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.
President Eisenhower travelled the country in 1954 to campaign for Republican candidates for Congress. During his tour, he delivered 40 speeches, often stating the need for "a vast new highway program". This clip includes such remarks in Cadillac Square, Detroit, Michigan some three years before the creation of the Interstate Highway System.
This is an example of a speech where Eisenhower stated the need for "a vast new highway program". This program was enacted some three years later as what we know today as the Interstate Highway System. Eisenhower's vision and campaign for such a system has been honored when the system was renamed to the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. I feel that the quality of the recording provided by the Federal Highway Administration meets the criteria. The sound file helps illustrate the vision of the man to create the system, and adds to the article on the Interstate Highway System.
Comment—The quality is acceptable, just. Interesting how much higher the standards of public speaking are among modern-day presidents. Sorry to be a bore, but could the documentation follow MOSNUM? "1m18s, 34kbps", all jammed together, should be spaced properly: "1 m 18 s, 34 kbps". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - one thing, this file is hosted on Commons but I can't seem to be able to find the length etc. looks like we'll have to make do with what it is now. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 4:59pm •05:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A recording made by Scott Joplin in 1916 of his most famous Rag, the Maple Leaf Rag. The recording was made on piano roll in June 1916 just prior to the composer's death from Syphilis in April 1917. The recording demonstrates his physical deterioration from the disease has affected his ability to play the piano smoothly. The roll was scanned into a MIDI file by a collector in New Zealand, then converted into a Piano soundfile by Major Bloodnok using Cubase
One of the few recordings of Joplin by Joplin we have. It also demonstrates his physical condition prior to his death.
Comment I can't say I'm an expert on piano playing. However, I do fear that the peculiar sound of his playing may simply be due to the fact that it was recorded on piano roll and then converted into midi. The source of the file doesn't mention anything about the playing that I could see. JujutacularT · C18:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would generally agree with you; conversion from one format to another can throw up peculiarities and the copy may not match. In this case, however, we have a very good source (Joplin's first biographer) who heard the original roll and thought that it was "distressing" and "disorganised"; further information is on the Scott Joplin page. There is an issue about how accurate Piano Rolls were, but there is another roll from the same year, again cut by Joplin, which is much smoother (although it feels as though it's been corrected in the editing process). Should there be more about this on the description page? Would that help? Forgive me, but this is the first time I've done this!Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral If there was a more realistic sample of this file in quality condition I'd support without a doubt but I'm not sure I can support a MIDI file as a faithful example of a music recording. Normally I'd oppose but the fact that the original recording is on a piano roll (and therefore subject to different authentic playbacks) complicates things. I have to think about this for a bit. ThemFromSpace01:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is another sound file on the Scott Joplin page - another rag he wrote, which has since been discovered by the same collector who had the Maple Leaf Rag. This time it's a recording of a player piano. It's interesting mainly because it was thought lost. I'll nominate that when I get a chance.Major Bloodnok (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I disagree about the realism. It sounds pretty good to me, actually better than the other nomination. In terms of EV, the context within an article would be important. In the Scott Joplin article there is reference to the fact that Joplin wasn't directly recorded. So the expectation of having this file be generated from a player piano seems excessive. The player piano and the computer are equally unable to reproduce the quality of the original. Case Craver 2010 (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I know player pianos. The rolls are "digital", as it were, and there is no issue to my mind in transferring them to mp3. This is a valuable historical artefact. Tony(talk)17:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Granted, a piano roll rarely is a digital record of the keys struck. They were commonly "corrected" at the factory, as evidenced by audio recordings versus piano rolls by other period pianists such as Gershwin. But it is a nice rendition and probably shows some of the technique of the composer/performer. Edison (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards oppose. For a modern recording, it's not all that flash. The balance is OK, but the quality of the brass is just not great. Also, the players are not always in tune, amazingly. The documentation doesn't say where the recording was made, or who made it (Russian state TV?). The source is in cyrillic script; can we have a translation of the piped text in square brackets after it? The fact that it's freely available as a propaganda piece on the presidential website doesn't fill me with enthusiasm as to making this featured content on a WMF site. Tony(talk)14:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Tony, the quality of the video is horrible, everything is blurry, the brass section is fuzzy and the percussion is just about the only thing that sticks out, the cymbals particularly. The piece has absolutely no balance. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 11:02am •00:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low quality as above. This could be excused if the event itself was especially notable, and it is not clear that it is (although I suppose that is arguable).Major Bloodnok (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This current link, which provides access to recordings of lots of MIT concerts (including the 2005 Messiah concertstriking this part of my comment for clarity as this recording predates the 2005 concert), says that the licence is "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0", which is not an acceptable licence here.
Looking through the Wayback machine, I've found this and this, which refers to a CC 2.0 SA licence, from just 3 days before Raul uploaded the file. The use of the number "44" on the website and on Raul's file is particularly telling. So I think we've got confirmation that the file was released under a proper licence even though that licence has been changed subsequently, but I'd like you to double-check my reasoning and update the file page.
If this can be overcome, there's a cleanup tag to get rid of the applause, with which I would agree.
I agree about removing the applause. I was aware of the existence of the complete Messiah suite but the Hallelujah chorus is what grabbed my attention. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:23pm •10:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice recording, both the choir and the orchestra sound good. No problem with the applause, it is a live performance. Btw, I added the file to the Messiah (Handel), which is in my opinion a relevant place for this hit. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine performance and recording.Please fade out the applause after 4 seconds or so rather than including 45 seconds of it. Note that the US chorus says a more euphonic "for evah and evah " rather than the normal US rhotic pronunciation "for everr and everr" Hope that sounds right to British listeners. Edison (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The quality sounds fine to me (although I'm not sure if it's spectacular - it sounds a little too tinny to be totally first-rate), and it is of a well-known piece of music, performed well. I think I heard an error in the Brass section shortly before the end. I don't think that takes very much away from the recording. Major Bloodnok (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's not that spectacular of a recording (aesthetically and technically), nor is it historically significant. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but I don't know if it's of featured quality. I went ahead and cut most of the applause and added a fade-out to the file hosted on commons. ThemFromSpace06:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very clear recording. As a side note, when I started to play the sound file, my puppy woke up from a sound sleep and started wandering through the apartment to look for the bird. I guess you have Max's vote too on the quality. Imzadi1979→22:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just was perusing her works when I realized this has a lot of clarity and is pretty solid all around. It appears in the article Three Preludes (Gershwin) and was created by La Pianista.
Support Despite the fact that I find the piece itself kind of weird, from a technical standpoint, this is an excellent clip of fine art. Kudos to La Pianista. Sven ManguardWha?00:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is the composition in the public domain as it was first published after 1923? Zginder 2010-12-24T22:24Z (UTC)
Rachmaninoff's famous Prelude in C♯ minor (Op. 3, No. 2), which he composed when he was 19, established his fame in America. It is here performed by himself in 1919.
One of Rachmaninoff's most popular works, performed by a notable interpreter of his works.
One thing I must ask, though: File:Prelude_3_2_Rach_playing.ogg is the original. Can you be hard on the restoration, particularly the timing of the first three chords, which had some extra damage, and which I think I fixed successfully. If there's problems, I want to know and fix them, not coast by, so please, double-check my work and don't let me get away with anything.
1919, but, of course, later recordings wouldn't be public domain recordings of him playing his own work. Added year of performance to the description. Shoemaker's HolidayOver 213 FCs served09:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments 2:08 - 2:25 seems to have more clipping than the original, an artifact of restoration? In that area, I actually prefer the original recording. Also, is there a reason the original is 194kbps but the restoration is 66kbps? The timing of the chords at the beginning sounds fine to me. JujutacularT · C20:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent for a 1919 acoustic recording. The fact that it is an interpretation by the composer, in his prime, is especially compelling. Edison (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jujutacular. I noticed the clipping and then listened to the original and did not hear it. It could be a compression artifact as 66 kbps is small for so many notes are being played simultaneously in that stretch. Zginder 2010-03-16T16:12Z (UTC)
Conditional support: I agree that this is a valuable recording, and very much worthy of featured status on that basis. I was picking up some distortion myself a bit. I'll let better ears weigh in on that, but I'm inclined to support otherwise should the others come to a consensus on that point. Imzadi1979→23:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distorted in comparison to the original recording. Why 66k? Sounds like listening over a telephone circuit. Such a valuable recording deserves a better transfer. Edison (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best transfer (probably a dirty disc?) requires too much distortion to bring to a listenable state. I wouldn't be opposed to a clean transfer of this recording. I actually have a clean copy of this disc, but no machine to play it on. :\ ThemFromSpace06:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, perhaps, the mountain this file has to climb to reach a super-majority is too great at this time. Participation at F.S. being what it is, I doubt this will see another three supports in any reasonable amount of time.