Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Three Christmas Carols

< Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates

Three Christmas Carols edit

Three carols performed by the chorus of the U.S. Army Band. There's more to come, but I want to keep the length reasonable. I'm not going to nominate EVERY carol in the U.S. Army's Christmas Album (a few are in strange arrangements that make them unusable for presenting the carol as normally sung), but there's enough good stuff in there that it's worth nominating a good chunk more than this.

These should be considered three separate nominations, grouped together due to similar quality. Feel free to oppose one, but not another, for example.

15th century – This Endris Night
"This Endris Night", a 15th-century English Christmas carol performed by the U.S. Army Band Chorus.
Late 16th century – Lo, How a Rose E'er Blooming
"Lo, How a Rose E'er Blooming", an 1894 English translation of the 16th-century German Christmas carol, "Es ist ein Ros entsprungen". Performed by the chorus of the U.S. Army Band, c. 2010.
1917 – Gesù bambino
Gesù bambino, a 1917 Italian Christmas carol by Pietro Yon, in an English translation by Frederick H. Martens. Performed by the chorus of the U.S. Army Band, c. 2010.

Very well performed, and, let's face it, we'll need some stuff for December. =)

Support all edit

  • Support all - In order of preference: the second item, the third one then the first one. The second file is a beautiful a cappella arrangement, and I agree with Tony that this choir sounds at its best unaccompanied. I adore "Jesu Bambino", but I think it's missing something without the higher voices in the choir, and it sounds better in its original language. However the arrangement grew on me by the end of the recording, and the solo singer has a pleasant voice. The first recording isn't really my style, but it's a good performance. Graham87 06:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all - though the organ is unusually loud in the first one, I don't really have any major concerns. — La Pianista ♫ ♪ 01:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all - Superb quality and singing. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:54pm • 07:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all - Great singing throughout. I didn't "like" the organ in the first one, but for me I think it passes muster. Major Bloodnok (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1, 2, 3 or 1&2, 2&3 or 1&3 edit

  • Support first one. Why can't we vote on the separate files? Not up to the superb standard of the US Army Band band. It's still good, though—lovely control of vibrato, dynamics, colour, by the singers, although one of the basses has a relatively dry voice that doesn't mix with the other voices so well. Unlike the voices, the organ is a boring (characterless) sound, and a bit "close", IMO. I wonder why the tech has put a savage diminuendo at the end. The vocal arrangement is nice, although the cadential bridges on the organ are underwhelming (the ensemble sounds much better when a cappella (2 mins +); it appears to be in a 20th-century English churchy style (those whacky modulations in the bridging sections are a laugh), but why is the composer/arranger not given on the description page? Tony (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The U.S. Army doesn't always document the arrangements, particularly if they're done "in house" - as I understand it, it's meant to be be an army thing, not individuals. As for the composer, I don't believe it's known; it's a traditional song from the 1400s. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2 and 3 the organ is overpowering and the voices don't mix well on number 1. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1; support 2 and 3—agree with Guerillero. I find the first one weird, and the organ is a problem. The second isn't a modern arrangement, thank god, but the original, and is excellent. The third is nice enough; I can live with what I think is a vibrato too full-on in the soloist. Tony (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If either of you mean for these to be taken as an oppose on the first, you will need to say. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other discussion edit

  • Since there's differing consensus on each of these, perhaps they should be split? Or at least split the voting section here into three sections? I don't like the interpretive dance of trying to find a consensus among a "choose from A, B, or C, or more than one, or none" style nomination. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there is a 2/3 supermajority on each piece anyways even with the individual opposes --Guerillero | My Talk 20:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's clear consensus to promote 2&3 but not so much consensus to promote 1 - 4 votes for all (inc. Adam's), 2 votes for 2 & 3 so the votes stand at 4 votes for the first and 6 votes for 2 & 3. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 5:55pm • 06:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • After a new vote, it's 5 votes, 2 opposes for 1, 7 votes for 2&3. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it's fair to say there's clear consensus for 2&3 and significant consensus for 1? —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 8:00pm • 09:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • It would be inappropriate for me to speculate, as I'm the nominator. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Closure edit

Not promoted per above consensus, concerns widely stated re. organ. -- Chzz  ►  04:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted per consensus -- Chzz  ►  04:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted per consensus -- Chzz  ►  04:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request
Next time, please just list as three separate noms. (Unless there's 10+ sounds, it is easier to keep things simple, I think)  Chzz  ►  04:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_sound_candidates/Three_Christmas_Carols&oldid=1191660280"