Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Ave Maria (Bruckner)

Ave Maria (Bruckner)
There already exists a version of Ave Maria at FS (see File:Schola Gregoriana-Ave Maria.ogg). However, we already have at least one song with multiple versions at FS (see File:Sousa's Band - Stars and Stripes Forever.ogg and File:USMC stars stripes forever.ogg). Additionally, the Hail Mary (Ave Maria) article mentions that Bruckner published at three arrangements of this song and it is probably good for WP to have an example of one such arrangement. This file adds significantly to the following articles:


 * Hail Mary (Ave Maria)
 * Anton Bruckner


 * Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Beautiful. Good dynamic control, partially thanks to the small ensemble. The high note at 01:20 sounds a bit strained, but that's the only thing I could find to complain about. There's nothing wrong with having multiple settings of the same text as featured sounds. Graham 87 12:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support, with reservations about the performance and the SDP. The male voices are wonderfully warm, particularly in the lowest registers. Graham is right: dynamic control is excellent. But the glaring fault, in such a simple, stylistically conservative, and exposed piece, shows up in the onsets of phrases. 20 s is a little titchy; 1:03–1:07 is very bad; around 1:10, at the start of that glorious cycle of fifths, there are tuning problems among the women; 1:35 the women's running out of breath is palpable; 1:39, onset tuning problems again; 2:13, movement down a tone is rough, and 2:44 movement up tone (by the men) is forced, after a passage in which the men are under-balanced. A few seconds could have been cropped at the end. It's a difficult gig to bring this piece off with the beauty it demands, but until a better performance of it comes up, I'll support this one. (I've been looking for a performance of this for ages, unsuccessfully.) I've fixed the SDP at Commons: is "Date" for the composer's dates of birth and death (in which case, better after his name, and not "1824-1826", but "1824–96"). Does "Date", then, refer to the date of composition or the date of recording? It's blank now. I'd not refer to this movement as an "arrangement", since that has a specific meaning in this context. "Setting" is fine, as at the SDP. But it should be mentioned that it's the first of Bruckner's "Motets".  Tony   (talk)  12:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Hope that helps. I looked at one other candidate and noticed it had similar unit errors. Perhaps all candidates have overlooked/copied this error and need reviewing. Lightmouse (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Promoted Ave Maria (USNB).ogg — James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:19pm • 07:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It says: "length 3m 14s, 113kbps". The symbol for minute is 'min', not 'm' the symbol for metre. The symbol for kilobit per second is 'kbit/s', not 'kbps'. There should be a space between the numeric value and the unit symbol. Thus it should be 'length 3 min 14 s, 113 kbit/s'.
 * Those measurements get automatically attached to any .ogg or .ogv upload. I did not enter them as an uploader.  They were added by commons essentially and not me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Lightmouse, I'm glad you raised that. I've already complained about the lack of spacing between value and unit; I know it's Commons and not en.WP, and thus not subject to our MOSNUM, but really, ISO says to do it too. And you're right, it should not be "m". We need to approach Commons about this. John Vandenberg is an admin there; I'll ask him about what to do. Tony   (talk)  16:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, more because of the importance of the piece than its performance. My attention was drawn not to the dynamic control (praised by Graham, above) but to the choice of dynamic range. The quiet passages were evanescent and wan. While the contrast between these and Bruckner's trademark swelling forte is important, it is here overdone, so that coherence and momentum are compromised. Still, valuable in the collection. (We need "Os justi"!) N oetica Tea? 23:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

