Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Amazing Grace

Amazing Grace

According to the article, "Amazing Grace" is "without a doubt the most famous of all the folk hymns, making these files important. These files add significantly to the following articles:

• "Amazing Grace"
• John Newton

• I am not sure if there is a reason not to have three different versions. Therefore, I nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• I would choose the one you thought was the best. This could get very messy very fast. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 02:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I am really a newbie to all of this and not well-attuned to the tastes of the FS community. In fact, given the current collection of FSs, I am not sure that they would not prefer the preexisting version in the article because of its age. Is there a consensus that given songs should only have one version at FS?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    • The issue is that the jazz version is a dramatic reinterpretation of the piece --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 10:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Please forgive me, but am I missing something at WP:WIAFS about reinterpretations? Also why can't people vote Support both instrumentals and Oppose vocal version if they like?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't vote at featured sound or featured anything anymore, but I wrote the "Amazing Grace" article and these don't really add anything significant to anyone's understanding of the material in the article. In fact, I've hidden them and started a discussion about their relevance on the talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been traipsing through dozens of song articles this month. Basically, the reason for your statement is that the article is comparatively deficient (especially given its depth) of an explanation of what the song sounds like. The article is more of a History of Amazing Grace article than an article on Amazing Grace. Thus, musical sample depicting what the article is devoid of seem malplaced. However, if there were an to explain musical chord sequences and such, the added content would not be malplaced. Hiding it was not proper. You should have moved the various samplings to the section entitled recorded versions to give the reader an understanding of the diversity of types of recorded versions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Although I consider it more useful at the top where people might figure out what it sounds like, it is adequately placed next to text such as "The ability to record combined with the marketing of records to specific audiences allowed "Amazing Grace" to take on thousands of different forms in the 20th century."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I understand the delicate nature involved when it comes to making significant changes to WP:FAs. I did not mean to cause any stress.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Tony, the article is a summary of the best information written about the song. Unless you can cite a source that I missed addressing a particular issue not covered in the article, then perhaps you should not be making statements about what you think is deficient in the article.

Mahalia Jackson, Judy Collins, the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, Rod Stewart, Johnny Cash, and Aretha Franklin are all mentioned by sources. Several different styles are also mentioned, some of which had a direct bearing on how the song was made popular in so many places. There are almost 7,000 recorded versions of the song. I've removed information about U2's version because in the entirety of all recorded versions, U2's isn't really that important. Neither is the US Air Force Band version, unless you can find an authoritative source that highlights it above many others. --Moni3 (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

My point is that many well-structured (and even half-arsed ones like Manhattan Beach (march) and The Gallant Seventh, which I will add samples to tonight) song articles have sections titled "Musical Structure". Without citing sources, it would be fair to say that a highly discussed song like this could have a musical structure section. The fault with the current article is that it neither discusses nor depicts the musical structure of the song. The examples that you keep removing depict the musical structure even though you fail to discuss it. Musical structure need not be depicted by the more notable examples, which likely are not PD. Any example by a reputable musical group, such as the one presented could depict the musical structure. It is inconceivable that you consider the article better without depiction or discussion of musical structure. Even if there is no discussion of musical structure depicting it is encyclopedic and should be done and I don't understand why you refuse to depict the musical structure.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Once you can find a source that indicates the US Air Force versions are notable, then discuss it on the talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I am writing and not being understood. I previously used the term musical structure, which may not be precise. What I attempted to say above is that the casual reader wants to know "what this song sounds like" (Is this the song I am thinking of?). The musical sophisticate wants to analyze musical structure at a higher level, with a discussion of the elements of the score and such. Both types want a section that shows them "what the song sounds like" (which the current musical sample does a poor job at). According to WP:NFCC we are suppose to substitute free use for fair use whenever possible. Since the article states that the first recording of this song was in 1922, most of the notable recordings were published after 1923. Thus, although you might be able to explain to the reader what the song sounds like with fair use samples of notable recordings, it is not necessary. There are plenty of PD examples of "What the song sounds like" in its variety of forms. A large proportion (if not majority) of WP:FS are non-notable versions by military musical ensembles. They complement a vast array of WP:SONG articles and are commmonly accepted on wikipedia even though notable recordings of many of these songs exist. The fact that you have a WP:FA, does not mean you should toss aside valid examples of "what the song sounds like".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, please note that the current musical sample in the article is a poor example of how the song should sound. Earlier today, I got feedback on another nomination. I should use that feedback to describe the current musical sample by saying "This is not well recorded, even for [its age]...It...is not very listenable. There were other...recordings old enough to be public domain which would be more representative of how the march [song] should sound." I have provided three.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Suspended I am going to move this to the suspended section until this issue is worked out. For this to be a FS it needs to be in an article.

As a rule of thumb I try to stay away from FAs. Editing one without the nod of the main writer is like getting between a mother bear and her cubs. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 00:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Closed, without prejudice to a future nomination - I don't see this getting sorted anytime soon. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)