Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

• For promoted entries, add '''Promoted Example.ogg''' --~~~~ to the bottom of the entry, replacing Example.ogg with the file that was promoted.
• For entries not promoted, add '''Not promoted''' --~~~~ to the bottom of the entry.
• For entries demoted, add '''Demoted Example.ogg''' --~~~~ to the bottom of the entry.

Use variants as appropriate, e.g. with a large set of files, all of which pass, '''Promoted all''' is fine, but if one of them didn't pass for some reason, make sure that's clear.

Va! laisse couler mes larmes

While it must be admitted that little firm information exists about this recording, the licensing is not in doubt, and it provides an excellent introduction to an opera for which few free recordings exist at this time. It is, admittedly, a piano reduction, but I think you'll understand that orchestras need paid, and very few recordings have modern sound quality, full orchestra, and a free licence.

• Nominate and support. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 200 FCs served} 00:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support—BTW, I thought nominators no longer formally added "Support". Pity no pianist's name, but I understand there was little info. Can you change the hyphens to en dashes for the year ranges? I'd have done it myself, but couldn't work out how to edit the page. Tony (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure! I'll sort it out. I agree about the pianist - I nearly skipped over FPC witht his one, but it is a very good recording. She also did a very nice Seguidilla from Carmen, same lack of info. I'll sort through her stuff and nominate one a day. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 200 FCs served} 00:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but do change the title to "Va! laisse couler mes larmes". ReverendWayne (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Sorry about that: The site I got it from had a typo in it. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 200 FCs served} 12:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't want to rock the boat in an area where I have no contribution history, so this is not an official comment, but...I would support this as a Good Sound (if there was such a thing) but I wonder if it should be Featured, seeing as it is a piano reduction. Yes, it is difficult to get free high quality modern recordings with full orchestra. I understand that we would feature a historical recording with poor sound quality if it was a historically significant artist. Jeanette Ekornaasvaag, as far as I can tell on google search, is not a significant artist. I would say that if we got a free recording of a piano reduction by a significant artist (Renee Fleming, Maria Callas, etc) or if we had a really good quality recording by a lesser known singer with orchestra, it should be featured, but a piano reduction by a lesser known artist, it's not clear to me that this should be Featured. As I said, I'm new to this so will defer to more experienced editors, but, I wanted to raise the issue. Thatcher 16:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a tough one, but I think that this being from a fairly rarely-performed opera does help push it over the top, by making it much more unlikely we'll find better. I also think that, for pragmatic reasons, it'd be a bad idea to say that piano reductions are automatically unfeaturable: We want to encourage people to contribute material to Wikipedia, and it's reasonable to expect Wikipedians to record with piano, but getting an orchestra good enough to feature really is difficult. So we'd probably be wise to let it pass for now. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 200 FCs served} 12:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Amazing quality. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File -- Jeanette_Ekornaasvaag - Jules Massenet - Werther - "Va!_laisse_couler_mes_larmes".ogg --Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 23:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Field cricket

A few weeks ago I was looking for the sound of crickets, and was surprised to find no freely licensed cricket sounds on enwiki or on commons. I found some on the internet, but they did not have compatible licenses. Frustration! Then a couple nights ago I heard a cricket in my garage, so like a good Wikipedian I recorded and uploaded it. I have about a minute of the song, but thought that much more than 10 seconds was redundant. I can, however, make a longer or higher bitrate recording if necessary. I added the sound to Gryllus pennsylvanicus, Cricket (insect) and Field cricket; after all, how can you have a multimedia encyclopedia article about crickets that goes into great detail about their song, without an example? It's a clean high quality free recording, so why not nominate it?

• Nominate and support. Thatcher 19:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, though I'd suggest uploading the unedited version as well, to allow comparison. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 198 FCs served} 20:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean the 1 minute master or the 10 second clip without the band pass filter? Thatcher 20:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uploaded the 10 sec clip without the band pass filter. Thatcher 22:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support—In retrospect, the unfiltered version seems hardly necessary, although there may be a verification purpose in retaining it on the page. I copy-edited the Description. Tony (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just good practice: It lets people see if, say, the filter removed part of the sound of the crickets (it doesn't seem to have) and provides a starting point if someone wants to re-edit (Probably unnecessary). Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 200 FCs served} 00:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Next time I tell a joke, and no one gets it, I'll have a great sound file to play. ReverendWayne (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Field cricket Gryllus pennsylvanicus.ogg --Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 23:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Livery Stable Blues

Appears in Original Dixieland Jass Band and Jazz (at the bottom with other sound samples), as well as in Livery Stable Blues. This is the first commercially released jazz recording and was largely responsible for making jazz into popular music in the United States and worldwide. As such, I think the sound file improves significantly the reader's understanding of both the ODJB and of jazz in general. This is my first FS nomination so I apologize if I did something wrong. Jafeluv (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. Jafeluv (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Support Very important historical recording, included in numerous jazz anthology albums. But I note that the frequency balance is poor; I have a 78 of the ODJB recorded (but not released) before this one, and the clarinet is not as shrill as in this transfer. The clarinet upper register is shrill and unpleasant in this version, and it would benefit from some tweaking to sound right. Edison (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... I converted this into .ogg from a MP3 file here. Do you think the problems come from the conversion, or is it a problem with the original MP3? Jafeluv (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments—I wonder why "English:" begins the summary description. Three hours and 10 minutes sounds like a very long recording. Is that the right formatting for the duration? Maybe. Tony (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "3 minutes 10 seconds" to make it clear. Removed the "English:" as well. Jafeluv (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "English:" is part of Commons' efforts to encourage internationalisation (it looks a lot better when there's a second language as well). As for duration - it's not really necessary to state it, as the Wiki software automatically states the length anyway. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 200 FCs served} 17:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, prefer edit 2 Excellent find! Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 200 FCs served} 00:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good sound quality, excellent performance. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The 1923 public domain cutoff doesn't apply to sound recordings, does it? Follow the link to the Cornell copyright page, and scroll down to the section on sound recordings. As I read it, this recording is not protected by US federal copyright, but may be protected at the state level. I don't know how Wikipedia normally deals with these cases, but I don't think a PD notice is right for the sound recording (as distinct from the musical composition). If I have the wrong end of this, someone should please point me to the appropriate policy. ReverendWayne (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a tag on commons for this, commons:template:PD-US record. Since the copyright is expired on the composition, it appears that this file can be freely used (until such time, if ever, that a court recognizes a common law copyright for 90-year old recordings made in Louisiana). The folks on commons are more knowledgeable about copyright than I, and they have the situation covered, so it looks ok to me. Thatcher 15:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, the track was recorded in New York City,^[1] not in Louisiana, so New York common law copyright would apply here, I guess. I'll post a query at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to be sure. Jafeluv (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's where I think the tag is misleading. IANAL, but I have read Capitol v. Naxos, and it pertains to recordings that were made in Europe. The fact that this one was recorded in NY is not, I believe, pertinent. Rather, the distinction to be made is that the recording is protected in New York, and its copyright status in other states has not been adjudicated. ReverendWayne (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Capitol v. Naxos, "we [*19]conclude that New York provides common-law copyright protection to sound recordings not covered by the federal Copyright Act, regardless of the public domain status in the country of origin, if the alleged act of infringement occurred in New York." The issue then is whether the act of infringement is the hosting of the file on the commons servers (which are not in NY state); or is the act of infringement the downloading and listening to the file, in which case any resident of NY who listens is violating the common law copyright. In the second case, the song would not be "free" and would not qualify for Featured Sound. I think we need more expert advice. Thatcher 19:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's free enough for commons, so free enough for a featured sound. Thatcher 14:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also updated the copyright tag to reflect that it is location of the infringement, not the location of the recording, that counts. Thatcher 15:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yay :) By the way, similar sound files like File:Victor Military Band-The Memphis Blues.ogg and File:Mamie Smith, Crazy Blues.ogg have been featured for a while now, and I don't think anyone has objected... (It might be a good idea to tag those with ((PD-US record)) in Commons, though.) Jafeluv (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have done so. Thatcher 15:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Thanks to Thatcher for explaining the copyright tags. I think I was confusing the PD tag for the composition with the one that applies to the recording. Anyway, noting Edison's reservation about the equalization, I think the sound is good enough and the importance of this particular recording is clear. ReverendWayne (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit 2 is my preference, for best frequency balance and general listenability. ReverendWayne (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A non-classical/opera FS is always good. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment before closing I have put in a request for a low band filter on the file, however if the results are as I expect they will be (due to what I think is a quite high background noise) then this file will be promoted asap. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 23:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did this, it is above. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 205 FCs served} 00:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support either version, I think it's still great. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent initiative. Both versions are appropriate. I find that while the edited version has eliminated some hiss it has also brought the overall tone down a bit. --Jazzeur (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A slight preference for Edit 2. I have a suggestion, for all it is worth: Why not not put the original and Edit 2 versions? Edit 2 version is more pleasant to the ear. However, the original might be the only true representation that we may be left with a few years from now. Just a thought! --Jazzeur (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, since even the original version is an ogg (lossy compression) of an mp3 (lossy compression) made from an unknown original on unknown equipment from an unknown source, "true" is relative. (But I understand your point.) Thatcher 22:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I also like the unedited version. The filter is not as aggressive on some old recordings I have heard, that really suck all the life and presence out of the music. This is only a shade less lively, but I slightly prefer the unedited recording. Thatcher 01:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit 2 uploaded. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 205 FCs served} 01:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with posters above, Support either original or Edit 2. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I prefer edit 2. Good restoration, clean sound. This is the best version, in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2 is fine. Thatcher 20:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Promote Edit 2 -- Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 00:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semper Paratus

Sound appears in Semper paratus, Semper Paratus (march), United States Coast Guard, and United States Coast Guard Band. The official march of a military service of the United States is a pretty big sound, EV-wise ("meaty EV" to use a term I apparently coined over at FPC).

• Nominate and support. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I think there are likely copyright problems here. While the audio recording is public domain as a work of the US government, the composition is subject to a separate copyright, and according to Semper_Paratus_(march), there are 3 composition dates, two of which are apparently recent enough to cause problems. It may also be ineligible for commons, and any use on enwiki would require a specific fair use justification. Non-free sounds are not eligible for featured status. This needs further looking in to. Thatcher 14:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no copyright issue. The "earliest known use" alluded to falls under PD-old, and every other composition is by a Coast Guard officer (with the original lyrics also falling under PD old, just barely in 1922, anyways). In addition, obviously, the performance and arrangement are by the Coast Guard. Plus this version doesn't have any lyrics, and this arrangement is certainly PD. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• But apparently you're right. This page claims "Words and Music Copyright by Sam Fox Publishing Co, Inc." *sigh* Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't get it, that Coast Guard source says he wrote the music while commander of the Bering Sea Forces, yet copyright is given to a private company. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key is the word "official duties". Would writing a song in one's spare time be considered part of the official duties of the captain of a cutter? To consider a modern example, many photos taken from the Hubble telescope are PD-USgov due to the involvement of NASA. But if one of the HST guys goes home at night and does an interpretive oil painting of a starscape, is it also PD? Thatcher 15:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I agree the lyrics are not an issue in this recording. The music was composed in 1927, which seems to qualify for copyright of 95 years [2] unless the author was a US government employee acting as part of his "official duties." The guy from the Coast Guard quartet who wrote new lyrics in 1943 might actually qualify for PD-USgov, but I'm not sure Van Boskerck does. A ship captain writing music in his spare time does not sound quite like "official duties." Thatcher 15:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your NASA example makes sense. :/ Damn, so want to leave this FSC pending for the 13 years it will take for this to reach PD? :p So close to a free recording, yet so far. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I blame Mickey Mouse. Thatcher 15:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close as the media is not free. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might wait for a third opinion, just in case I'm not infallible... Thatcher 18:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nah, that FAQ is directly from the Coast Guard and says the composition is copyrighted. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed Copyrighted. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 19:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York Blues

Accordion music was an important part of vaudeville, but one that's pretty much unrepresented on Wikipedia before I found this file. The original, unrestored file is File:Pietro Frosini - New York Blues (1916) - unrestored.ogg

• Nominate and support. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 205 FCs served} 03:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The sound is acceptable and the historical value is indisputable, in this case. Reminds me the excellent Uri Caine's Sidewalks Of New York: Tin Pan Alley revival album. Thanks for uploading. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries! Like all such restorations, it's a bit of a balancing act: I could remove a little more hiss, but I thought it affected the accordion's tone if I went any farther, and as I wanted to use this in accordion... Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 205 FCs served} 17:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I don't hear any significant loss or alterations in the restored version. Thatcher 20:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Pietro Frosini - New York Blues (1916) - hiss reduced.ogg --NW (Talk) 03:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qaumi Tarana Instrumental 2

While browsing, I noticed that this file had a stale "Featured sound nominee" category attached to it. I found the original nomination at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Qaumi Tarana Instrumental, which was derailed due to copyright concerns. This version appears to have the concerns addressed, the composition is PD, and the artist and recorder are both US military. I have no opinion on the sound itself, but I thought I should repost the nomination to see if it will go through this time, since the technical concerns are addressed.

• Nominate, no opinion. Thatcher 13:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Excellent performance and sound. ReverendWayne (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Seems good. Perfect quality. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Copyright is slightly tricky, but looks good to me. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Qaumi Tarana Instrumental.ogg --NW (Talk) 03:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trois Quintetti Concertans

Trois Quintetti Concertans ("Three Wind Quintets", c.1802) by Giuseppe Cambini

Reliable (though probably incorrect) sources name these as the first wind quintets, irregardless of the truth of that, they are certainly very good examples of the type, and a good illustration of their composer's output, which included many quintets.

• Nominate and support. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 23:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a good recording, excellent technique and acceptable, clean sound (a bit flat, though). First (Allegro maestoso) and second (Larghetto cantabile) movement of the first quintet is cut off before the end. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a common bug in Wikipedia's Java player. Try downloading them. Shoemaker's Holiday^{Over 205 FCs served} 17:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oy, I'm a technical dilettante. Support. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Its not that bad Danger^Mouse (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted all Dendodge _T\^C 16:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Csárdás

Sorry about my previous nomination, but for this one the full copyright is clear. The performance and arrangement are PD through the Air Force (in performance of their duties in the Air Force Band) and the composer Vittorio Monti died in 1922 (plus the composition is from 1904, so all kinds of PD-old).

• Nominate and support. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good version, famous tune. Does not seem to have any copyright problems. (Downloading high quality recordings from the US armed forces bands' web sites seems too good to be true, but as far as my understanding is concerned, it is true.) Thatcher 19:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Unusual arrangement, professional sound, good ensemble. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• support odd version, but okay fair enough. Danger^Mouse (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted USAFB Czardas.ogg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 04:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sousa's Band performs Sousa

It's Sousa's Band performing Sousa. Can't get more authentic than that. This is edited a bit to reduce the hiss. I didn't quite dare touch the periodic noises, though, for fear of changing tempo unacceptably. Original is File:Sousa's band.stars stripes forever.EDIS-SRP-0194-20.ogg

• Nominate and support. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 18:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a classic. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There's a very noticeable crack in the cylinder. It should be cleaned up before becoming a featured sound. ThemFromSpace 02:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was worried fixing that might change the tempo. In a PM, you said you had a fixed version, can you upload that? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 06:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I uploaded a new version of this file. The only change that I made was that I removed the click. In my opinion it sounds wonderful. The piccolo solo is captured especially nicely. A minor quibble would be that there was slightly too much dehiss used in the trio, but it still deserves to be a featured sound. Support. ThemFromSpace 18:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Wonderful period recording of outstanding performance. I expect that Arthur Pryor or some other concertmeister conducted the band for the recording, since Sousa was not fond of canned music. Was the pitch checked to confirm playback speed? Edison (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • This is one of the National Park Service Edison Labs transfers. They're usually top notch. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 20:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Close as promote[3] —Ed (talk • contribs) 22:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven - Violin Sonata No. 8

Ludwig van Beethoven's Violin Sonata No. 8 (Opus 30-3)

A wonderful set of files, but we horribly misattributed them for years. I checked the sheet music, got to the heart of the matter, and we now, finally, use them to illustrate the right article as a complete performance, instead of thinking each movement was a different one of the three sonatas in Beethoven's Opus 30.

As for the performance itself, I think it is fantastic.

• Nominate and support. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 16:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I like these. My hearing isn't the best, so, others may disagree. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Listened earlier, forgot to vote. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good sound, competent musicians. No problem here. --Vejvančický (talk) 06:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Close as promote[4] —Ed (talk • contribs) 22:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rusalka

One of my favourite operas - I named my cat after it - and I thought it was time I tried another Destinn piece. Unfortunately, the recording was somewhat degraded, and there was only so far I could improve it without losing Destinn herself - indeed, this was a particularly difficult one, and I was using it to make a fairly comprehensive teaching tool on sound restoration! Oh, dear! Wrong choice! Still, I think it's a superb performance, and a wonderful example of both Dvorak and Destinn's skill. Also, the original can be found at File:Emmy_Destinn_-_Antonin_Dvorak_-_Rusalka_-_Song_to_the_Moon.ogg. It's my belief that the rareness of free-licenced Dvorak recordings, combined with the excellence of Destinn make up for the problems; however, there can certainly be reasonable disagreement on this point. By the way, Destinn's Czech, Dvorak's Czech, the opera's in Czech. This recording is in German. Oh, those crazy early 20th century people!

• Nominate and support. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 07:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Context is important here. It might be featurable as an illustration of the singing of Emmy Destinn, but I think the fact that it is in German disqualifies it from being featurable as an illustration in Rusalka (opera). Thatcher 13:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortnately, it's fairly typical of the period: I have a news clipping somewhere announcing that Wagner's new opera will premiere in London soon: they're already hard at work translating it into Italian. See, there was this belief in the Victorian period that Italian was the best language for singing... Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 20:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not just Italian. Opera was often performed in the local vernacular around the turn of the century. Back then they didn't have the fancy subtitles that we do today, and the libretti weren't as well-known (especially with new operas). I don't think the language is an issue for making this a featured sound, although it should be noted that this is a performance in translation. ThemFromSpace 18:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This version is interesting, different rhythm of German translation significantly influenced the singer's phrasing and "Song to the Moon" became rather clumsy. However, this is not a problem - the file is an illustration of usual practice, mostly abandoned over the past century. (Btw, the translating of opera libretti was not crazy, but logical step, and we, early 21th century people are maybe more crazy :)) I don't like the unpleasant and distorted sound of this recording. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfrtunately, the record was severely degraded. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 15:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was looking for some excuse to take a break from a work-related project and decided to play with some audio restoration on a random featured sound candidate, and this was the one. What I ended up with is a pretty drastic change from the original, so maybe it's too far. But I figured I'd mention it here to see what you guys thought. It's File:Emmy Destinn - Antonin Dvorak - Rusalka - Song to the Moon-Edits By Kevin McCoy.ogg. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Good work Kevin, you completely removed the unpleasant hiss. Your restoration is nice, but there is a new element, a strange echo - it sounds like Emmy singing in a cave. Is it possible to reduce that? I'm sorry for being too pedantic. --Vejvančický (talk) 06:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're not being too pedantic at all. The "strange echo" you're hearing is an artifact of the noise removal. It's an unfortunate tradeoff between hiss and this effect you're hearing (many people describe it as a "digital" sound, because it sounds a little like the artifacts you get from a heavily compressed mp3 file.) I did a few things to alleviate the sound, including a low-pass filter (there was not really any useful audio information above 4500 Hz or so, only hiss, pops, and artifacts), and several hours doing spot fixes, where I removed specific frequencies in small sections of time (rather than a song-wide EQ). I still play with it in my free time, but there's certainly a point of diminishing returns, and I think I may have reached it (or maybe even passed it :P). If I come up with something better, I'll upload it and leave a note. Thanks a lot for the feedback! kmccoy (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your effort and also for interesting and clear explanation, now I understand quite well. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Weakly and with regret. As I noted above the language issue isn't a concern to me. The overall fidelity is lacking a little and her final notes blasted quite a bit. I also oppose the restored version; it takes way too much music out of the performance. It's better to leave some hiss in, which gives the illusion of a greater frequency range, than to remove too much which makes the performance sound like its done underwater. ThemFromSpace 18:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Closed as not promoted[5] —Ed (talk • contribs) 22:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Place nominations in this section. Please add new nominations at the top of the list. ((