Entertainment desk
< March 20	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	Current desk >

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.

March 21[edit]

How much time do church pianists get to practice before the big Sunday?[edit]

How much time do church pianists get to practice before the big Sunday? Or are they supposed to be advanced enough to be able to sight-read and play immediately, if not in a matter of a few days? Are they allowed to have sheet music, or are they required to play by ear or by finger-memory? 140.254.70.165 (talk) 11:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the answer to your question is that it depends on how the particular church organises things. Most church pianists or organists would expect at least a few days advanced warning of what they will need to play. If they are lucky they might get a bit more - it tends to depend on how well organised whoever is selecting the songs happens to be. Most that I have seen use sheet music, or a hymnbook, to play from - but that does depend on individual skills. I have met a church pianist who couldn't read music - but could play just about anything once she had heard someone else play it first. 109.150.174.93 (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are far too many variables to answer your question completely. When I was a kid, the organist at the church I attended would practice with the choir at least once a week. If I remember correctly, he made his living by giving music lessons. So, he was able to make his own schedule and come by the church when he needed to in order to prepare. But that may not be the case with other churches where the pianist or organist might work a regular Monday - Friday job and only have the weeknights and weekends to prepare. Dismas|^(talk) 13:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For Anglican churches in the UK, organists (or I suppose pianists but most churches here have an organ) accept an annual payment called an honorarium unless the church has a very extensive musical programme and needs a full-time musician. The Royal School of Church Music suggests for "a church with more modest musical provision" a payment of GBP 1,325 to 1,838 (about USD 1,900 to 2,650) annually or a bit more if you are required to manage a choir as well. The suggested rate for additional services is about GBP 50 (USD 72) each. [1] You're not going to get rich! Alansplodge (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I completely misread your question (the perils of trying to do too many things at once). Therefore, I agree with the other editors above - at my church, the organist has the key to the door and practices whenever she has spare time if the church isn't in use for anything else. There is a small budget for buying new music and a several cupboards full of old stuff. Alansplodge (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most church organists/pianists develop a repertoire over time, and many hymns can be sung to different tunes. The Christmas carol "While shepherds watched" has been sung to many tunes, for example the tune known as "On Ilkley Moor Baht 'At". In the area around Sheffield, South Yorkshire, where there are traditional carols sung in their pubs during Advent, up to 14 different tunes are used! So practice becomes less important the longer the organist remains at one church. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linked a phrase for you, hope you don't mind —Tamfang (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The music played in churches tends to use standard chord patterns and singable melodies, nothing too avant garde. It does not need the services of a virtuoso keyboard artist; anyone who can sight read can usually handle the music with little if any trouble. Often, the people who play in churches are involved in other forms of music, such as teaching, conducting choirs, or performing. My piano teacher plays organ at her local church on Sundays; and a friend of mine who's a bass-baritone in Opera Australia also used to play Sunday church organ, but he got into Bach and Buxtehude fugues etc, not for singing to. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Buxtehude Te Deum is a classic piece for a voluntary, if your church is lucky enough to have them. Alansplodge (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal experience: I play in a praise band during the Contemporary service at our church, and as a band we practice about 2 hours per week: one hour a week before the Sunday we perform to go over the set list and work out any kinks on new music, and one hour the morning of the service as a final run through. I would expect other musicians at my church in other roles (i.e. the Choir/Organ/Piano ensemble that leads worship at the "tranditional service" at my church) has similar rehearsal times. --Jayron 32 19:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pop star writing credits[edit]

came up in conversation today...are pop stars able to contractually demand that they be given writing credit to the songs they record/perform, whether they actually contribute to the writing or not...like you'll often see writing credits listed X, Y, Rihanna or Bieber or Beyoncé...where X and Y are professional songwriters...is there a songwriters union that would object to such? or is it just the way it is if you're lucky enough to have a huge star record one of your songs...in other words...is writing credit meaningless as far as determining who actually wrote a song....could even professional songwriters have ghostwriters who they contract with????? 68.48.241.158 (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one relevant article. Here's another. And a third. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks..but these have to do with people who indeed actually write or contribute to writing the songs...my question has to do with big stars (some of whom I'm quite suspicious do no writing of the song whatsoever) but get writing credit..I'd bet it's part of the idea of marketing the as 'artists' etc (as it's all business and marketing at this level)...and ..therefore official writing credits in this regard are totally meaningless...ie writing credit does not equal information about actual composers of the songs....could I front a young musician money in exchange for me being granted writing credit on all his future compositions (and require a confidentiality agreement about this agreement??)...I suppose so...???? 68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the actual "writing credit" can depend on how much contribution the particulars of the performance have to the finished product. See, for a related concept, Threshold of originality, which notes that there is a threshold (which is often a rather fuzzy line) where on one side is "mere recreation of a prior work" and on the other side is "contributed original, novel concepts which themselves confer intellectual property rights". In recording, this can mean that a singer or instrumentalist who merely faithfully reproduces what a writer or composer has told them to do may not garner a writing credit, while one that adds significant contributions to a performance can get one. For a famous example, see singer Clare Torry, who was initially declined a songwriting credit on the Pink Floyd tune "The Great Gig in the Sky", but which courts later determined that she should have gotten one because her contributions crossed the threshold of originality. You are correct, also, however, in assuming that there's some politicking and negotiation involved in this: Songwriting credits (and thus cuts of royalties) are often granted to performers for marginal contributions to the song itself. Here's is a notable interview with Elvis Presley, who received songwriting credit for many of his songs which even he himself admits he had nothing to do with: "It's all a big hoax, honey. I never wrote a song in my life. I get one-third of the credit for recording it. It makes me look smarter than I am. I've never even had an idea for a song. Just once, maybe." In other words, he's very frank about the business decision to give him songwriter credit (which grants him a greater share of the royalties) despite by the time of that interview (1957) having not written a single hit; though he does state that he came up with the original idea behind "All Shook Up". --Jayron 32 16:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

okay, thanks..that Elvis quote is perfect...think goes to show that listed writing credit can not be relied upon as information pertaining to people who actually contributed to a composition...ie one would have to dig deeper to make such a determination...but you'll see people get all excited and suggest how talented someone is...like Beiber or Beyoncé or Timberlake (it's fine if people think they're talented..whatever) but cite the fact that they write their own songs...but this is simply BS in a huge number of cases, I suspect..though difficult to prove/verify that it's BS...meaning these dumb claims are technically valid.. (love to privately hear about Beyoncé's contributions from the professional writers she shares credit with....) 68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another famous example is Lennon–McCartney. Early in their career, the two agreed that any composition that either worked on for The Beatles would be credited jointly to both. During the earliest years of the Beatles, they genuinely collaborated, sitting down together and composing as a team. As the dynamics of the band changed, eventually they started composing mostly independently, getting later contributions from the other, and at times, some of their songs were entirely composed by one with no contribution from the other. However, ALL songs written by EITHER John Lennon or Paul McCartney for the Beatles get joint credit regardless of who did the actual work of writing. You can generally tell who the majority (or sometimes even sole) songwriter was by the primary vocalist on the song; but sometimes that will lead you astray. Actually determining who wrote each song, and exactly what parts, requires some extensive research. For the Beatles, a lot of this work was done by biographers and musicologists such as Mark Lewisohn. Not all bands or artists have such dedicated historians, though. --Jayron 32 17:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, familiar with the lennon/McCartney arrangement...definitely a relevant example as far as the credit being a legal/business construct as opposed to actually meant to identify exact composers...I do think there's the aspect too of it being used for vanity/marketing/mythmaking as well, particulary for highly artificial pop stars..as the Elvis thing points to...but pop music is by nature a lot of artifice and promotion etc..in some cases more than others...but even the beatles would never have been THE BEATLES (as far as the hyped phenomenon) but for the uncredited behind the scenes work of dozens upon dozens of people... 68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it discussed with reference to Beyonce Robbie Williams and other boyband people although I don't have a particular source. It's been called "change a word, claim a third." It may be done to enhance their credibility by making it seem like they write songs when all they do is change a few words to fit their voice at most, although if the songwriter is Swedish it doesn't feel so ridiculous that they would seek the artist's input for some more idiomatic lyrics. I seem to recall somewhere it being very hyped on Taylor Swift's third album that none of the songs had any co-write credits in order to emphasise that she wasn't doing this. Blythwood (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for a movie to work on Wikipedia[edit]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4624454/ - where the film can be viewed on the Internet? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You already asked this question on another desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And was advised to bring it here. —Tamfang (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Then he should port all the text from the other desk, to avoid redundant effort.~~ ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved verbatim from the Humanities desk. Tidy up as needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4624454/ - where the film can be viewed on the Internet? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a strange title and the wrong place, if you wish to watch Riddle of the Mayan Cave (1969) online. The Entertainment Desk is the correct place to ask. Also, we would need to know which country, as licensing varies by nation. The IMDB entry only lists the name of the narrator (E G Marshall) and associate producer, and very little other info, making me think it's a rather obscure movie. StuRat (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB says it's American and in English. But it's definitely too obscure for any of the places I look to "borrow" movies (streaming-wise, anyway). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The Entertainment Desk is the correct place to ask." Entertainment Desk - what's this? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. 87.81.154.77 (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~You also raised this question on another desk. You should confine it to just one desk, to avoid confusion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

So what's the answer to my question? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is that the film cannot be viewed on the internet. --Viennese Waltz 19:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even find it on the P2P. It was made by ABC Productions, which now ostensibly is the Disney–ABC Television Group. You might try to ask someone there to have a look in the archives, but I'd imagine there'll be some red tape and money involved. If you want it bad enough, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's the P2P? —Tamfang (talk) 07:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer-to-peer --Viennese Waltz 11:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was an adjective. —Tamfang (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, yeah. "Peer-to-peer network". By the same token, the London Underground is actually an underground transit system. But cool kids never have the time. I used to be cool. That's my excuse. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]