Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2016 January 7

= January 7 =

Genres for "Soulfly VIII", "Soulfly IX" and "Soulfly X"
Can you listen to the songs, "Soulfly IX" and and figure out what genres are they? I'm thinking these songs are folk, what do you think? Planet Star  04:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * From my "not-as-young-as-he-was" perspective, I would call them prog rock - they wouldn't be out of place on an album by Yes or Rush or ELP. Certainly rock rather than folk - they have the defining backbeat and plenty of electric guitar. Tevildo (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would disagree on you that "Soulfly VIII" is not dominantly graded prog rock, but progressive folk containing a violin. I would agree with you on "Soulfly IX", grading it prog rock and folk rock, and "Soulfly X", grading them progressive rock solely. "Soulfly VIII" is more folk than rock while the other two are more rock. Planet  Star  01:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, we're not in Jethro Tull / Fairport Convention territory, so folk rock still seems like an inappropriate label to me, but these things are always subjective. I've never got over an American friend who described Joy Division as "punk disco". Tevildo (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You'll see the article on progressive folk that it is made from traditional music, world music, and folk music. Since song editions titled "Soulfly" traditionally contain world music and traditional music in them, most prominently in earlier editions, I think progressive folk would be the best fit genre for "Soulfly VIII", but with backbeat common in rock songs but it needs other things to be considered a rock. "Soulfly VIII" is as soft as soft rock but I wouldn't call it soft rock. "Soulfly IX" showcases the use of electric guitar so it can be a rock. "Soulfly X" showcases many middle-Eastern instruments, so this song might've been influenced by the music of the Middle East. Planet  Star  22:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Pre-1950 movies with bad special effects (for their time)
I am curious if there are some examples of old movies that were criticized or mocked in their day for using cheap and/or unrealistic-looking special effects. Primary sources (old movie reviews, etc.) would be especially interesting.

For the purposes of this question, I am defining old movies to mean pre-1950 (i.e., no 50s and 60s B-movies).

I know there have always been low budget movies (and perhaps big budget movies incompetently made), but I am especially curious if people who were around when the movies came out thought the effects looked terrible.--Captain Breakfast (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * First thing that came to mind was Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, but that is 1964. Wikipedia says: "The film was initially criticized for its oddity and poor special effects."  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you would find that contemporary reviews emphasized the story more than the trappings. I'm not so sure the public paid so much attention to special effects, as they didn't have anything to compare it to, as we do now. The infamous Plan 9 from Outer Space, from the 1950s, was bad even by B-movie standards, but was by no means alone in ultra-cheap effects. By modern standards, even the classic The Day the Earth Stood Still looks a bit cheesy. Go back to the much-loved film The Wizard of Oz, from 1939, and if you see it on the big screen it's pretty obvious when they're using models and fake backdrops. Rear projection was a staple of movie-making for decades, and they look pretty obvious to us now, but I expect they were convincing enough then. The movie 2001: A Space Odyssey was a game-changer, as there was plenty of talk about how realistic-looking the effects were, just as Jurassic Park was a bright line between old-fashioned stop-motion and realistic-looking motion, which also was commented upon by contemporary critics. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I thought The Day the Earth Stood Still had impressive special effects, the best being when the spaceship door opened and ramp extended, with no visible seam in the ship before of after, and no jerkiness as the ramp extended. This really shows it's not just about technology, as even with no CGI you can still get impressive special effects, if you have the expertise and are willing to spend the time and money it takes. (This clip has too low of a frame rate to show the lack of jerkiness, but you can see the seamless opening: .)  StuRat (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The New York Times complained that Bambi (or at least the background) was too realistic. "Mr. Disney has again revealed a discouraging tendency to trespass beyond the bounds of cartoon fantasy into the tight naturalism of magazine illustration." Thought the juxtaposition with the cartoonier cells was jarring. I wonder if that reviewer lived to throw popcorn at Who Framed Roger Rabbit. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Bugs. I don't think early audiences had high expectations. See, for example, the spaceship in Flash Gordon's Trip to Mars (1938) (at about the three minute mark in the Youtube video). Around the 1950s, they became sophisticated enough to appreciate really bad effects, just in time for Ed Wood. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, Flash Gordon was the first one that came to mind for me, too. Perhaps some Sinbad films can be tossed in there, too, with bad stop-motion animation using too few frames (although I'm not positive that was in the pre-1950's Sinbad films). StuRat (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem with stop-motion, as Spielberg indicated when discussing Jurassic Park, is that there is no "motion blur". If you look at individual frames from live action film, you'll see some motion blurriness. But when viewed together in rapid sequence (24 frames per second), they trick your eye into looking like smooth motion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Enough frames can solve that. Also, interlaced video sort of does that, as does more sophisticated frame interpolation. StuRat (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that the illusion of the wagon wheels was widely mocked in the 1950s. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't find an article on the illusion of the wagon wheels. Is there one?  The "illusion" was that often the spokes of wagon wheels would appear to rotate backward.  This was actually not an "illusion" in the usual sense but a stroboscopic effect from firpslming at the older frame rate of 8 fps or the newer frame rate of 24 fps.  The same effect can occasionally be observed with certain types of rotating toys under certain type of lighting because the light is strobing the toy at 60 hertz (or 50 hertz).  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I still see it frequently today, on TV ads for cars. I guess nobody worries about it anymore. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia worries about everything. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's odd that Spielberg would say that, since the go motion system that Tippett Studio abandoned for CGI in Jurassic Park did have motion blur. The article also says that techniques for adding motion blur to stop-motion animation date back to the 1920s. Of course, lower budgeted movies probably wouldn't have used those techniques. -- BenRG (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Unidentified earworm
So I was messing around on my guitar the other week (messing about being the limit of my skills) and ended up alternating these 'chords': e|---0-- B|---4-- G|---4-- D|-- A|-- E|-- and e|---0-- B|---2-- G|---2-- D|-- A|-- E|-- They sounded instantly familiar to me, I can't work out from where, and it's driving me crazy. Shazam drew a blank. I know this is very much a long shot, but just wondering if anyone recognised them? Could also be from Dutch language music, as I grew up there. Fgf10 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm having difficulty working out the exact notes in each chord. What;s the difference between an open string and one marked "0"?  Can a guitarist help out here, please?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  01:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The unmarked stings aren't strummed, the one marked 0 is strummed open, only the top three strings are played. Fgf10 (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So I think we have B-D♯-E and A-C♯-E.  That's not much to go on, as you say.  It does sound like a vaguely familiar sequence, but I'd need a little more.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  12:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Where there are two E strings, don't the one should be called F string or C string? It is logical that designation letters should not be used twice. Planet Star  02:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * E-A-D-G-B-e (that's E2 A2 D3 G3 B3 E4) is the standard tuning of the guitar. Contact Basemetal   here  05:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Which movie does this "star sisters medley" clip come from?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHsDcG-31PM I can not be sure that it comes from a movie, but it looks like it does to me. Star Lord -   星爵 (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This suggests that it was a promo video produced in the Netherlands by DUCA Interproductions. Director: John Pope. Producer: Frits van der Sman.  The trio performed as the Star Sisters in the early/mid 1980s.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. I somehow feel several things do not quite fit.Star Lord -   星爵 (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Having read up on various sources, mainly in German and Dutch sources, I have reconciled myself with that it fits. The production was confirmed as remarkably large for a promo, and something with this name went up to the top of charts all over the world. I was also unsure whether it was indeed the star sisters, but now I believe it was, although the hair looks very different from what they had in all other videos I have seen with them. Thank you for your help, Fritz and Myrtle. Star Lord -   星爵 (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)