Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2010 August 26

= August 26 =

Mozart: clarinet & piano?
I'm trying to identify a piece for clarinet & piano, which I recently heard when performed live at a celebration. They said it was from Mozart, and I thought they said it was a sonata (maybe I made that up myself, thinking that a sonata could have fit that instrumentation). Final hint: At least the second, slower part (not sure if the second movement or if they left out one or several movements from a longer piece), which starts with a very beautiful line of the clarinet (after a quick piano intro) and is later set into minor at least once(*), sounded very familiar to me, although my knowledge about Mozart and especially clarinet music rather limited... so I figure it can't be a very obscure piece.

Plus, from what I can find, Mozart hasn't written anything only for clarinet & piano, so it must be something arranged (although they didn't say so). I've listened into some of the violin & piano sonatas without any success. On the internet I've read that there are even arrangement of quintets for clarinet & piano, but I haven't yet found the complete pieces on Youtube, and what I've found again didn't fit the bill.

Any ideas which other Mozart pieces have could have been arranged for clarinet & piano... or where else to look for the original... or other tips to identify this piece? Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC) PS: (*) Sorry, although I could whistle the clarinet music for several days, I've since "forgotten" it again... else I'd be happy to describe it here...


 * Assuming the original is actually written for the clarinet (or possibly its ancestor the Basset horn (and other instruments) the most likely possibilities I can think of Mozart's Clarinet Concerto and Clarinet Quintet. You can listen to extracts at the articles I've linked to.  AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Porn films
Can someone please explain to me why porn actors are not charged with prostitution ... and why porn producers are not charged with promoting prostitution? Generally, prostitution is an exchange of sex and money. I can see the porn industry defense claiming that they are not really "having sex", but rather that they are "acting". But, I am sure that that would be a pretty thin defense, unlikely to succeed. So, what's really going on here? I am confused. Any insights? It can't simply be that the male actor is not paying the female actress for sex ... can it? That the source of the money comes elsewhere like from, say, the producer? But, even so, the producer is paying two people to have sex ... so, at the very least, that would be promoting prostitution ... or pimping or pandering or whatever ... no? What am I missing here? This question refers to the USA. Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC))


 * Cecil Adams covers this briefly here : The Straight Dope : Why aren't porn actors charged with prostitution?
 * Some states have prostitution defined pretty narrowly, so that intent is part of the definition. Other times first amendment issues prevent them from prosecuting pornographers. (Theoretically, the 1st amendment would have priority over any state law. Including anti-prostitution laws.)
 * A lot of times, the police just don't want to prosecute they're worried about losing the case then setting a precedent. They'd rather leave that area of law untested. APL (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The short answer is that prostitution is a legally defined term, and there are places in which the legal definition does not include making pornography. Those are the places where porn is produced.  John M Baker (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "for [an act] to constitute 'prostitution,' the genitals, buttocks, or female breast, of either the prostitute or the customer must come in contact with some part of the body of the other for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the customer or of the prostitute" [emphasis added]. The court found that the "payment of acting fees was the only payment involved in the instant case. . . . There is no evidence that [Freeman] paid the acting fees for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, his own or the actors'."  OK, so porn is mainly for the sexual gratification of the viewer of the film, I get that, but obviously the people involved in it (meaning the actors) must be getting off on it as well, or otherwise they wouldn't act in porn films for a living. I mean, what other reason would there be for "the genitals, buttocks, or female breast" of either party to come intact with each other? And could a prostitute use this as a loophole by filming her, um, "transactions" and either sell it or release it for free? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, OP. I am the only one who will really tell you why. Wives, who make up half of the population, don't want their husbands going to prostitutes. Concurrently, nobody wants their daughter, who is currently hard on her luck, to go get fucked for some money. The truth of the matter is, the people who would go to a prostitute will not go star in a porn film for the same reason. Therefore, the law achieves two purposes: it removes from the free market a service which might otherwise break up families and so forth. Secondly, it protects people, specifically women, from casual sex work to make ends meet. I like the second effect. There are many very intelligent, very beautiful women who are protected from prostituting themselves by the fact that it ain't legal. I'm glad they aren't doing that, period. Frankly, prostitution and porn actors are just two different markets, overlapping in only a very small way. (Obviously one big difference is that there need not be very many porn actors, since a million people can watch the same video). So, now I'm the only one who will have told you any of the real reasons. As opposed to the aspergic contortions legal scholars will go through to make this happen, that is not the real answer to "why" it is thus. Though someone graduating summa cum laude from Harvard law might think that is the "reason." Now you're smarter than that person :) 84.153.217.155 (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 84.153, you didn't answer the original poster's question, and you didn't cite any references, just as you did not when you congratulated yourself over on the Humanities desk that you were smarter than economics professors. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 84.153.217.155, your logic is kinda off because:

24.189.87.160 (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) No one wants their daughter to get fucked for money, ESPECIALLY not on camera, because you're bound to run into someone who saw your daughter sucking someone's dick in a particular film (just ask Laurence Fishburne).
 * 2) There is such a thing as porn addiction, and it breaks up marriages just as badly as real-life affairs.
 * 3) Prostitution may be illegal in many countries, but just because something's illegal doesn't mean that people stop engaging in it. It's still a very lucrative business despite its illicitness, and it's not just down-and-out girls from broken homes who stand on a street corner. There are high-end hookers called call girls, and songs have been written about them.
 * 4) Prostitution is legal in some countries, and there have been no sudden outbreak of divorces in those countries.

As I understand it, it is the act of solicitation, not the act of sex, which is the potentially illegal part. In the case of a movie, the person paying for it does not have sex. Prostitutes are paid for sex, whereas porn stars have sex for free, and charge for it to be filmed. The payment is made for their 'acting', not to receive sexual gratification.  Chzz  ► 03:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am the OP ... and that was part of my original question. For all practical purposes ... how can we distinguish "having sex" from "acting like I am having sex"?  At least, as applied in this context of porn films.  A judge or jury (or whoever) would never buy that thin defense.  It is not that the actors are "acting like they are having sex" (as distinct from actually having sex).  More correctly described, they are indeed having sex and just filming it in addition.  Thanks.   (64.252.34.115 (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC))


 * That's certainly the way it is over in the UK. Solicitation, Curb-Crawling, Exploitation (pimping) and having sex in public are all illegal, but the actual act of having sex for money isn't. So basically, getting there is illegal, but once you're there it's all good. Unless of course one party is underage, but that's a different issue. -- WORM  MЯOW  07:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be (UK spelling) kerb-crawling. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, no, no! I disagree with the above.  Prostitution (the exchange of sex for money) is indeed illegal.  That is, "prostitution" is a crime.  Solicitation (of a prostitute) is also a crime ... but it is a separate and distinct crime.  Thus, it does not negate the fact that the underlying offense of prostitution is also a crime.  That's just like solicitation of a murder.  To solicit a murder is illegal ... just as an actual (carried out) murder is illegal.  Similarly, to solicit a prostitute is illegal ... just as actual prostitution (once followed through) is also illegal.  The reason why people think that only the solicitation is illegal is that undercover officers often engage in the solicitation, but not the actual sex act.  Thus, they can charge (under the "undercover officer scenario") with only solicitation, but not with the substantive prostitution.  Just as in the murder case, the undercover cops will stop the "real" crime before it occurs.  They will stop the soliciting (would-be) murderers from carrying out the actual murder before it happens ... just as they will stop the soliciting parties from carrying out the actual prostitution crime before it happens.  The undercover cops cannot sit by and watch (or knowingly allow) a crime to happen ... they have to stop it before it occurs.  Thus, they can send the criminal to jail on solicitation, but not on the underlying offense.  Indeed, this is exactly why solicitation is defined as a crime ... otherwise, the person would get off the hook every time a cop stopped the "real crime" before it happens.  (64.252.34.115 (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC))


 * Also, think of this very common scenario. Man says to woman: "I will give you $100 for sex."  Woman says: "Yes!"  They then engage in sex and transfer the $100 payment.  In this case, the male would be arrested for solicitation.  The female did not "solicit" anything.  Thus, if the above posts are correct, the female would get off scot-free since she did not solicit prostitution.  In real life, prostitutes are arrested every day.  Some for solicitation (that is, they initiate the conversation with the undercover cop or with a regular "john").  But, in some cases, they get charged with the actual prostitution itself.  That is what would happen in my very common scenario outlined above.  That is, a woman can engage in actual prostitution without engaging in any solicitation of it.  Thus, she would still be criminally charged (not with any solicitation, but with the actual prostitution).   (64.252.34.115 (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC))


 * No 64, you are completely wrong about that, and Worm That Turned is right. See Prostitution in the United Kingdom: "In the United Kingdom, prostitution itself (the exchange of sexual services for money) is legal, but a number of related activities, including soliciting in a public place, kerb crawling, keeping a brothel, pimping and pandering, are outlawed." It is sourced. You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. This is what UK law says. 86.161.108.172 (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am No. 64 ... and I am the OP. My original question clearly stated: "This question refers to the USA."  So, Worm That Turned may, in fact, be right about the UK.  My concern here is only about the USA.  And, my replies are all in accordance with the original question (i.e., as related to the USA).  Thanks.   (64.252.34.115 (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

Parachutes & Cliffs
What is the sport called where one jumps off a cliff and then deploys a parachute and uses the updrafts to gain altitude and then descend to the valley below? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.65.198.84 (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Basejumping? Jarkeld (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that BASE jumpers typically gain altitude under canopy. Paragliders do, but they launch with a deployed canopy.  What the OP described sounds like a conflation of the two.  The lead  sentence from BASE jumping
 * ... employs an initially packed parachute to jump from fixed objects, as with paragliding.
 * is a bit misleading. I believe the "as with paragliding" refers to jumping from fixed objects, not "initially packed".  Since a comparison is given, a distinction should also be made. -- ToET 00:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds more like parascending to me - also, apparently, known as parasailing.  Chzz  ► 04:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Parasailing typically starts from beaches or piers, not cliffs, and they gain altitude not from updrafts, but from the towboat. -- 180.183.162.164 (talk) 09:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Parasailing is known as "parapenting" in Europe (I think it's from the French for "slope"). I was once circled by a parapentiste(?) on the summit of Cnicht in North Wales. He seemed to have no problem in going up as well as down and jumping over a cliff - or at least a steep slope - seems to be the most likely way to take-off. You sometimes see chaps trudging up mountain paths carrying big bags for that purpose. I found this description. Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the articles, parasailing is the one where you're towed behind a boat, and paragliding is the one where you jump off a mountain. Is a person who uses a paraglider a paraglider too? 81.131.50.13 (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

THUS edition of Star Trek Books
Amazon.con is selling at least 7 Star Trek books at 3 times their original prices without stating anything about the mass paperback release being an expanded edition (THUS edition). Your list of Star Trek books makes no note of these books. Do you list these books and state it as an expanded edition? A few titles are Star Trek Vanguard Book 3 Reap the Whirlwind at $27.99 (original price was $7.99); Star Trek Burning Dreams at $22.99 (original price $7.99). Thank you.208.39.156.250 (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Our list? Are you mistaking us for Amazon.com? Nil Einne (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's List of Star Trek novels, which mentions those titles, but I'm not sure what the question is. Do we list them and state it as an expanded edition? Uh, no, evidently not. Should we? 81.131.50.13 (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Largest Outdoor Pipe Organ Location and Name?
Which instrument is considered the largest outdoor pipe organ in the united states?

The Massey Memorial Pipe Organ located on the grounds of Chautauqua Institution. It is exposed to the outdoor and is located in a large brick vault. Simply, the temperature outside is the same temperature inside the vault. Large garage doors cover the facade during the winter months. The vault is in the front of a large wooden ampitheater, which is outside. The organ contains over 6,000 pipes.

OR

The San Diego based Spreckles Organ in balboa park which has 4,530 pipes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Organ101 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)