. Mozart ("Rondo alla turca") and even earlier composers were influenced by Orientalism, but they weren't departing from the WCMT by doing so.

On the other hand, George Gershwin made his name by writing popular songs and musicals, then he dipped his toe into the waters of WCMT by writing a rhapsody for piano and orchestra (Rhapsody in Blue), a set of variations for piano and orchestra (albeit based on a popular song, "I've Got Rhythm"), an overture (Cuban Overture), a piano concerto, and a symphonic poem (An American in Paris). Despite their obvious thematic and rhythmic borrowings from the popular and jazz worlds, their form belonged to the WCMT.

For a long time, people like Erich Wolfgang Korngold, Max Steiner, Bernard Herrmann, and even John Williams were looked down upon by the cognoscenti because they wrote vulgar, worthless film music, not fit to be considered worthy of the WCMT. Well, they've latterly come in to their own and achieved the recognition and respect they're due, and their scores are regularly played and recorded by symphony orchestras around the world. They're popular, in the sense that they're liked by people who wouldn't normally attend classical concerts or listen to classical music radio, but they also belong to the WCMT. That's also true of Strauss waltzes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget opera as wading into the waters of WCMT. --Lambiam 18:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It ain't necessarily so. I'm not sure where rock opera would fit. I'm sure many critics would say they're operas in name only. But P&B is definitely part of the canon. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

Super Bowl and American television

How did the Super Bowl come to be such a huge phenomenon? It's repeatedly been the most viewed thing on American television year after year, with businesses paying extreme amounts to get ad spots during the event. When did this trend begin, and why? Lizardcreator (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even before the name "Super Bowl" was adopted, it was very popular. The main reason is that American football was developed to appeal to television networks. Overall, the game hasn't changed significantly. Minor changes are made to appeal to television broadcasts such as having one team wear white and another team wear a color. Then, even on old tiny, grainy, black and white televisions, you could see the players on the field. The field is dark green with bright white stripes so you can see them. The ball is large enough to be seen. There are reserved camera locations all around the field that has increased to include cameras that fly over the field and cameras in the pylons. Much of that is to make the viewing experience better. Some of it is based on psychological testing. They could show the width of the field on the screen and you could see the pass from throw to catch. They don't. They zoom in on the quarterback. He throws the pass. You can't see where it is going. Oh my! What will happen!?!? It pans and you see the receiver. That moment of panning makes it more exciting to the viewer. Beyond the viewership, the NFL has customized the game to please television stations. There are plenty of commercial breaks. If you see a game in person, you will see that it stops often while it waits for the broadcast to come back from commercials. In the end, viewers are excited to see the games and television stations are eager to broadcast the games. Since Super Bowl I (which was not called a Super Bowl), it was an extremely popular televised event. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't all that popular at first. The first two years were simply the AFL-NFL championship, in which the Packers owned their AFL opponents, and there were lots of empty seats in the stadiums. After the merger, the event became a lot more hyped-up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the question and answer are related to television popularity, not stadium popularity. According to various lists of viewership ratings, about 50 million people watched the first Super Bowl. That was 1967. According to various lists of television ownership, about 75 million people in the United States watched a television in 1967. So, as far as television popularity goes, it was very popular. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the championship game of the professional level of the most popular sport in the country. I don't see why any further explanation would be needed. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It probably wasn't the most popular at the time the Superbowl started. That would most likely have been baseball. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but football wasn't far behind. And the real world drama of the AFL/NFL rivalry would have been a large factor. Combined with the more limited viewing options of the day, this gave a huge initial push. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 10:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have many books about baseball and football. A common thread across them is that television changed interest in the sports. Baseball is perfect for radio. Football is perfect for television. As television took over radio as the dominant form of entertainment, football exceeded baseball in popularity. I remember one book on television and sports tha tnoted the problem hockey has is that it is poor for both radio and television. Attempts to slow it down for radio or make it visible for television have not worked, so it remains a less popular sport. I feel that is only partially accurate, but I do agree that between baseball and football, the popularity of football coincided with the popularity of television. Of course, it only makes sense if you rememebr that in the 1960s and even the 1970s, high definition television did not exist and a 25 inch screen was considered more than big enough. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 11:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Name of a special effect

Now that image processing is so often digital, there is a special effect that I often see in TV commercials and occasionally in instant replays in sports. The effect takes a part of the image representing either an object or person, or some onscreen text, and emphasizes it by briefly making it larger. Rather than selecting a whole rectangle from the image and enlarging everything inside it, the effect I'm talking about modifies only the selected object or characters, leaving the background unchanged.

What I'm curious about is the name of this effect. --142.112.141.16 (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It took a lot of effort to get anything useful. All I can do is put on a path. There are two effects going on. The first is masking. In a video or image, you can mask an object, such as a person. Masking means that the outline of the object and the image inside that outline are selected. In a still image, it is just a sort of free-form selection. In a video, it is a selection that changes frame to frame. Once masked, you have after effects. The after effects are alterations to a completed video. This would be an after effect because you have the completed video and you are making a change to it. The change would be to enlarge the masked object. As for a name for the total effect of masking and enlarging, I found nothing because every search wants to take me to the history of replays, how replays affect games, how to enlarge images in photoshop, how to add special effects to photoshop, etc... 68.187.174.155 (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using this search I find tutorials for resizing an object in a video but no special name for the effect. --Lambiam 08:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would call it one kind of a punch out - though I think it's difficult to have such technical names defined in video because the only specific effects that count for free are fading out/in as well as phasing out. --Askedonty (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Punch-out" sounds like the sort of name I was expecting. Thanks. --142.112.141.16 (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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".^[6] 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".^[7] (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".^[8] --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).

Historically, it would be better to refer to the letters as majuscules and minuscules, as this predates the adoption of bicameral script. --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]

October 30