Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Debussy L 103, No. 1 & 2, Danses Sacrée et Profane

Debussy L 103, No. 1 &amp; 2, Danses Sacrée et Profane
At the turn of the 20th century, Claude Debussy helped revolutionize the tonality of music. These pieces are chamber music arranged for the harp and strings instruments. This is a common chamber orchestra arrangement of the piece scored for string quintet of violin, viola, cello, double bass, and cross-strung harp. I am of the impression that this is the very common modern arrangement of this piece. These files both add significantly to the following articles:
 * String orchestra
 * Orchestra
 * Claude Debussy


 * Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per discussion at the Classical music project. -- Klein zach  06:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * These pieces are well-known to have been arranged for harp and string and are presented as such here. I don't feel your generalization about USMC Bands is truly relevant here.  This is a piece performed "as composed", AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * has suggested that this is an orchestra piece as opposed to Chamber music and has removed it from the page. I have reverted this feeling his suggestion to place the files in orchestra was a bit ridiculous.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * According to List_of_compositions_by_Claude_Debussy L 103 is supposed to be for a chamber music piece "for cross-strung harp and string quintet". This recording sounds like the whole string section of an orchestra, not a quintet. -- Klein zach  07:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I admit that my ear can not tell if it is an orchestra or a string quintet, if that is the point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you would like to see the score? It's here. -- Klein zach  08:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue here is not what the score says. I do not contest that it was written for a string quintet and a harp.  I contest that it was played by a full orchestra. Here it says Performed by the Marine Chamber Orchestra.  Thus, I will assume it is no more than 5 or 6 strings. What makes you think it is a full orchestra?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming non-strings or more than 5? If so point to a particular time mark for me so I can see if I agree.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Although no one is clearly stating as such, I am inferring that the performance is a string orchestra arrangement and performance of the chamber music piece. I will now try to recaption and move to orchestra.  As I understand it, this is a VERY common arrangement. I apologize for the statement regarding the ridiculous nature of the suggestion.  I don't understand why the ensemble calls themselves a Chamber Orchestra if they are too large to fit in a modest chamber. I fault the USMC for setting me up for a fall here:)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I now see that a chamber orchestra is not the intended ensemble for Chamber music. Chamber orchesta should have its own article, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. These files are not without flaws. This is a live performance instead of a studio, AFAIK. There is a lot of background distractions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Concerned about the arrangements issue, the file name issue, the sound description page issue, and the encyclopedic value issue. Tony   (talk)  15:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion at the Classical Music Project is grossly misrepresented by Kleinzach; it was to do with brass band arrangements. This is nothing more than having a few extra copies of the right instruments. Further, putting this in Orchestra was an appallingly bad suggestion; I've removed it.
 * It is far, far better to leave our readers with some idea of what a work is like, even if we have minor quibbles, than to try and describe the work in text alone. The changes must, of course, be clearly documented, and should a more accurate performance appear, that should likely replace. But, so long as the work being an arrangement is carefully documented, it's downright insane to claim that we better serve our listeners by refusing them the right to hear any version of the work at all, particularly when compared to such a minor rearrangement as this one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Far, far better". I do not agree. Arrangements are sometimes of interest in themselves, can give a representation of the original, but are often misrepresentations—even perversions—of the original. It does not matter whether it's a large-band or orchestral rendition of what was a Scott Joplin piano rag, or an arrangement that superficially sounds like the original, as here. In fact, I quite enjoyed this recording of the Debussy arrangement, but it is unsuitable as an example in most related articles (perhaps in the article on musical arrangements, but how big should that gallery be?). Just as we don't normally update the language of our 19th-century linguistic quotations into that of the 21st-century—at least not without good reason, and by drawing attention to the morphing—nor is it desirable to illustrate Debussy's style or the work in question with an arrangement. In fact, the intimacy of the chamber original with one instrument per part is lost to a richness, a sonority, that was not intended by the composer. The balance with the harp (not necessary to say "cross-stringed harp", BTW) has been compensated by the audio-engineering, which says it all. I believe reviewers should compare a good recording of the original with this file. Now, it's a different argument about whether this should be deleted: clearly not. But in promoting files to featured status, we need to see these matters in the context of how the file is used in articles. Tony   (talk)  03:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But that's really my point, Tony. We could argue about it not being good enough for FS, and there you might have a point. I'd have to listen to a few more traditional recordings to decide. But far more than that is happening: It's being forced out of the article on the composition, leaving no sort of recording of any sort in said article. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's probably not inappropriate in the article as long as it's tagged as an arrangement for a larger ensemble. But it would be best not highlighted. Sometimes no file is better than an misleading one or a bad performance. This is a case-by-case call. Tony   (talk)  02:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Not promoted - No consensus, it's been ignored for the ~3 weeks it's be up here for. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:35pm • 07:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

