Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/The Mikado
The Mikado edit
Obviously, there's some static, and, though this can be decreased - which it has, have a listen to Image:1914 - Edison Light Opera Company - Favorite airs from The Mikado (unrestored).ogg] - this cylinder was not in the best condition to start with, and some had to remain.
Whatever happens here, this is going to be part of the articles it's in for some time, barring us discovering other, better preserved cylinders of similar quality. However, I think that the early date, interesting features like the performance of Tit-Willow - a very typical performance in early recordings, and completely different from how it's done now - and some fine performances make this worthy of featured sound despite its flaws. You may disagree, and, if so, Well! I'll just have to do even better next time. But do have a listen and decide for yourself =)
Used in W. S. Gilbert, Gilbert and Sullivan, Arthur Sullivan, and The Mikado
- Nominate and support. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support. --Kleinzach 03:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. It might be the sound in the worst quality among the currently nominated files.--Caspian blue (talk) 04:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Fair comment, though I've done the best I could. With early cylinders, the restorer really is constrained by the quality of what's available, not a theoretical best, unless they are doing the work professionally, and thus have the resources of a major company behind them. I do think, though, that the performances are quite good, even if noone would ever sing Tit-Willow like that anymore. The restoration of a rather degraded cylinder has a cost, but I don't think the cost was excessive. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC) [Edited: edits italicised. I had used "you" where I didn't mean "the person reading", but just that generic you that people use when talking about hypotheticals].
- You ask me to edit the sound file before complaining the quality in spite of the careful reminder on the historical value and technical problems above? Yes, you have spent a lot of you time having finding, nominating and sometimes editing sound files to become FS. However, I don't want to do so because I'm not the nominator. I only say my opinion from readers/listeners' stance. I thought I have tough ears to endure bad quality sounds (I have quite fair amount of historical LPs), but obviously I don't. Yesterday, I think I tortured my ears to listen to 5 files here. I was very disappointed at a fs after listening to it and wondered "how could this be a "featured sound"? So I would continue to leave my honest opinion on sounds.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, that wasn't clear - the "you" is simply a rhetorical substitute for "the person doing the editing". I'll edit it, italicizing the edits =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- You ask me to edit the sound file before complaining the quality in spite of the careful reminder on the historical value and technical problems above? Yes, you have spent a lot of you time having finding, nominating and sometimes editing sound files to become FS. However, I don't want to do so because I'm not the nominator. I only say my opinion from readers/listeners' stance. I thought I have tough ears to endure bad quality sounds (I have quite fair amount of historical LPs), but obviously I don't. Yesterday, I think I tortured my ears to listen to 5 files here. I was very disappointed at a fs after listening to it and wondered "how could this be a "featured sound"? So I would continue to leave my honest opinion on sounds.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support. The audio quality is very good for the period. Despite the obvious hiss, the performance comes through very clearly throughout the recording, which is unusual and delightful for audio from the era. Vassyana (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm going to leave this open for another few days with the hope that more people weigh in here. If a few more days pass without comment, I'll close this discussion. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- To MZMcBride: Please don't ignore opposition and pass this recording as you did with {{Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Le trompeur trompé}} and {{Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Hunters' Chorus from ''The Lily of Killarney''}}. That devalues the process. I am supporting this nomination but it should not pass without a positive consensus. --Kleinzach 00:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose it is only extracts of the opera. Zginder 2008-10-12T17:17Z (UTC)
- Well, yes, but we can't always get a complete one, and I think it's a useful quick overview. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I thought I'd try to tweak this one a bit - I only started doing sound restorations a couple months ago, so this month-old one seemed ripe for another try (as, alas, do several of the other ones I've done. Ah, well, I'll get through them in time. Anyway, try this one. The first few seconds are the same - that part was much more heavily degreaded - but I think the rest - particularly Three Little Maids - comes off a lot better.
Nominate and support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, any objections if I withdraw this, and put the new restoration up to the top? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted (1914 - Edison Light Opera Company - Favorite airs from The Mikado (restored).ogg). Feel free to re-list a new version. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)