Entertainment desk
< January 18	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 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.

January 19[edit]

13[edit]

Why do many TV series have a number of episodes that is a multiple of 13? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 04:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's 1/4th of a year? Just a guess. --Jayron32 04:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the Late-2000s recession and the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike, many recent series from the US have had their episode count reduced from typically 26/24 episodes per season to sometimes as low as 20 or even 18 episodes per season. Category:Lists of television series episodes should provide suitable example. Astronaut (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought what Jayron thought, but TV series says "it is typical for a show's season to comprise 13 or 20–26 consecutive episodes between September and December or January and May. This is done to take advantage of the Nielsen Ratings system which calculates viewer numbers during these times." This is not referenced in the article. Maybe both are true.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Nielsen_ratings#Sweeps. You'll find that there are 4 weeks in each of the four "sweeps" periods, resulting in 16 total weeks where the ratings "count"; advertisers set the rates they pay for commercials based mostly on the ratings during "sweeps" periods. The other 10 episodes in a standard season's run are usually run just prior to sweeps period to generate interest in a show. The weeks immediately after a sweeps period almost never feature first-run episodes. Additionally, the July sweeps is not as important as the other three months, as TV viewership as a whole sharply declines in the summer; some shows will forgo new episodes during the July sweeps for this reason. --Jayron32 16:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the old days, a standard season often had 39 episodes, and 13 reruns or replacements during the summer. The "classic 39" of The Honeymooners, for example. That has eroded over time to 26 and 26, or worse. Not a hard-and-fast rule, though; for example, I Love Lucy averaged about 30 per year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TV stations will now show heavily abridged seasons but still call them a "season". A station here recently advertised a new season of Cold Case, but after only the second episode they said that was the end of the season and next week they'd be showing some new program. Ironically, they've now gone back to reruns of old Cold Case episodes, so it's not as if it was unpopular. Weird. But that station is renowned for advertising a certain program in newspaper guides and even earlier in the day on the TV, but then showing a completely different program when the time comes, but without any warning, explanation or apology. We've come to understand that you get what you get, not what they said you were going to get. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recession = smaller audiences?[edit]

In researching my answer to the question immediately above, I noticed some shows have had a reduced episode count (said to be due to the need to save money) and some have been cancelled (again due to the need to save money, but equally due to lower audience figures). Are lower audience figures connected to the recession? I would have thought more people laid off would increase TV audiences - I know that when I was out of work, I saved money by staying in and watching a lot of TV. Astronaut (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there is theoretically a bigger available audience, that doesn't mean they will watch anything that's aired. The audience still needs to watch the show, and networks are not giving series as much time as they have in the past. The last few TV seasons have seen a number of series canceled after only a handful of episodes. For example, this season's Lone Star and My Generation were canceled after two airings each. Both shows had poorly-viewed debut episodes, with their second episodes having even fewer viewers. Beyond the quality issue, there's also quantity. Even recession-squeezed viewers who have simple cable packages still have dozens of channels to watch, each one competing for their attention. That completely excludes the Internet and its various offerings (such as Netflix and Hulu), gaming consoles, etc. --McDoob AU 93 06:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's probably more a function of the fact that advertisers have less money to spend, regardless of how many people are watching TV. There's just less money in the pot for everyone, so everyone feels the pinch in some way. More eyes on a TV show doesn't necessarily translate into more cash instantly; if there's not as much cash being spent on commercials, the networks can't afford to pay for new episodes, especially of expensive episodic TV, rather than running reruns, or relatively cheap gameshows like Wipeout (2008 U.S. game show) and "celebreality" type stuff. --Jayron32 06:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron raises a good point ... scripted television series can be expensive, so networks are looking for big ratings to offset the cost, hence the relatively short leashes they put these shows on. On the other hand, reality and game shows are generally much cheaper to produce, and thus don't need huge audiences to be considered successful. COPS is an example of a low-rated TV series that has stayed on the air for two decades, even though its ratings on a given night were only a few points higher than the debut of Lone Star earlier this season. --McDoob AU 93 06:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite telling to note that nearly all of the really good dramatic episodic television for the last decade has come from cable TV networks. The top three broadcasters of the most critically acclaimed hour-long dramas in the U.S. (usually the most expensive shows to produce) are HBO (The Sopranos, The Wire), AMC (Breaking Bad, Mad Men), and FX (Sons of Anarchy, Rescue Me). Economically, it makes sense that these networks, with MUCH lower overhead for the rest of their operation, can afford to air such shows that network TV will shy away from. Look at AMC, they basically show reruns of 70's and 80's era movies for like 22 hours per day, and show maybe 1-2 original dramas per day. Since it essentially costs nothing to show Smokey and the Bandit 2, that means that almost all of their costs is concentrated on those 1-2 expensive dramas. With broadcast networks, HUGE costs go into maintaining news departments, for example. Despite the proliferation of so-called "news channels", very little actual journalism goes on on CNN, FoxNews, and MSNBC; they are basically political commentary mixed in with celebrity gossip. Broadcast network news on the original Big Three networks (ABC, NBC, and CBS) is really the only place for real TV journalism, but that journalism is expensive, and tends to put a pinch on the budgets elsewhere. --Jayron32 16:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please help track down a mix album from the 90s[edit]

I was given a mix tape in the 90s that I listened to constantly, but lost. About 5 years ago, I heard all the songs in a club in the same order as my old mix tape, so I know it must exist as an album somewhere. I wished i'd asked the dj what the album was, but I didn't. In the 90s, it might have been described as hip hop/swing/R&B. Definite song titles included in the album are: is it good to you; yo!, that's a lot of body; i like your style; rump shaker. Other songs I think might be in there, although i'm not sure of the titles are: milkshake; let's have a quickie; serious. Please help me track down this album. Many thanks to all ref deskers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.88.74 (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One place to start is the highly popular Now That's What I Call Music! series of mixtapes. --Jayron32 16:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jayron. It's not a NTWICM compilation album - the closest I could find was Mastercut's "New Jack Swing" volumes, but they only have some of the tracks i've listed above. I was hoping someone with better search skills than me could find it or recommend sites other than amazon to search on. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.88.74 (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Yeti" means?[edit]

In the movie This is England Woody says "Brush him down. He looks like a Yeti!" What does he means when he says "Yeti"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.177.126 (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As always, try us first. We have articles on most things. Britmax (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, of course, but I'm not sure if this is what he referred too. Are you sure? He says it to the girls after Shaun's haircut. 217.132.177.126 (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he's referring to Shaun's snow-like dandruff. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the speaker is treating Yeti as synonymous with Bigfoot, which is described as "hairy". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen the film, but if someone said to me "He looks like a yeti" I would imagine someone with wild unmanagable hair that made him look like a hairy monster. APL (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like he must have had hair clippings all over his clothing. It would be like saying he looks like the wolfman... or perhaps Gossamer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeti normally refers to the Abominable snowman... a big mountain ape...--78.100.32.21 (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What song did Joe Cocker sing in a cat food commercial?[edit]

The only words I remember are "all right".Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem to suggest "Feelin' Alright" but I looked at a lyrics site earlier today when I felt safer not being at home, but I couldn't remember any of those lyrics being in the commercial. And nothing else came up in a web search.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been a "sound alike" singing a bastardized version of the song, and not Cocker himself. That happens all the time. --Jayron32 20:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a sound alike he was really good. It's not a recent commercial. I heard the song in another context. It starts with a jazz piano.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feelin' Alright starts with jazz (well, more honky-tonk) piano, backed with congas. 213.122.0.197 (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what honky-tonk is, but there are many styles of jazz. The commercial music is the type of jazz that would be connected with tough guys.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was it any of these lyrics? Bus stop (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed many types of jazz, but I'm not sure what that one is. :) There are also many types of tough guys. 1930s gangsters? Cowboys? Cops from 70s TV shows? 213.122.0.197 (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was it wasn't smooth jazz. And seeing the lyrics didn't help. It might work if I search tomorrow for "Feelin' Alright" and specific cat food brands, though if that kind of search would give results I don't know why my original attempt didn't work.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That leaves everything from big band to free jazz, via hard bop and acid jazz and a number of other detours. Further googling, anyway, suggests that the cat food brand in question was [1] "Friskies". I will throw in the Charles Mingus Cat Toilet Training Program as a point of interest. 81.131.13.218 (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that ASCAP link confirms it. Thanks.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed duplicate of the following question 213.122.0.197 (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

How do you put a picture for something such as a band on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XEmoChikX (talk • contribs) 22:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of question is better asked at the helpdesk, but basically, there's an "upload file" link in the sidebar to the left. (It's in "Toolbox"). That should walk you through the process. APL (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying a tune[edit]

Hey can someone please tell the tune from 5:34 to 5:53 in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAeyBi-vgMs? I think I heard it in a classical piece before and I'm pretty sure it's not Hans Zimmer's style (his style is big epic) Gud music only (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That 21-second bit reminds me of one of the themes from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's like a second cousin of the opening of Mozart's Requiem. -- (Jack of Moz) Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it sounds like Star Trek (which I guess it sort of does), maybe it's influenced by one of Holst's Planets (as most Star Wars and Star Trek music is). Adam Bishop (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz, what do you mean by 2nd cousin? Also I don't think its in Holst's planets and I don't think its mozart's style. Gud music only (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the limping, sighing quality of it reminded me briefly of the Requiem. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart's requiem isn't an original piece is it? I read somewhere he borrowed most, if not all, of the themes from previous composers, so that tune is probably written by someone else before him (Bach maybe?) Gud music only (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly news to me. Do you have a citation? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I read it somewhere on wikipedia, maybe in the page Requiem (Mozart) but that page has gone under heavy revision. I would just like to express my opinion here a bit. I think Mozart gained so much fame and popularity because of his highly romanticised death, owing a major credit to the film Amadeus (film). To me, this is how he became to be regarded among the ranks of the real masters like Bach, Haydn and Beethoven. Also you might like to take a look at Muzio Clementi#Clementi and Mozart. It might also be news to you that his last opera The Magic Flute has its major themes borrowed from Clementi. I'm not trying to be a hater or anything just expressing my opinion and pointing out some facts. I have listened to a lot of his music and I admit some of them like Symphony No.29 and Don Giovanni are very impressive but then again many famous (but not of historical status) people have written good music. Above all, I don't know if those two pieces are original. Gud music only (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amadeus certainly brought Mozart to the ears of many new listeners. But he was way famous well before even the invention of the cinema. As for quoting that one theme by Clementi, that sort of thing was hardly unprecedented. But that's still only 1 theme Mozart borrowed from Clementi, not "major themes" (pl.). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Salzburg Festival exists since 1877 and the Glyndebourne Festival Opera has been in existence since 1934 (when Peter Shaffer was 8, Miloš Forman was 2 and Tom Hulce was -9). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]