Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 September 18

= September 18 =

Open access?
A local, independently owned TV station, which airs many of the same programs as a nearby Fox station, has been airing tons of anti-abortion films and ads, among other things. Is there any law that governs such advocacy programming? Imagine Reason (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Our article on the Fairness Doctrine will probably give you some answers on this point. Textorus (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note specifically that the Fairness Doctrine was abolished 23 years ago. &mdash; Lomn 00:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Speech in the US is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely, see this article. See here for examples of explicit support of anti-abortion violence Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no law that prohibits advocacy programming, but a TV station does have to justify the appropriateness of giving it one of a limited number of available licenses. Looie496 (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Unlicensed Driver
Although this question concerns the law, I am not requesting legal advice. This question has two parts: (1) What sort of penalty or penalties would normally be imposed upon a person in the United States for driving a car without a license? (2) In California, at least, it's illegal for an adult to permit an unlicensed minor in his care to drive in a public place. What sort of penalty or penalties might be imposed for doing so? Would it matter if the child in question was forced rather than permitted to operate the vehicle? 71.165.40.68 (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For the last part, if the youth was forced, then it would likely result in a charge of kidnapping for the adult and there wouldn't be any repercussions for the youth. As for the first part, could you clarify?  Do you mean that they have no license at all or that they simply left their license at home and don't have it on their person when pulled over by the police?  Dismas |(talk) 02:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer the second part; in most states unlicensed youth are required to practice driving with a licensed adult such as their parents and/or their driver's education teacher. The penalty of driving without a license will vary depending on the particular state.  The federal government does not manage traffic laws.  -- Jayron  32  03:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Driving without a license on your person results in a fine; the amount (probably $100-$200 or more) varies from state to state, and in some states, the fine might be waived if you show up in court and produce a valid license (which you just forgot to take with you when you were driving your car the day the police stopped you). On the other hand, if you have no driver's license at all, a lot depends on why:  if your license was suspended or revoked, say for drunk driving, and you continue to drive, you may be subject to jail time in addition to a hefty fine.


 * I'm not sure a parent "forcing" their own unlicensed minor to drive a car would be subject to kidnapping charges, though; perhaps the charge known as "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" would be more correct. Also, depending on the age, perhaps "child endangerment."  And does "force" here mean a beating, or threat of bodily harm or just a verbal command?  Of course, if somebody grabbed a minor off the street and forced the kid to drive a car, that would be kidnapping, a felony, and I think a federal offense: a major crime.  Textorus (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I missed the "in his care" part leading to the idea that the adult would be a parent or legal guardian. Dismas |(talk) 03:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarifications: In the first part of my question, I was referring to a person who never had a driver's license in the first place, not a person who had it suspended or revoked or who happened to leave it at home. In the second part of my question, I am indeed referring to an adult who is a parent, guardian, or employer of the minor in question, ordering a child (not a young student driver with a learner's permit) to drive. Thanks for your insights so far. 71.165.40.68 (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Both actions would certainly be illegal; the penalty - fines and possible jail time - would vary, perhaps quite a bit, depending on which state this event occurred in, and the precise circumstances. Textorus (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your question necessarily implies legal advice. There are two legal doctrines of interest to the second part of your question: Excuse (legal) and Justification (jurisprudence). With some exceptions, the latter is available as an immunity to most crimes except murder. Shadowjams (talk) 09:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is clearly not a request for legal advice, it is a request for information. DuncanHill (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but in my opinion asking for legal advice would tend to imply that I'm asking what action I or another person should take about a specific present circumstance, not that I'm asking for general information about the law. Wanting to know what the legal code says about a particular matter is no more soliciting legal advice than taking an academic interest in the workings of the human body constitutes a request for medical advice. I have never operated a motor vehicle without a license, nor encouraged a minor to do so, and I have no intention to do any such thing in the future or to aid and abet anyone else in doing so. I'm not even doing research for a work of fiction. I'm recalling a specific incident that happened about twenty years ago, and wondering what, in theory, might have happened IF the law had gotten involved. As I'm sure the statute of limitations has long since expired on driving violations, and even child endangerment, I would have no ability to take action in this matter even if I were so inclined, which I am not. I am asking merely to satisfy my own curiosity. How this can by ANY definition imply a request for legal advice is beyond my comprehension. Moreover, I am familiar with the concept of justification. Perhaps I should have made it more clear when I asked the question that I was referring to a person driving without a license or causing a minor to do so without ANY remotely acceptable reason WHATSOEVER, but I suppose I thought that was implied in the fact that I was asking what the POSSIBLE penalties MIGHT be. 71.165.40.68 (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We have your word that you are innocent of any ulterior motive and since that comes from an Internet address it must be true. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cuddlyable, that was low, unnecessary, and bitey. DuncanHill (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it was apt. OP is asking about forcing a minor to do something against the law?  Being just a little snide in response is hardly uncalled-for.  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  15:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead and be snide. Once you've been sneered at by your father for hesitating to take sole control of the steering wheel while going sixty miles an hour on a busy freeway at the age of ten, the superior attitude of some folks on Wikipedia hardly makes a dent. 71.165.40.68 (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that was a very frightening experience. Ignore the rudeness.  The current California Motor Vehicle Code can be found here, though of course many of its provisions may have changed in the last twenty years.  I hope this provides the information you were looking for.  Textorus (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No offense, Anon IP 71.165.40.68. We get all kinds here, though.  Some have "ulterior motives" as Cuddlyable3 put it -- to cause disruption and distress on the part of old-time editors and new readers alike by asking questions on "sensitive" topics that are carefully designed to do that.  As an Anon IP without an established identity here at wikipedia, it's hard for us to tell where you are coming from, or why you might be asking this question.  I apologize if my own comment gave you any offense at all; now that you have provided a bit more context, further snideness on my part would not seem to be called for anymore. :)  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  02:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you've hit a whole other kettle of fish. According to Defense of infancy, in some US states a 10 year old person has not yet reached the age of criminal responsibility. In other words, even if they stole a car and drove it, completely willingly they couldn't be held criminally responsible for anything. They may still be subject to some sort of rehabilitation (right word?) of course. Also if someone is not sitting in the driver's seat and not supervising but is order to take the wheel by the driver, I doubt that they'd be considered the driver so it's doubtful that they could be penalised whatever their age and driving license status. Nil Einne (talk) 06:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No hard feelings, WikiDao. Thank you all for your help. 71.165.40.68 (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Come back any time. Face-grin.svg Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  16:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Real Eastern European nation
Somebody told me that a real Eastern European nation was an Orthodox Church and was ruled by Commumnism. Is this true or false? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.43 (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, most of them. The orthodox church in Russia, Ukraine, Serbia, Romania, etc, all continued to exist under communist rule. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. Lithuania is an historically Catholic nation, and most people would consider them unambiguously part of Eastern Europe.  Unless your friend was guilty of the No true Scotsman fallacy.  -- Jayron  32  03:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think he meant "was that situation ever real", not "no true Scotsman..." Adam Bishop (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * See, I read it to mean that only Orthodox/Communist nations could be "real" Eastern European nations; which would exclude Orthodox/Non-communist nations (like Greece) or Catholic/Communist nations (Like Poland or Lithuania) or countries that were neither (Finland?) from being part of "Eastern Europe". While most of these lie on the fringes of Eastern Europe, at least in the case of Lithuania, it is unambiguously both Catholic and formerly Communist.  It is true that most of the Orthodox/Communist nations are the core of what is usually thought of as Eastern Europe, some were not.  -- Jayron  32  04:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder whether the question is about the historical situation in Eastern Europe, or about today? Textorus (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe its a reference to the post-soviet communist gov't in Moldova? --Soman (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as a "real Eastern European nation". "Eastern European" is a term of abuse today and nobody wants to be called that. Really, it's offensive. — Kpalion(talk) 18:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, then exactly what would you call those European countries that lie east of Germany, Austria, and Italy? We're talking geographic areas here, not personal insults based on country of origin.  Some people from the northern parts of my country use "Southern" as a derogatory word, but that doesn't mean the South doesn't exist.  Textorus (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd call them European countries. — Kpalion(talk) 09:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that Western Europeans, Northern Europeans and Southern Europeans prefer to be called that in preference to (respectively) West Europeans, North Europeans and South Europeans. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd consider everything roughly east of the Rhine or a bit further east, north of the Alps, south of the Baltic, and west of the former USSR border to be Central Europe - it's still quite a long way to the Urals... -- 83.104.44.241 (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Any statement that says 'no one wants to be called that' or otherwise make blanket statements about a large number of humans is nearly always wrong Nil Einne (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyway the original question is too difficult for us to understand or answer properly. Could the original enquirer explain his or her meaning further? —— Shakescene (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Does Eastern Europe help answer your question? 86.165.21.74 (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Croatia and Slovenia are largely Catholic as well, and Bosnia-Herzegovina is largely Muslim. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But then, those aren't Eastern European countries by most definitions, as you can see in the article linked right above your reply. TomorrowTime (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

$20 in Taxi Driver
Just out of curiosity.... I'm wondering about the interpretation of the $20 bill, and what Robert DeNiro's character does with it, in the film Taxi Driver. For anyone who's seen the film but needs a refresher... at one point Jodie Foster's character (the underage prostitute) gets into DeNiro's cab and wants him to take her away, but the pimp who's in charge of her comes and drags her back out, and tosses DeNiro a 20. DeNiro leaves it sitting on the seat for the rest of the night, and when he gets off work he hesitantly takes it and sticks it with his jacket (whereas the rest of the money goes in the official box or whatever). Then, later in the film when he first meets Foster's character in the brothel, as he's leaving he apparently gives that same bill to the bouncer and says "this is yours" or something along those lines. I can't figure out what that gesture might be supposed to mean...can anyone offer any speculation, or perhaps the names of articles that discuss that? Thanks, r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's transparent, isn't it? The $20 is a bribe from the community of pimps, papasans, etc. Essentially, it's an invitation to become a part of that world. Bickle is uncomfortable to be given that money, but doesn't know how he can refuse it. Later, having conceived his bloody plan (or having begun to conceive it), he feels that he's found a way to reject that bribe and assert his independence. So he gives the money back. Anyway, that's how I would read it. L ANTZY T ALK 09:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think that's the pretty overt message. He gets "hush money," he later throws it back in their face. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Makes sense. Thanks! r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To say the same thing again (just to make sure it's dead;) : taking the money was wrong, rescuing the girl was right. It's at the center of the whole film, actually: that's the event that set him forth on the right crusade.  Interesting question, I hadn't picked up on that before. I haven't seen the film in years. I'll look around for some sourced discussion on this, though.  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  16:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Taxi Driver: "Travis 'is not cured by the movie's end,' and that, 'he's not going to be a hero next time." Doesn't directly address your question, but at least suggests that this guy was out looking for any violent crusade to give his life meaning; he just happened to stumble into one this time (at the moment of the bribe) that the viewer can agree is a "good" crusade, violent as it may be.  Assassinating politicians, though... usually not a good idea, even if it's for Jodie Foster. ;)  Wiki Dao'  &#9775;  (talk)  18:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Why no German empire?
Germany had a bigger population than Great Britain, yet even before it lost what little overseas territory it had after WW1 and WW2, it did not have much of an empire during the 19th. century. Why not? 92.15.24.80 (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It did - a land empire. The Pre-WWI German Empire controlled considerable swaths of land containing subject people, particularly Poles. Germany was not a maritime power like Britain or France (or, earlier, Spain and Portugal), particularly before 1871 when Prussia absorbed the western part of Germany into the German Empire. By then, much of the overseas easy pickings had been claimed. Herostratus (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Short of finding some reliable sources, I think'll you can draw three strong points. Firstly, German unification only happened in 1871, leaving little time; before this, continental politics (the Franco-Prussian War, Austro-Prussian War for examples, there are many others). Secondly, the number of Poles (and to a lesser extent) Slavs already made Germany a somewhat multiculturist state, and it was similarly weakened by religious differences; thirdly, historians have debated the willingness of the German establishment for an overseas empire. Typically, the failure of the Prussian East India Company and similar ventures and the introduction of dreadnoughts being the start of a significant Germany Navy will be noted. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 17:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see how the fact that Germany had already had ethnic minorities at home could be a reason why they didn't build a great empire overseas. Britain had their own, often similarly oppressed, minorities (Scots, Irish, etc.) at home too, yet it didn't stop them from creating the British Empire. The first reason Jarry1250 mention above seems more plausible: Germany, like the U.S. and Japan, was a relative newcomer on the stage of global emperialist politics and most of the pie had been already carved up. — Kpalion(talk) 18:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Britain opressed the Irish granted, but the Scots? They were pretty hot on the empire building front themselves. Alansplodge (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not from the UK, so I can't say for certain, but this is the first time in my life I've ever heard the Scots called an "oppressed" people. The Irish, yeah, but the Scots?  Really?  Textorus (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See Highland Clearances, although some of it was oppression of the poor by the Scottish rich, rather than the English. Rojomoke (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've read about the clearances, which were very tragic but limited I think to poor people in a remote part of Scotland, no? The phrase "oppressed people" to my mind would suggest a definite, deliberate discriminatory policy of a ruling government against all members of a certain ethnic/religious/etc. group - which I don't think applies to Scots in general, though I'm willing to be educated on this point if there's something I've overlooked in reading British history.  Textorus (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They did begin a colonial empire by the 1870's, with possessions in Africa and the Pacific, but WW1 cut it short and they lost it all. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Namibia, Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania, Botswana, Cameroon, German New Guinea, the Bismarck Archipelago, the German Solomon Islands, the Carolines, Palau, the Marianas, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, German Samoa, Tsing Tao and more; not a bad effort for little more than 30 years' work. See German colonial empire (which sadly fails to mention which actual colonies it is talking about, apart from a map with no writing on it). Alansplodge (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Botswana does not belong on that list; it was a British protectorate up until independence and was never German. --John (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * However, Togoland (as any reasonably assiduous schoolboy stamp-collector could tell you) would be on that list. Germany's mainland African colonies were Togo, Kamerun, German East Africa and German South-West Africa. After World War I, both Togoland and the Cameroons were divided into British and French mandates under the League of Nations. Part of the British Cameroons joined French Cameroun on independence, and part joined Nigeria. The British mandate of Togoland voted (with the north far more in favour than the south) to join the Gold Coast in forming Ghana in 1957. German East Africa was divided into the British mandate of Tanganyika (which merged after independence with Zanzibar into the United Republic of Tanzania) and the Belgian one of Ruanda-Urundi (which became Rwanda and Burundi upon independence in 1960). Southwest Africa was a mandate of the Union of South Africa, which challenged the United Nations' authority to revert the mandate/trusteeship.—— Shakescene (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, apologies for the mistakes - it was done in a bit of a hurry; I couldn't find a full list anywhere. The Botswana error came from the site that I referenced; "Germany’s colonial empire grew quickly to encompass territories in Africa (Deutsch-Ostafrika, Deutsch-Westafrika, Deutsch-Südwestafrika, and Botswana)...". I thought of Togoland just now but you beat me to it. Are there any more I missed? Alansplodge (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My own apologies: instead of showing off, I should have looked to see if I could find such a list on Wikipedia; one does in fact exist (it just needs a far better indicator on the German colonial empire page; any volunteers?) See List of former German colonies and the navigation box below, Template:Former German colonies. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Shakescene; according to that list, part of Botswana was in German hands before 1918 and was called Südrand des Caprivi-Zipfels. Alansplodge (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to mention that (that Botswana wasn't a completely wrong answer) but didn't for some reason. See the rather short article on the Caprivi Strip, which connects the Rhodesias (Zambia and Zimbabwe) to Southwest Afica at the cost of separating Botswana (the Bechuanaland Protectorate) from Angola ("Portuguese West"). —— Shakescene (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I finally found that too. I have added linking paragraphs to the Botswana and South West Africa articles. Alansplodge (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That was very enterprising of you; perhaps a word could be added at History of Botswana since one map caption there says that the country's borders have been stable since 1966 (which is true in one sense, but means less than a reader might think). —— Shakescene (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * German colonization of the Americas discusses some earlier and unsuccessful coloniers. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Prince von Bismarck thought them a waste of imperial efforts, so as long as he was in office as Imperial Chancellor, Germany sought no colonies. Once Wilhelm II took power and forced out Bismarck, he was attempting to increase the glory of the Empire, and one of those things was colonies to enable Germany to have coaling stations for its increased navy.  Nyttend (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And what good came of it at last? Why the Tsingtao Brewery of course! ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * At least they've had the sense not to rename their beer Qingdao or Jiaozhou to match Mumbai Gin (complete with a portrait of Wikipedically-correct Victoria of the United Kingdom). "You may talk of gin and beer, when you're quartered safe out here..." —— Shakescene (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

where can I listen to just this basic melody?
where can I listen to just the basic, fast melody here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx02KOGhjes without all that extra crap underneath it (for example, the machine gun rattle, and the Mario-like power up sounds. Just the nice, catchy melody... :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.13.140 (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We actually have an article, Faerie's Aire and Death Waltz, that describes the piece. You can use the info there to find other performances -- but I'm afraid you might not find one of the sort you want. Looie496 (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's pretty obviously not the same piece at all. The Faerie's Aire is literally unplayable: much of the symbols and notes don't have any musical meaning.  The youtube is just a very fast, technically detailed piece being played by a computer. Buddy431 (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at the comments, there seem to be a considerable number of people saying it's a version of "U.N. Owen was her", which is in turn somehow related to "McRoll'd" . I pass no judgement on the matter, other than saying that we live in a great age when we can spend time and computing power creating such things. Buddy431 (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "U.N. Owen was her" is a song created by ZUN for the Touhou Project, being target of inumerous remixes, it is related to "McRoll'd" as much as it is related to any other thing, see  200.144.37.3 (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Piano music
What is the most difficult ca. classical era piano piece to play (or what are some notoriously difficult pieces)? On an unrelated note (no pun intended :) I know that certain keys (many of the minor and diminished, for example) sound "sad". Are any especially or "most" sad? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Piano Concerto No. 3 (Rachmaninoff) is usually cited as one of the hardest to play. --Viennese Waltz 09:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From the classical era, try Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 29 (that page cites his Diabelli Variations as another hard'un). Ericoides (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So Rachmaninov isn't from the classical era, then? So what era is he from, and what period does the classical era cover? --Viennese Waltz 10:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See our Classical period (music), where it's classed as 1750–1820. I'd call Rach a late Romantic, but others will have their own opinions. Ericoides (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Post Romantic is another opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That article looks like b****cks to me, calling Brahms a Post-Romantic when he was the non plus ultra of Romanticism. Ericoides (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I myself wouldn't call Brahms Post-Romantic because I'd prefer to reserve that term for composers (like Rach) who wrote in a more or less Romantic style after the Romantic era ended, while Brahms lived right in the middle of it. But I wouldn't call him the nec plus ultra of Romanticism either, because his sense of form is very classical, very Beethoven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Liszt? Scriabin?--Wetman (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are the names of composers, who wrote abominably tricky pieces but also some easier ones. One piece that's near the top of the "hardest" lists is Maurice Ravel's Gaspard de la nuit, particularly the section called "Scarbo".  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If we're not talking classical in the strict sense, can I suggest Kaikhosru Sorabji?
 * That's also the name of a composer, not a particular piece of music. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As for the question on keys, there are various answers claimed here, but note that unless you have perfect pitch you can probably not distinguish different keys by sound anyway. Personal anecdote: when I came to try playing Cesar Franck's Prelude, Fugue and Variations for organ, my conviction that it was in one key got in the way, because it was actually in an unrelated key (Bm vs Gm, but I don't recall which was which). That is the only time I can recall having a strong belief as to the key of a piece I hadn't seen. --ColinFine (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Studies on Chopin's Études by Leopold Godowsky have been described by Harold C. Schonberg, who knew a thing or two about piano music, as "the most impossibly difficult things ever written for the piano". The material is not original, but Godowsky arranged them in uniquely original next-to-impossible ways, such as playing simultaneously two etudes, each of which was extremely difficult to begin with. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking for identity of Poet and Poem circa 1920s
I read a poem recently, and can't remember the title or the poet's name, and haven't had any luck googling it. I read a little about the poet, who was quite well regarded at (I think) Cambridge or Oxford university in the 1920s, and started up a poetry group. He was sickly, diabetic, very pale, and died young. The poem was quite short and about someone having to be different, and in doing this, finding that he was the same as everyone else. Any ideas, please? Snorgle (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Googling "diabetic poet oxford 1920" gives Clere Parsons, is that the one? Sounds like his poem, "Different"   Textorus (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * He's been anthologised in OUP's Anthology of Twentieth-Century British and Irish Poetry, and Penguin's Poetry of the Thirties. DuncanHill (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Some more about him here. DuncanHill (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And a little more here. Also, he was mentioned in an article in the TES in 2009, Different was recommended alongside Benjamin Zephaniah for use in "Who do we think we are" discussions with pupils, here. DuncanHill (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the one - thanks for the help! Snorgle (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made a very stubby stub at Clere Parsons, any and all help in improving and expanding it would be very welcome. DuncanHill (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking, and thank you Textorus for identifying him - I shall be looking out for his work. DuncanHill (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad you could make an addition to the encyclopedia here. Sad story, though; and since our insulin article says it was being mass-produced from 1922 onwards, and he died in 1931, I wonder what the cause of death was?  Textorus (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I just read the stub you wrote. Duh.  Textorus (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)