Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Take Me Out to the Ball Game

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Take Me Out to the Ball Game[edit]

1908 – Take Me Out to the Ball Game
"Take Me Out to the Ball Game", by Jack Norworth and Albert Von Tilzer, is a Tin Pan Alley waltz song which became the unofficial anthem of baseball. This version was sung by Edward Meeker for Edison Records in September 1908, and is one of the first recordings of the song.

Very obvious historical significance, at least from an American standpoint. Best quality possible from a recording from that time period, ripped from a 78 RPM gramophone recording.

  • Nominate and support. haha169 (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Citation needed] - What source do we have to indicate this is the first recording of the song? I like the recording, but the source of the file seems a little iffy. Jujutacular talk 04:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got that piece of info from its related Wikipedia article, Take Me Out to the Ball Game, but it doesn't seem like that article was properly sourced either. Let me do a little snooping. --haha169 (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google results find that all major sources (Major League Baseball's site, for example) completely ignore the singer of the first recording. Some Youtube videos cite Meeker as the first, but that's hardly reliable. So I will remove that tidbit for now. --haha169 (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This book looks like it MIGHT say Meeker was first, but the key page is missing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Haha, well a classic case of Murphy's law... no copy of this book at my local library chain either. --haha169 (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Update [1] seems to say that Meeker was the first. It doesn't explicitly say so so it probably isn't compatible with Wikipedia's guidelines.
    • Comment The composer, Albert Von Tilzer, needs credited. This sould also appear on his page, I think. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done --haha169 (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support: Surprisingly good recording for the year. Even if it's not the earliest, it's still very early, and that's an advantage, as it puts it in the original context better. It'll need cited if it's to be used on WP:FS, though.
Is this really a 78RPM gramophone, though? I thought Edison Records were all phonograph cylinders. This site says it was a cylinder. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the source of the file says. Actually, I traced the file all the way back to [2], which calls it a "78 RPMs & Cylinder Recordings". --haha169 (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edison Records only released cylinders before 1912. Edison_Records#Edison_disc_records. It's a phonograph cylinder =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These sources obviously cannot be trusted. :P Thanks for pointing that out, I will change it. --haha169 (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've worked with cylinders a lot, and this is a particularly good one, but we want it properly documented. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • N.B. Made some tweaks to get it ready for use on WP:FS, should it pass (which it should). Also - a little off topic, but the article on this song, while not terrible, is a horribly disorganised mess. For example, let's say you wanted to know the year it was written and the composer of the music. See how long it takes you to find them in that article. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A great period recording, and an interesting find, especially given its source. Major Bloodnok (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • N.B. I've done a little work dstributing it to articles. In addition to Take Me Out to the Ball Game, it now appears in: Jack Norworth, Albert Von Tilzer, and Edward Meeker. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I did a little noise removal on this file and found that the result was rather nice. --haha169 (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, it creates a lot of these quiet mechanical sounds. I can't support the noise-removed version. Try mixing the noise-removed version with the original at about 20-50% volume. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried mixing them like you suggested, the problem still persists. We could always revert it, the noise in the previous version gave it an air of authenticity, but it is a little distracting. --haha169 (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd say revert it, and upload the edit as a different file. It's a bad idea to change the file being voted on this late anyway. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Thanks for the info digging Adam and Haha. Looks like we've got some good knowledge of this recording now and I'm happy to support a great find. Jujutacular talk 07:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but if fixed, count this as a comment—Description page problems: No links for the artists or publisher in the summary. I see we have an article at least on the first-named. Why not put more of the info from the original site in the description page summary? The performance and recording are good for the day. --Tony1
    • If you're going to oppose things solely on the basis of description pages, there are two options that I would steer you to for the future. 1) Fix the issues yourself, or 2) Make the request for me to fix it at User talk:Sven Manguard/Sandbox. I posted in Talk:FSC that you should just list the description pages that need work there when you see them from now on, I'm good at fixing those. I would certainly hope though that if you believe the performances themselves are up to standard, you'd remove the opposes when the file descriptions are fixed. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did some linking and expansion of the description. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sven, we went through this at FAC about four years ago ... reviewers were sometimes told to fix things themselves and not complain. Fortunately, it was made clear that reviewers review. I do believe it's up to nominators to fix the SDP. The exception to reviewer collaboration might be if a reviewer is skilled at cleaning up files, just as they help out at featured pics occasionally. But it's only if they want to. Tony (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's all well and good except for two things. First, most people don't really know how to do a good FDP, and second, I would hope that if a reviewer's only reason for opposing something is that the FDP is bad, that that reviewer will at the very least strike the oppose when the FDP is fixed. I don't know about FAC, but I know that at GAN the reviewer will list things that need fixing, then give it time for them to be fixed. If everything is fixed, the reviewer passes it, "well it started off wrong so it'll fail even though what was wrong was fixed." If there's anything that is easily fixable during the course of a nomination, its an FDS.
          • TLDR You have the right to say "Oppose: FDS is wrong, go fix it." I have the right, even if I'm not the nominator, to fix it myself. I would hope that once I do so, you would reconsider the oppose vote. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Indeed, on the FAC as well, it is considered bad etiquette to leave suggestions and not come back to re-consider once the critique has been addressed. Your suggestions were valid, of course, and prompted me to seek out the composer to find more information and for Sven to surf Jamendo to clean out the description table. If you still don't like it, it would be nice to know what needs fixing. --haha169 (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is considered bad etiquette to leave suggestions and not come back to re-consider once the critique has been addressed"—a bit strong. Tony (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not untrue. But this discussion is drifting into irrelevance. Let's fix the FDP first; I don't care who does it (heck, I'll do it myself if someone will tell me how). And then we'll all hopefully listen to some Haydn and calm down. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 15:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Problems have been fixed, at least to my satisfaction. Unless there are more concerns? --haha169 (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only concern is waiting out the clock for the seven day minimum for time ;D Sven Manguard Wha? 07:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted MeekerBallGame.ogg --Sven Manguard Wha? 00:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_sound_candidates/Take_Me_Out_to_the_Ball_Game&oldid=1191660029"