Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Omar Rabbi Elozor is apparently a horrific way to transliterate the Hebrew, but Edison Records did it.
A fantastic performance, which has aged fairly well. Plus, it's a type of music we need far more of.
- Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support Quality is there. Headline file for one page, headline sound for another, so usage is good. It's a pet peeve of mine that copyright templates are in the "Permission" section, but none the less the description page checks out. Sven Manguard Wha?
- Way I figure it, if they didn't want you to use the permission section, then they shouldn't have included it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Could you edit it to increase the volume of the chorus, they sound muffled. But otherwise I like the quality, it's quite good for its age but at around 1:11, there's a scratching noise, could that be removed? At that point in the piece there's a rest I believe. This unsigned comment was added by User:Ancient Apparition (James)
- The chorus being muffled is an artefact of how recording worked at the time - you have a horn, and sang into it. If you wertre right next to the horn, you'd be pretty clear. Otherewise, you sound muffled. Only way to get a chorus to really sound good is to have it be made up of very few people, so they can duck in front of the horn when the main person isn't singing. Recording was almost as much choreography as singing at the time. As for the scratching noise; I don't think so. It's just too long of a noise; removal of that sort of thing is rather all-or-nothing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ah... thanks for clarifying that Adam, either way, for a recording of its age it's pretty understandable! —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:31am • 00:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- It also comes down to preservation to some extent. The LoC have copies that were played very, very little, while being stored very safely. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- True, but then how do they digitize the copies if they're rarely ever played? —James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:24pm • 06:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Only have to platy them once for that; and there's actually needleless ways to play them nowadays. You scan the groove, I think using a laser. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- The marvels of technology. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:58am • 00:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Only have to platy them once for that; and there's actually needleless ways to play them nowadays. You scan the groove, I think using a laser. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- True, but then how do they digitize the copies if they're rarely ever played? —James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:24pm • 06:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- It also comes down to preservation to some extent. The LoC have copies that were played very, very little, while being stored very safely. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ah... thanks for clarifying that Adam, either way, for a recording of its age it's pretty understandable! —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:31am • 00:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- The chorus being muffled is an artefact of how recording worked at the time - you have a horn, and sang into it. If you wertre right next to the horn, you'd be pretty clear. Otherewise, you sound muffled. Only way to get a chorus to really sound good is to have it be made up of very few people, so they can duck in front of the horn when the main person isn't singing. Recording was almost as much choreography as singing at the time. As for the scratching noise; I don't think so. It's just too long of a noise; removal of that sort of thing is rather all-or-nothing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Promoted Omar Rabbi Elozor.ogg --Acather96 (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)