Entertainment desk
< April 18	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 19[edit]

A reference regarding: "Grand of the artists"[edit]

Hey,

I have been sourcing very long time for the reference needed in the text below, but unfortunately without luck. I really hope that someone will help me finding a reference to verify the name "Grand of the artists". Thank you very much. Fanoftheworld (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the article about the piano campany Steinway & Sons:

In 1987 Steinway made their 500,000th piano, making a milestone in the history of musical instruments. The piano was built by the Steinway factory in New York with some participation from the Steinway factory in Hamburg. The 500,000th Steinway was designed by artist Wendell Castle and was named "Grand of the artists".^{[citation needed]}

I can't find anything either and it sounds rather uninspired for a nickname. User:KarlKunde added it on May 31, 2007, but his last edit was on April 1, 2008. Why don't you contact Steinway? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping.

If I can not find a reference, what do I then do? Fanoftheworld (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the "citation needed" tag has been there for some considerable time, simply remove the offending words. No one has been able to verify that nickname, so it's in all probability simply not true. The editor who put it there was either a vandal, or made a mistake. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for helping. Fanoftheworld (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ctrl+f[edit]

Where can I find Green Twill White Mesh Cap that will accept Paypal?68.148.145.190 (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your local John Deere dealer will probably take cash. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boyling hot or just lukewarm?[edit]

Neither Piers Morgan nor Amanda Holden ~~have~~ has the right qualifications to judge, and Simon Cowell might have other considerations in mind, so I'd like the evaluation of a professional singer, musician, or critic. Just how good is Susan Boyle? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may have trouble finding a professional here. Fwiw, I'll give you some of my thoughts. She is very good, no question. She has a pure, clean, strong voice. But we've all been sucked in by the process, to some extent. The audience, and the judges, were obviously thinking "A person who looks like that, with eyebrows like that, with a hairdo like that, and a dress like that - she's a quintessential dowdy church choir spinster and there's no way she's any good at this style of singing and she'll obviously be getting three Xs before she's even halfway through her routine".

But only three seconds - literally - after she started singing, the audience were screaming their lungs out. Now, what could they have discovered about her voice and singing ability in 3 seconds? Very, very little, imo. What their reaction was really saying was: "Wow, she's not as completely hopeless as we assumed, and we should get off off her back and start backing the underdog". So most of that reaction was an overreaction fuelled by pure guilt at having judged her without ever having heard her. And that has simply snowballed. However, if she'd been heard purely on musical merit, sight unseen, with no information about her age, marital status, etc, she'd probably still have been judged good enough to go through to the next round, but whether she'd have become the favourite to win the contest is another question entirely. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She's good, but there are certainly weaknesses in her singing; the lower register isn't powerful enough (she can barely make the line "as they tear your hopes apart"), her constant vibrato is a little monotonous. What made her performance so great is the surprise effect of someone so unglamorous sounding so smooth and also the shocking contrast between her speaking voice and her singing voice; that's what made the audience cheer after just 3 seconds. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the audience cheering after just 3 seconds might have something to do with some very slick editing. This show is the pinnacle of modern talent shows, they (the producers) know how to use every trick in the book, the lights, the editing, the stirring music, the (scripted?) judges comments, just the right audience shot to set the mood. Don't get me wrong I love the show, been watching it for the last few series. But every episode is crafted to reap just the right emotional reaction. It's 50% talent and 50% production. Prime example - the little boy at the end of this weeks episode. When simon Cowell stopped the performance half way through and made him sing a different song - come on??? That was sooo set up. Brilliant, but staged. Just watch this [1] - First, the interview so we can all see how cute he is, then the piano build up. The despair on people's faces when Simon stops the boy, the audience gasps, the mothers going to cry - then the elation when he pulls the performance out of the bag at the end. Perfect production. This boy is talented, but I firmly believe these people can make anyone look talented if they wanted to -its all in the edit. Anyone who wants to learn about TV production Should watch this show, they are the masters. 124.182.249.194 (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what is it with the constant audience screaming, anyway? It's the same on <adjectival name of country> Idol and similar shows. Anytime a singer starts to even approach a (musical) climax, off the audience goes, and by the time the top note (or whatever) actually arrives, it's completely drowned out. If they're screaming, ipso facto they're not listening. They don't seem interested in actually hearing the performer deliver their best note. So just what are they screaming about? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The audience is probably selected for their screaming-at-opportune-moments qualities. I realise this does not answer your question fully. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will they not just be getting a 'scream like idiots' version of the often-seen Applause Sign (http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=applause+sign&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=apnrSYXzGoKRjAf5-fz2Aw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title)? That's what i'd assume anyways. ny156uk (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They probably don't have a sign, but rather someone who is (or many people who are) enthusiastically encouraging them to scream. They are off-camera though so it looks spontaneous. This is also true of late-night talk shows, which is why everyone laughs at jokes that are not funny. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know about prompters, etc. But why can't they wait till the singer has actually delivered the goods before launching their prompt cards or whatever it is they do? It is so damn IRRITATING for those of us who appreciate good singing but are deprived of the opportunity by these ... jerks. Also, since studio audiences self-select, they are also presumably interested in hearing good talent, otherwise why would they bother coming along at all. Many come with signs, to support their friend/family member, and they too would surely be interested in having other people hear them at their best. Audiences should refuse en masse to open their mouths until they are good and ready, and stuff the prompters. -- JackofOz (talk)

Posthumous wins of world championships[edit]

Are there sports where it is possible to win world championships posthumously? I'm thinking of sports where fatalities are fairly common. In particular, early motor racing. Wolfgang Graf Berghe von Trips is listed as coming second in the 1961 Formula One season, and if Phil Hill had not won in Monza (the race at which von Trips was killed), then Trips would have finished first (well, actually, Hill didn't compete in the final race of the season, and I'm having difficulty working out the scoring system in use at the time), but my question is whether any sports have had world championships (or any titles) awarded posthumously? Carcharoth (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jochen Rindt, Arrichion, Pheidippides meltBanana 13:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So there was a Formula 1 posthumous champion. I'll have to remember that. And the link to a reconstruction of the death of Arrichon was fascinating! Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AM meter[edit]

What is the Am meter?68.148.145.190 (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's their own "gauge" of sorts. It's the Ask Men meter. Dismas|^(talk) 22:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did understand that it was a measuring unit, but I couldn't figure out what it measures.68.148.145.190 (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's the composite score of whatever they're rating at the time. —Tamfang (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what are they rating (which would be)?68.148.130.72 (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page in question appears to be part of a series, "Top 29: Best Cities To Live In". Could that be a clue? I'm almost as stupid as I look, so I hesitate to draw any conclusions. —Tamfang (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice that for the link, Cape Town has a score of 75 (inside the circle of the Male Symbol/planetary symbol of Mars). Infact, it also fluctuates. So there is likely more than just the rack of statistics. And because it fluctuates, I don't think it is a sum of the score of the other parameters.68.148.130.72 (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danvers[edit]

What is Best Pro Am Release?68.148.145.190 (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tats[edit]

What are riggings?68.148.145.190 (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Rigging. Dismas|^(talk) 22:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question - the article was poorly worded. I've amended it now. It's not a very good article at the moment. --Dweller (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Trent Reznor whine so much in his music when he's a really good looking guy?[edit]

I mean, seriously, his music is all angst and stuff, and he's really bothered about everything, yet he's good looking enough to be, or have been, a male model (he's getting a little old now). What's with that? Was he drug addicted or something? I could imagine women throwing themselves at him 'cause he's really good looking, and I say that as a straight male. I don't understand.--Forced into it (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto with Morrissey. And both of these guys appear on the PETA website. I'm not saying I disagree with that, but wtf is with the idea that these two guys can't get laid... their fans are idiots, especially Morrissey fans... celibate my fucking arse.--Forced into it (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Was he drug addicted or something?" Seriously? You need to ask?--Remurmur (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be reading too much into the persona that these people put across to the public. I don't know much about NIN, but in general these people are performers – not that different from actors, in fact. They may be perfectly normal and well adjusted people offstage but take on these angst-ridden personae for the sake of their records and performances, because it sells. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whence a storyline in Sam and Fuzzy. —Tamfang (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a joke I saw on some show (Family Guy?) about making music for teenagers, something about one guy (jokingly) commending another guy for being creative enough to find a way to make teenagers feel depressed, isolated, and angry. -- kainaw ™ 13:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In an episode of The Simpsons, at a (Smashing Pumpkins?) gig, Lisa seems impressed with how the crowd seem drawn in. Bart dismisses it all reminding Lisa that "making teenagers feel depressed is like shooting fish in a barrel".Popcorn II (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - that was definitely what my fractured memory was attempting to recall. -- kainaw ™ 22:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I lol'd. --70.54.192.144 (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're assuming that because someone looks good that they're happy. Why? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I guess you're right, you don't understand. Not that I know a whole lot about the intimate motivations of Trent Reznor, but clinical depression, for example, doesn't give a shit about how pretty you are. It's not a factor, any more than it's a factor in getting cancer or being allergic to fish. Not that he needs to have an actual medical problem; the idea that handsome guys are bound to be happy doesn't really hold water, and thinking that it does is, well, kind of juvenile. People are a lot more complex than that. That's a good thing, too. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question also seems to equate success or happiness with "being a model" which is absolutely untrue. Trent's career choice appears to have served him quite well. cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a revealing quote from Robert Smith of the Cure: "At the time we wrote Disintegration ... it's just about what I was doing really, how I felt. But I'm not like that all the time. That's the difficulty of writing songs that are a bit depressing. People think you're like that all the time, but I don't think that. I just usually write when I'm depressed." He's admitted elsewhere that he's generally pretty happy and that life is good for him. —D. Monack ^talk 02:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]