Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2015 December 19

= December 19 =

Why was only one copy of the Wu-Tang Clan album Once Upon a Time in Shaolin sold?
I have a question about the album Once Upon a Time in Shaolin. I don't understand the whole idea behind this album. Why on earth would the group want to make (and sell) only one copy of the album? And a related question: why would a musical group want to work hard to create music and then not allow anyone (except for one individual) to listen to their music? I just don't get it. Also, is there literally only one copy out there? Or does the group itself have their own copy, in addition to the one sold? Thanks. 2602:252:D13:6D70:C5EB:D2C5:218D:1F48 (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Rarity makes something more valuable, but there's always the question about how many of an item to sell to maximize overall profit. With music, it seems clear that if you sell more than a few copies, then illegal copies will soon proliferate, so that's an additional incentive to make very few.  They sold it for $2 million, which isn't too bad.  Maybe they could have made more by selling it to the general public, but maybe it's just no good.  And they might also have generated publicity and demand for their next publicly released album. StuRat (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. So, if it's good music, it would earn more than $2 million when sold to millions of consumers.  If it's lousy music, why would someone pay $2 million for it?  Quite bizarre.  2602:252:D13:6D70:C5EB:D2C5:218D:1F48 (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Did the customer get to listen to it first ? Also, see Veblen good, where the mere fact that it is high priced makes it valuable to someone, for it's "snob appeal".  It's interesting that it was purchased by Martin Shkreli, a man who publicly stated he is unconcerned about his public image and who was subsequently arrested for unethical business practices (basically a Ponzi scheme).  I wonder if such people are more likely to want to waste money on something of questionable utility to fill some hole in their psyche. StuRat (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * But that explains things from the buyer's perspective. I am more concerned with the seller's ... ?  And, no, the customer did not get to listen first.  It was auctioned off to the highest bidder.  Thanks. 2602:252:D13:6D70:5164:77F5:8AAD:A108 (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If a seller can manage to create a Veblen good, that is very much in their interest. In this case, if the customer didn't get to listen to it first, I'm going with my gut that it just wasn't a very good album.  So, their options were to release it to the public, have disappointing sales and no longer have any public interest when their next album comes out, or, do what they did, make 2 million dollars, and have the public very curious about their next offering.  Of course, the buyer might tell everyone it wasn't any good, but psychology would make it unlikely that anyone would want to admit they wasted 2 million dollars on junk.   StuRat (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Bidders in the auction got to hear samples of the album. —Tamfang (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't know that. Where did you see that info?  Thanks.    2602:252:D13:6D70:9153:6944:89B5:F0A2 (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Great article by Bloomberg about the sale here... Says there was a listening party for potential buyers and radio contest winners in New York in March where they played 13 minutes of highlights from the album. Then "serious bidders got to hear the 13-minute highlights in private listening sessions arranged by Paddle8 in New York.... Before he closed on the acquisition, Shkreli was permitted to listen to a few more snippets to make sure it was all there. Shkreli delegated the task to an employee." Another funny bit: "[Shkreli] hasn’t listened to Once Upon a Time in Shaolin yet. He’s saving that for a time when he’s feeling low and needs something to lift his spirits." AtticusX (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe he knew he would be headed to prison soon, and bought it to listen to there. (I wonder how many packs of cigarettes he can trade it for.) StuRat (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In that case, I suspect that the provided samples were the only good parts, much like the clips of bad movies used to advertise them. StuRat (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Blatant publicity stunt.--Shantavira|feed me 10:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * How so?  2602:252:D13:6D70:6533:6D2D:ACBE:8031 (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It makes sense. Look at the publicity it got! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it got publicity. But the album is already sold.  No profits to be made, at this point.  So what good does the publicity do for the musical group?  I still don't get it?  2602:252:D13:6D70:B47B:4FB2:48E2:6740 (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It creates demand. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I am still confused. Demand for what?   2602:252:D13:6D70:218B:AF5E:F560:98C6 (talk) 03:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Future albums, to be released to the general public. A comparison might be made with some fashion designer who designs a million dollar dress to be worn once, at the Oscars.  They probably don't charge anything for the use of the dress, so lose lots of money on that particular dress, but the publicity allows them to sell more of their more mainstream fashions.  That's sort of a loss leader, on steroids.  StuRat (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand that whole concept (as a publicity stunt to increase demand for a subsequent similar product). In this case, however, I believe that I read that this would be the band's final album.  So, again, what benefit does the musical group (the seller of the album) get from such an odd deal?  Thanks. 2602:252:D13:6D70:218B:AF5E:F560:98C6 (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Band's final album ≠ last work of each participant. —Tamfang (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, good point. 2602:252:D13:6D70:9153:6944:89B5:F0A2 (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * How many bands have done "farewell tours" only to reassemble some years later... to do another "farewell tour"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, another good point. 2602:252:D13:6D70:9153:6944:89B5:F0A2 (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed, stating that this was their last album might well just be more of the publicity stunt, to increase demand further. The buyer could conceivable sue, claiming that them making another album after promising not to, diminished the value of his purchase.  However, unless the sales contract stated explicitly that this was their last album, I doubt if he would win.  StuRat (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, interesting. I can imagine that the band would claim "hey, this is the last album we will ever make!", but I cannot imagine them committing that to writing (in a legal document). 2602:252:D13:6D70:9153:6944:89B5:F0A2 (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * According to (at least some of) the band members, it was an artistic statement. Our article says "The concept to offer a musical work in a single form was conceived by long time Wu-Tang affiliate Cilvaringz and was based on music exploitation as a commissioned commodity in the Baroque, Enlightenment and Renaissance ages". Whether it's interesting or stupid as an artistic move is up to you. Apparently lots of the fans didn't appreciate it. There are plenty of examples of music artists (especially late-career) doing weird things which they say are in order to subvert the institutions of the music industry (Prince's name changing comes to mind). These are usually called artistic statements by the artists, and called publicity stunts by others. It's up to you how you receive it. Staecker (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's also up to the public whether it helps or harms the band. The basic idea reminds of a Bob and Ray commercial in which Ray had produced a PC printers. He was offering it for a million dollars. Bob says, "Nobody's going to buy it at that price!" Ray says, "Maybe not, but if someone does, I can retire!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * One more thought: apart from the possibility that the Wu-Tang Clan was aiming was to increase demand for hypothetical future albums, and apart from the possibility that they were passionately driven by the vision of what frankly comes across as a rather weak "artistic statement", there's at least one other possible motivation: bragging rights. One hears of hip hop artists buying thousands of copies of their own albums, not because it makes any sense from a profit standpoint but because they feel their ego and reputation are tied to whether it looks like people want their work. Yes, Wu-Tang might have made a ton more money and not angered their fan base if they'd sold the album the normal way, but hey, now they have an entry in the Guiness Book of World Records crediting them as creators of the most valuable album ever, which is something no one else can boast of.  And despite all the negative publicity that has come from the album being sold to one of the least popular people in the United States, at the end of the day, making their music impossible to get has probably reinforced the perception that people want their music.  Strange but true: some people are willing to throw away millions of dollars simply to stroke their own egos; Martin Shkreli may fall into that category as purchaser of a $2 million dollar album that he hasn't even listened to, and it seems likely that the Wu-Tang Clan may also have been partly motivated by the desire for "bragging rights". AtticusX (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Excellent point. As a general rule, artists have big egos.  And do like them stroked.  Good point. 2602:252:D13:6D70:9D55:2706:817F:DC85 (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. 2602:252:D13:6D70:657C:A416:4F22:21FA (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Girls und Panzer
Why does the English title of Girls und Panzer use the German "und" instead of "and"? Is it pronounced any differently from "and"? --KnightMove (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Since "Panzer" is a German word, maybe they're just being funny. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As for pronunciation, it's /ʊnt/, which is like "unt" with a round u sound (almost like a short "oo" - it's the sound in foot or put). Smurrayinchester 10:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Moonlight Sonata
I have two versions of Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 14 on my computer. The first movement, the adagio, is noticeably different between the two. On one (pianist unknown), the movement lasts 6:33. Though I am merely a musical troglodyte, this is how I think it should sound. Or, at least, this is the tempo that sounds familiar to me. The other version is played by Rudolf Buchbinder and is much faster, lasting only 4:45. Is it simply the case that Buchbinder is just following Beethoven's pedal mark or is there more at play here? Put simply, how long "should" the adagio last? Adagio means "at ease", right? 99.235.223.170 (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that, since this is on computer, it's possible the fast pace isn't intentional, but merely some type of programming/software error, similar to old silent movies, with low frame rates, that when played at modern frame rates seem too fast. StuRat (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That seems extremely unlikely. 99.235.223.170 (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the connection between a pedal mark and the tempo of the piece. One's about where and how to use the pedals, the other's about how fast to play the music.  Can you explain what you're getting at?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * (I see the section about the pedal mark says "the modern piano has a much longer sustain time". 99.235.223.170, did you interpret this to mean modern performances of this movement have longer duration times? The pedal mark is not related to tempo, see my note 2 below.) --Bavi H (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It might be better if you compare the beats per minute (BPM) values instead of the duration (see note 1 below). The website Tempo Tap lets you tap the spacebar with the beat and shows you the beats per minute value. (Note: It calculates the average BPM over all the taps, so you might want to press X every so often to start a fresh calculation.)


 * Wikipedia's tempo article suggests adagio is "slow and stately (literally, "at ease") (66–76 BPM)", but "beats per minute (BPM) values are rough approximations."


 * While searching for information about Beethoven tempos, I learned he started using a metronome later in life and indicated BPM values (or "metronome markings") on new compositions and published BPM values for earlier compositions. However, it looks like most musicians feel his BPMs are too fast and suspect his metronome was miscalibrated. I can't find a list of all the BPM values Beethoven published, so I don't know if he indicated a BPM value for this sonata movement. If he did publish a BPM value for this sonata movement, maybe your faster recording decided to obey Beethoven's BPM, and your slower recording goes along with popular opinion.


 * Note 1: When comparing durations, watch out for repeated sections. In this reddit thread, one comment describes a Lisitsa version of the 3rd movement as a "normal" 6:47, and a Gould version as a "hilarious" 4:47. But a reply says "Gould's is faster, but most of the difference in time is due to the fact that Lisitsa takes a repeat that Gould doesn't. It comes at 1:29 in the Lisitsa, when she goes back to the beginning, and 1:20 in the Gould, when he goes into new material (the development section)."


 * Note 2: The pedal mark is not related to tempo. The pedal mark described in the article is just an instruction to depress the damper pedal for the entire piece to lift the dampers. (The damper pedal is also called the sustain pedal, or often just "the pedal" since it's the most often used pedal.)


 * About the pedal: Normally, when you release a piano key the sound stops (a damper comes down and stops the string's vibration). But if the pedal is pressed when you release a key, the sound keeps going (the damper is held back and the string continues to vibrate). When you release the pedal, the dampers go back down (except for keys you are currently pressing). Of course, if you hold the pedal (or a key) down for a long time, the sound won't continue forever, the string's vibration will eventually die out. On modern pianos, the time it takes for the vibration to die out is long. Holding the pedal down the entire piece would sound bad when the chords change because the different chords will blend together. The section about Beethoven's pedal mark says the vibration "die out" time was much shorter on pianos in Beethoven's time, so holding the pedal down the entire piece didn't sound so bad then: holding the pedal across a chord change would only result in a short blend between the chords. --Bavi H (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * These are good answers but it should also be noted that different pianists will play the work at different speeds. There are several reason for this. They can interpret Beethoven's notations differently, or their individual muse will move them to play a given work at the speed that they think they should be. The same applies to all musicians and conductors. When I was younger (much) I could fairly reliably tell when an orchestral piece was being conducted by Herbert von Karajan since it moved faster than most (IMO his version of Beethoven's Seventh Symphony moves along at an alarming pace) or Eugene Ormandy who liked the works to be played slower. While it is natural to pick the one you like the best and just listen to it there can be value in hearing other interpretations. I have discovered new things in a work that was played at a different pace then the one I was used to. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, and unless they're using a metronome to make sure it's precisely in time with some pre-determined standard, the same performer will play the piece at slightly different speeds each time they play it. The speed throughout the piece will also vary, in slightly different ways each time.  Their personal mood/feeling state comes into it, how they may have re-interpreted the music since they last played it, etc.  A performer who always plays the same piece exactly the same way each time may be a superb technician but is no artist, imo.  That would show no evidence of growth, development, or openness to limitless possibilities, and if music isn't about those things, it's not worth anything.
 * I distinguish such (subtly or otherwise different) live performances from a favourite recorded performance that moves the listener every time they hear it. But then, they're rehearing the same moving performance, not hearing different performances.  If they heard that same musician play the piece live, they might find his interpretation had changed noticeably from the recorded version, and it may be even more revelatory, or it may be downright disappointing.  That's the magic of music making: the risk involved.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

(Replying to several at once): Yes, I guess I had assumed that the pedal mark would influence the duration of the piece: if the notes you're playing are played more abruptly, I figured that would lead you to play the piece at a quicker pace. Not for nothing did I describe myself as a musical troglodyte! I cited the duration as a way of noting the differences between the pieces, but there's no misunderstanding the tempos - they're clearly being played at different rates. I won't link to it since it's likely a copyvio, but there's a Youtube video of Buchbinder playing the piece in Buenos Aires and it's very similar to the rate of the recording I've got (though he does seem to slow down very slightly after the first few bars). Appreciate the thoughtful replies so far - thank you! 99.235.223.170 (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

This all reminds me of the correct tempo for another classic, "Unchained Melody", courtesy of Vito and the Salutations. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

How is the program of the Vienna New Year's Concert decided?
On the Vienna New Year's Concerts of this century, how was it decided what pieces of music are performed? Does the conductor of the year simply decide on his own after he is chosen? Or do candidate conductors have to send an election statement containing the program in advance, and the conductors are chosen after viewing that? Or perhaps there is program writer separate from the conductor for this? &#x2013; b_jonas 16:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I cross-posted this question to Music Fans Stack Exchange 2. I'll try to copy the answers but you may want to check there first. &#x2013; b_jonas 17:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Following answer is by guidot on Stack Exchange.
 * The female speaker from the Austrian broadcast station said this year [2016], that Mariss Jansons decided, which pieces to perform after studying hundreds of scores. While this leaves open, whether he did this before being elected or afterwards, I can't imagine him spending an effort like this into the blue.
 * &#x2013; b_jonas 14:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Need to find Judas's lyrics in "I don't know how to love him", only Magdalene's are easily findable
The song frequently surfaces in my head but I hadn't listened to the definitive Elliman version for real in years, so I dug it out and was captivated all over again. But I am going NUTS looking for Judas' WHAT IS GOING ON BOSS?ish lyrics which follow Mary Magdalene's, and are I think reprised as the poor sod kills himself. Except for a performance by some guy as a tribute to JCS on the 40th anniversary of JCS, I can't find that song performed by cast or pro cover artists, or any trace of the lyrics.

I can pull Mary's stuff into my singing range but I can NOT sing those words - only a woman can pull THAT off. I gather there is one version somewhere of Mary's stuff that a guy tweaked for gender and recorded, and THAT might be something I can use.

This is for private amateur performance, not public for money - I'm not that good and I never ever will be - 66 is a pretty late start as a solo folk artist and I listen to and perform for all the talent in my area once a week to polite and occasionally enthusiastic applause from people I have boundless admiration for. I hope someday to reduce the distance between me and the lowest-end pros from 50% of their talent to 30 or 40 - maybe even 25. That would please me greatly and represent great progress from the "doesn't suck totally" level I was at half a year ago.

Can anybody help me? I was really surprised that the search engines are so useless on this, showing me only covers, with her lyrics, of Magdalene's song ranging from the sublime to the frankly ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsd172 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See "I Don't Know How to Love Him" for our article. The lyrics to Judas' - reprise? - of the song are listed on various lyrics sites under the title "Judas' Death", if that helps. Tevildo (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (Ah, a nice example of how gender in singing has strangely gotten more sharply delineated over time, paradoxically with loosening societal roles - a few centuries ago, we would not be hearing "I can NOT sing those words"! I'll have to file this one somewhere. Sorry for being OT but I couldn't resist.) Double sharp (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You can see perusal copies of the score (in various orchestrations) here (login needed, but it's free to register). They will have the current "official" version of the words, though given the show's history they may have changed over time, and what's in these copies may differ from recordings. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

dallas season 2
Hello, I have started to watch the old series, and season 2 , ep 22 -- has Sue Ellen drinking while she is pregnant ,and driving too. The granddaughter - started to pop pills and becomes addicted to them. Sue Ellen falls down stairs, and almost losses the baby. etc .. the doc tells JR, that the drinking is becoming too dangerous for the baby's life, and tells JR that Sue Ellen needs to go to rehab.

but I can't find this in any of the description for the show - this was the full hour ! about the 2 addicts ..

please confirm, what to do ty c– — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocobonneau (talk • contribs) 22:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * These plot elements are covered in our article Dallas (1978 TV series) (season 2) - is there somewhere else you think they should be mentioned? Tevildo (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * How about in fetal alcohol syndrome, under an "In popular culture" section (not yet created). StuRat (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, John Ross Ewing III does not suffer from this syndrome, so that probably isn't the place. Tevildo (talk) 08:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That they mentioned the risk that this could occur, on the show, is enough to make it relevant. StuRat (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Enid Blyton's Famous Five series
How and when did the name "Famous Five" come to be applied to the book series? The individual books have titles like "Five get into trouble" and don't refer to "famous". The Wiki article doesn't explain this. 109.156.206.234 (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * According to this extremely comprehensive article, the phrase "The Famous Five" first appears on impressions of the books published in 1951. Before that, they were referred to as "The 'Fives' Books".  The very first usage _may_ have been the first edition of Five on a Hike Together, or a 1951 impression of one of the earlier books. Tevildo (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating -- thanks. 109.156.206.234 (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added the reference to the article. Tevildo (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Personal hypothesis: The secret seven books have an S S abbreviation. I reckon someone though that to be "cute" and decided to do similar to the Fives and make them F F . What could you have? Fabulous, Famous, Frenetic, ... -- SGBailey (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)