Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
Main page: Help searching Wikipedia
How can I get my question answered?
- Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
- Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
- Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
- Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
- Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
- Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.
How do I answer a question?
Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines
- The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
July 29
[edit]Music notation oddity
[edit]This is something I've never seen before, in over 60 years of piano playing. The key signature of this piece (the first piece in the set, P. 2 is in 6 flats but the 6th flat (C-flat) is enclosed in parentheses. This raises questions before I've even read the first measure: How am I to interpret this? But lo and behold, in that first measure there's a C in the bass stave, but with a natural sign (♮). This tells me the C-flat in the key signature is to be obeyed. A C-natural appears in every single measure of the piece, and not a single C-flat. In other words, the key signature tells the player to play Cs as C-flats everywhere except where otherwise indicated; yet in every single case he does otherwise indicate. It all seems to be rather pointless.
It seems to be in a sort of weird version of E-flat minor, and not B-flat minor, so the 6-flat key signature is appropriate. It seems to be a cousin of the E-flat melodic minor scale, except that that scale naturalises both the C and D when ascending, and flattens both when descending. Ryazanov's scale naturalises only the C-flat universally. Many of the D-flats are also naturalised, but not all. When they're to be played as D-flat, they're marked with an explicit flat sign (♭) in the score, even though the key signature requires them to be flattened anyway. More pointlessness.
What am I to make of this pre-war Soviet oddity? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- So two things are notationally odd: the parenthesis in the signature, and the explicit flattening of the D-flats (as well of some other notes that are flats per the key signature, as in bars 9 and 11). Explicitly indicating already implied alterations is actually not uncommon when in the context playing naturals may feel more natural to one's fingers; I can't tell if this may have played a role here. One scenario for the odd key signature I can think of is that the composer originally only wrote the five flats that were needed, but was berated by his composition teacher because the key theoretically required six, and then half-heartedly wrote the sixth flat in. ‑‑Lambiam 19:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- I get that, and thanks. What I don't get is: having gone through and laboriously added naturals to all instances of the note C, why confuse the player with parenthesising the C-flat in the key signature? Either it's part of the signature or it isn't, but the parentheses make it look like a bet each way. Naturals always countermand a previous instruction, whether in the same bar or in the general key signature. Hence the C-flat in the key signature does definitely apply, and the player is left in no doubt that they're playing the right notes. It's just a stupidly clunky way of doing things; adding tons of accidentals when there are already 6 flats in the key does not endear one to players. It must have snuck past his teacher on the way to the publisher.
- FWIW, this is one of those pieces that look really interesting on the page, but sound dreck to the ears. Stalin's mid-30s Russia was a pretty dreck place ... -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- There were plenty of shows though. DuncanHill (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- Sometimes you see this with music that is written in the Dorian mode or other ancient modes which don't have their 'own' key signature in the modern sense of musical notation. The root in your example is E♭, and an E♭ minor key signature would normally include six flat symbols. An E♭ Dorian mode only 'needs' five flat symbols, but a musician of the 20th century might automatically associate five flat symbols in the key signature with either B♭ minor or D♭ major, so adding the sixth flat symbol in parentheses (and then canceling it with ♮ on every occasion within the music) is one way of signalizing that its root is E♭, not B♭. For example, Bach's "Dorian" Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 538 normally has no key signature, but you can find sheet music with a flat symbol in parentheses in the key signature. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:56, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks to Lambiam and Sluzzelin, both of whose ideas make a lot of sense to me. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:12, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
ResolvedAugust 2
[edit]A question for finding the Arabic CG Astroganger sequel asked by a blocked user on Teahouse interests me
[edit]| LTA evading block. Athanelar (talk) 14:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
They said this information is on the Japanese Wikipedia article for Astroganger and multiple Japanese websites. However, this user coundl’t find the Arabic CG Astroganger sequel series. When asked whatever or not this information is vandalism done in the Japanese Wikipedia, they said that this information is on multiple Japanese websites. Astroganger was very popular in Arabic-speaking world, and was also kind of popular in Spain and Italy. While i’m not from either of these countries, i do know Astroganger and i am interested about finding the Astroganger sequel. So this blocked user isn’t the only one talking about the Astroganger sequel in the Teahouse. I would like if we could find the Astroganger sequel. ~2026-42678-73 (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
|
August 3
[edit]questions about the song "Return to Innocence"
[edit]Is Return to Innocence a New-age and worldbeat song? Is yes, there any reliable source for helping me for making this article as Wikipedia:GA? VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 00:54, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- This article can be used to support the "new-age" and "worldbeat" genre labels. ‑‑Lambiam 09:45, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
Can you guys confirm this text?
[edit]Is a true that Return to Innocence was released in December 1993 by Virgin Records as the lead single from the group's second album? yes, there any reliable source for helping me for making this article as Wikipedia:GA? VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 23:25, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
August 5
[edit]Newspapers
[edit]If a newspaper is published five days in a week - all except Saturday and Sunday - would it be called a "daily newspaper" then? And in English-speaking countries, are there any newspapers that are published two or three times in a week? Many newspapers in Finland are published in such a density. --40bus (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
- Depending on the context, yes it might be described as a daily, but the lack of weekend editions would probably be noted. I don't know the newspaper trade any more these days, but not publishing perfectly weekly or perfectly daily is still unusual I think (though see The Meridian Star). Of course, when everything is online the concept of days and editions is almost meaningless. If I heard of a paper that printed/published twice a week or something, I would assume it was a local or regional paper and not a serious publication. Canadian context. There are sections or articles on dailies and weeklies. Matt Deres (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
- It is becoming common:
- "The once-routine, seven-day-a-week print run is disappearing, with 42 of the largest 100 newspapers now delivering a print edition six or fewer times a week. Eleven of those largest dailies publish in printed form only one or two times a week." Northestern
- The same article explains that 'daily' and 'weekly' are used as value terms, not necessarily frequency. So, the definition of 'daily' still means "more often than weekly" but not necessarily 7 days a week. ~2026-41824-87 (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
- Traditionally in the UK, daily newspapers published Monday–Saturday but not Sunday, however a particular daily was/is often closely associated with a Sunday (only) paper having a similar graphic design (and some overlap of staff), though much thicker and often with one or more supplementary colour magazine(s); these would be called something like The Daily Gossip, and The Sunday Gossip with its accompanying Sunday Gossip Magazine. Some Sunday newspapers, however, had/have no associated daily.
- A variation was the influential London daily newspaper The Evening Standard (at times in its long history being an evening edition of The Standard, but latterly appearing from the early morning like other papers, though with updated editions appearing later in the day). This was published Monday–Friday with a Weekend edition appearing on Saturday to also cover Sunday, but in recent years this has been reduced to a weekly free paper.
- Other 'provincial' papers have always appeared once weekly, often on Thursday. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
- USA Today is considered a "daily", though it does not have Saturday or Sunday editions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:57, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
- A little odder, the Daily Illini (student paper at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) is – or, as of 1981, was – published Tuesday-Saturday. —Antonissimo (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- The masthead on the Chicago Tribune for Sundays used to say Chicago Sunday Tribune, until they changed it starting with the edition of February 17, 1963. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)