Template:Did you know nominations/Ludwig van (film)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BlueMoonset (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ludwig van (film)[edit]

(
)

Created/expanded by Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk). Self nom at 09:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  • So far so good--new article, long enough, hook properly verified. I made a few tweaks, most importantly to the title: I wonder if the article itself should be moved (renamed), though the Guardian does not include "A report", and perhaps the author can comment. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The analysis section certainly reads much better now (and interesting additions to ichirizuka); re the title, it seems usually to be referred to as simply Ludwig van - in the Grove entry for Kagel, for instance, it features in both the narrative and the list of works without the subtitle; could axe (film) but that helps distinguish it from his piece of music of the same name, which in time someone might write about; might connect best with google searches under this heading too, don't know; wouldn't object to a move though if you have a strong preference, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, if you say it's "Ludwig van", then "Ludwig van" it is--but then you need to adjust the first sentence. It is not impossible for the English title and the German title to be slightly different, BTW--what matters is what is most current in English, and what is most current in German. So tweak it as you see fit. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Tweaked I believe, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Drmies (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I've got one comment on this. I don't find the Hook entirely hooky. Could we consider something that mentions that the soundtrack is distorted to imitate the way Beethoven would have heard it? Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Sure--go for it. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

ALT1: ... that the soundtrack of Ludwig van, a film exploring responses to the life and works of Ludwig van Beethoven, is distorted to imitate the way the deaf composer heard it?

  • That's nice, Ryan--thanks. "Life and work" is a bit redundant, I see now, and what's interesting also is that it's his own music. How about this:
Good suggestion and alts; I guess if length is an issue it could be simplified as: Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC) PS an illustrated example...
ALT3: ... that the soundtrack of Kagel's film Ludwig van is distorted to imitate the way in which the deaf composer may have heard his music?
  • Question: Would a short sound clip meet the requirements for NFCC? The sound clip couldn't be taken from the YouTube video, but if there was another way of getting the sound clip around 1:50 that would really add to the article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Initially I was wondering what NFCC (the Pakistan National Football Challenge Cup) had to do with anything; I think it would certainly be good and it looks like it perhaps might be possible rule-wise; unfortunately, however, I have no access to a recording at my current abode so, unless anyone else happens to, we're in mañana territory, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The ALT hooks need to be reviewed before they can be used. Given the complaint about the original hook, that might be a good idea... BlueMoonset (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The basic facts underlying the three alt hooks are supported by the article and the cited source. However, I hesitate over the word "distorted", which does not appear in the source. In the context of music and other sounds, I think the word "distortion" usually refers to effects that may be perceived as harsh or dissonant (see Distortion (music)). From the source, I get the impression that the "deformation" of the music in this film may have taken away from the sound, which is not the same as Distortion (music). Accordingly, let's use "altered" or "modified" in the hook in place of "distorted." My preference for a hook would be the following rewording of the alt hooks:
  • ALT4: ... that the fragments of Beethoven's music in the soundtrack of Kagel's film Ludwig van are modified to imitate the way the deaf composer heard his own work?
Interesting hook! --Orlady (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
ALT4 looks good to me, thanks; (re the "distortion", this is very much in a non-pop, non-fuzzbox sense; with google as friend, "distortion" may be found used with reference to the soundtrack by sources as varied as Edition Peters [1], the Sydney Morning Herald [2], and a PhD musicology dissertation [3], inter many alia; there's also no entry for distortion in the 29 vols of The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, although that does attempt to be more inclusive by mentioning the Beatles etc. In case there is confusion though I've switched the wording on the page to match); thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Still good. See ALT4. --Orlady (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Ludwig_van_(film)&oldid=829230752"