Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2008 June 6

= June 6 =

Soul Train Narrator
I was wondering what the name of the deep-voiced narrator is on the theme of the show Soul Train? ,many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.71.47 (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * IMDB says Sid McCoy. Rmhermen (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the original and most popular host would be Don Cornelius, who also serves as the show's producer. This information can be found here under a simple search for Soul Train
 * cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Art music
I don't understand how art music could be construed as being higher than any other form or music, and as how music couldn't be art music, as all music is art music; each person is a different listener, they listen to different genres because they like how they sound; for me, for example, I like trance because, when I listen to it, I feel like I'm on drugs, and I love it because I can get into a trance or close to it, without taking drugs. The article says that art music is like literary analysis, that you can break it down into individual parts of a music piece or work, however you want to call it, and analyze, like the novel Ulysses, ″Oh, the composer added this bell ring here because it means that the man will soon die.″, when it is impossible to even presume that a the song is even about a man walking through the woods and coming home to this husband and then having sex with him and then chopping his head off!68.148.164.166 (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact it is even racist to think that (traditional (or folk)) Hungarian music never had these same presumptions. How many folk songs have never been the telling of a creation story, let's say. How is that the congo drum beat of some African musics not be analyzed? How is that the First Nations drum NOT represent the heartbeat, when you can ask ANY First Nations person and they would say so???68.148.164.166 (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have a question? Julia Rossi (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, can't you see it?68.148.164.166 (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No. I see a rant and a very juvenile need for others to agree with you.  You obviously know you are right and everyone else is wrong, so why do you need the encouragement? --  k a i n a w &trade; 02:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

68.148.164.166 (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)The problem is YOU see a rant. If you really need a question here: What makes art music art music? Why is art music art music?68.148.164.166 (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Art music page doesn't say anything about it being "higher", or that other genres cannot contain symbolism or tell stories and so on. The term "art music" is just a name. It shouldn't be taken so literally. It doesn't imply that other genres are not art or music. It is just a label. As for what sorta of music are considered art music, the page seems to describe its characteristics pretty well. Pfly (talk) 04:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is what it says:


 * How is it that nonclassical songs, like electronic, for example, be less likely to be art music?68.148.164.166 (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)68.148.164.166 (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with you. "Art music" as a category seems somewhat unhelpful to me. "Art rock", on the other hand, I have no problem with.  --Richardrj talkemail 13:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Although, to be honest, I never saw Black Angels or 4'33" to be particularly "serious" or "erudite." Maybe I'm just a Philistine.  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, Black Angels sounds like fingernails on a blackboard to me. I don't like any of the names for the genre - art, serious, erudite. Are there better ones out there? One that would be broad enough to include, say, JS Bach (as from the page's def, his music should qualify)? Pfly (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say that "composition" is the nearest thing to an umbrella term covering non-popular Western music. This term is usually taken to exclude jazz, rock, pop, soul, R&B etc, even though these forms are all, to some extent, composed.  --Richardrj talkemail 07:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I find Black Angels to be a searingly beautiful composition. When you listen to it you have to remember that it was written in the context of the Vietnam War. Crumb referred too the piece as “music in tempore belli” (in time of war). Just as Guernica may not be a “beautiful” painting—it was intended to express a horrible, tragic truth—Black Angles is not intended to be easy to listen to. People are addicted to “nice” music. Sometimes it is healthy for an audience to be forced to face deeper realities. --S.dedalus (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh heh, Black Angles ... not many blacks in that part of Europe back then. :)  Now to the serious part of the post. .  Terminology can be a real bugbear.  The fact that most traditional forms don't fit into "popular music" doesn't mean they're not hugely popular, as measured by things such as numbers of adherents, the burgeoning of opera companies around the world, and CD sales.  Conversely, there's "classic rock", "classic jazz", etc, cf. "classical".  I once heard someone talking about his pastimes:  "I spend a lot of time listening to music.  I also like classical music sometimes" (you can see my concern here).   As for "serious music", most forms of music have their serious side; they're no less serious for being aimed at feckless teenagers or whomever.  And it goes on.  "Art house film" is complete nonsense as a term.  Are other films not associated with cinematic art?  High art, low art - rubbish.  Good music, bad music - rubbish.  Get beyond the (generally meaningless) labels, and explore the infinitely varied world of music.  Every human is attracted to certain music and not attracted to other music.  It's different for all of us.  End of story.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the insight,
 * Looks like art music needs a rewrite.68.148.164.166 (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Playoff blowouts
What's the best record any MLB World Series Champion team has had through a single playoffs? Has anyone ever swept the playoffs? Any series with nothing but blowouts? Thanks. 207.229.190.19 (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The site you need to look through is here. Almost any question related to baseball stats can be found somewhere on that site. Playoffs sweeps have occurred, but I don't know offhand how many times it's been done. I know that in 1976, the Cincinnati Reds swept the Phillies in three straight games in the NLCS, then swept the Yankees in four games in the World Series. That seems to have been the only time the two-tier playoffs were swept all the way. I don't think it's been done in the new three-tier system, though the White Sox of 2005 seem to have come closest, losing only a single game. Before 1969, there was only a World Series, with no intermediary playoffs, so a clean sweep was obviously much easier. I don't know about the biggest blowout, but a Series that might interest you was the 1960 World Series between the Pittsburgh Pirates and the New York Yankees. The Yanks vastly outscored the Pirates, but lost the Series because most of their runs occurred in three blow-outs, while the Pirates squeaked through four other wins. You can do the math here to see. Matt Deres (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Reds are the only team to sweep the playoffs since 1969, when the LCS started. Since 1995 (when the DS and LCS started), the 1999 Yankees and 2005 White Sox have come the closest, going 11-1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.79.227 (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Lord of War, the movie, a true story?
Is the movie based on events around that time in general, or is Yuri Orlov an actual person, who all this happened to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.247.167 (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Our article says Orlov has similarites to Viktor Bout and Leonard Minin. Algebraist 08:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Nationality of referees in soccer.
Why if the referee of an important match is from China (for example)... many people don't like it?. Isn't the same a referee from England and a referee from China?... I hope you understand me a great kiss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.49.95.223 (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we understand you and your great kiss very well. The fact that I cannot remember anybody talking badly about a football referee from China is part of the answer - there must have been some used on the worldwide stage, but I cannot recall it happening. But there is often criticism about referees from some countries because, for example, he may not have been trained as well as in the UK, for physical pace and strength, and use of the rules; or he is used to a different style of play - one perhaps less physical. He might have a different opinion about what is natural contact and what is a foul, and give out 'too many' cards. All that and more is partly why there is only a small group of people at any one time who will be considered for refereeing important matches, with the rest looked down. Theediscerning (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Montgomery County, Maryland on Television
I have noticed that an abnormal amount of television shows, specifically documentaries like unsolved murder cases, minor serial killers, science shows, and many other programs take place/are filmed in Montgomery County, Maryland. Why is that? Does it have an extremely high amount of unsolved murders and violent crime? --Anthonysenn (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

GM Predicts?

 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU7dT2HId-c (04:06)
 * http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7038656109656489183 (00:26)

Did Criswell steal GM's lines? -- Toytoy (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)