Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Eventide

Eventide
Its a fairly famous and well know tune. It seems to be a high quality recording with little imperfections.


 * Nominate and support. Guerillero &#124; My Talk   02:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I regret. The organ builder is having a go, it appears from the sound description page. It's an easy work to play in terms of fundamental organ technique; this was a studio recording, too, so as many takes as they liked. But there are hand and foot issues in this very exposed texture: (i) a repeated note in the tune is not sounded at 11 s (the previous note has to be lifted first ... it's the dominant); (ii) at the end of each phrase (e.g., 15 s), there's a pause, yes, but the new phrase jumps in very uncomfortably before it's due, with a jerking feel—even a non-musical listener will be unconsciously ticking over the beat and the metre; (ii) finger slip at 17.5 s, causing two adjacent notes to be sounded at once (in the tenor?); (iii) in such pure homophony, utter crispness is required in the release and onset of all notes in each chord (see 21 s for an example of the lack of vertical ensemble); (iv) around 36 s, the pedal bass lacks legato (poorly planned heel–toe successions, possibly involving a "black" note); 41 s, unfortunate gap. A stronger 16-foot stop in the pedals would have been nice for depth of tone in a hymn of this mood. But ... the tempo wouldn't want to be any slower: a congregation would find itself a little breathless at that pace; but these last two points are just observations. The SDP: the work is a hymn harmonisation; the "hymn tune" is just the soprano line of the four-part texture—what the congregation sings. (The "hymn" is not the music, but the words, BTW.) Also, odd that it says "copyright". Tony   (talk)  15:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, a Creative Commons license doesn't eliminate your copyright, and it's copyrighted to the uploader, who is (or possibly was?) an Arbcom member, if that's meaningful. It may be worth informing him of this discussion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Support per Tony, but these problems aren't noticeable to the casual listener and it's the only file we have here, or so I believe. —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 5:34pm • 06:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Putting a musical performance under the microscope is usually critical to determining its worth—in technical, artistic, and engineering terms. The "casual listener" is not the judge of featured standards, I'd have thought, which need to pass more than a casual examination. Tony   (talk)  09:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * True but though these problems exist they don't significantly reduce the quality of the file. —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 8:26pm • 09:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The misplaced pauses between phrases were the first things that jumped out at me in this recording, and IMO preclude it from being featured ... it almost sounds like the time signature changes between 4/4 and 7/8 at the end of the first two phrases. This is completely unacceptable for a sound that aims to show Wikipedia's best work. BTW, for a bit more info about UninvitedCompany's recordings, see this Signpost article from February 2005. IMO the Eventide recording is far better than the recording of the Short Prelude in G minor linked from that Signpost article. Graham 87 15:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral The first 35 seconds of the file are fine IMO. Then I think there may be detectible distractions and I am a pretty casual listener.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Not promoted - No consensus. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)