Jump to content

The Quick Question Thread


rpvee
 Share

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

Huh, interesting. I'd never say Schernberg, otherwise they should have named him Schörnberg.

Maybe I'm totally wrong - let's see if a native speaker ways in.  How do you say it?  Schoenberg?  I thought of it as these are letters that don't translate directly so you get lots or variations in translation.  Rachmaninoff versus Rachmaninov.  I can never spell Søderlind correctly because don't know what that letter is but treat it as an "o" to the frustration of Norwegians!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bollemanneke said:

...he pronounces it as 'Kurshel'.

 

The big question is: does he articulate the "r" as a consonant, or is its effect simply to alter the quality of the vowel sound? If it's an actual consonant sound then I'd say that's just wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um... Well, he pronounces it as an American would say  nurture, flirt, curt etc. And the ch is pronounced as in shopping. That's definitely not right, is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

Um... Well, he pronounces it as an American would say  nurture, flirt, curt etc

 

If it's the way most Americans would pronounce these words then, yeah, that has to be wrong. (There's variation in this phonology across the US too, though. Lots of people from the south, Boston and parts of New York drop the consonantal "r" when it's not immediately before a vowel sound - as in "It's in the yard not too far from the car".)

 

8 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

And the ch is pronounced as in shopping. That's definitely not right, is it?

 

I wouldn't think so, though the German "ch" is apparently pronounced in its soft form when it comes after "oe", and that can sound a bit like "sh".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bollemanneke said:

Um... Well, he pronounces it as an American would say  nurture, flirt, curt etc. And the ch is pronounced as in shopping. That's definitely not right, is it?

 

Perhaps words like these as a comparison is common, and the added "r" is a misunderstanding based on that? They're a close enough approximation for the vowel sound I guess, but the "r" shouldn't be there (and the vowel itself should be straighter, perhaps more "British").

 

Here's a very German (and somewhat dejected) pronounciation:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/De-Arnold_Schoenberg.oga

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

Perhaps words like these as a comparison is common, and the added "r" is a misunderstanding based on that?

 

It reminds me of another common scenario where an "r" gatecrashes an expression to which it wasn't invited. Take a phrase like "Victoria and Albert", for example. A randomly chosen English person is likely to pronounce this as "Victoria-r-and Albert" - even though there's no "r" at the end of "Victoria" or the beginning of "and" - whereas for many other English speakers (like myself) no such interpolation occurs. There's a plausible explanation for why this happens in some accents but not others. Centuries ago English speakers pronounced all "r"s as consonants, but, sometime around the 1400s in the south of England, there began a tendancy to drop the consonant sound except when it appeared immediately before a vowel sound; this tendancy gradually increased and spread so that, by the 20th century, it was a solid rule across the majority of England.

 

A consequence of this rule is that the pronunciation of a word can depend upon its position within a phrase. For example, the phrase "car" on its own has no consonant "r" pronounced at the end, but in the expression "car alarm" the first "r" is pronounced. Evidently, when the habit of dropping "r"s was developing, speakers found it convenient to make exceptions where they would avoid the awkwardness of two adjacent vowel sounds. As these rules became imbedded, speakers would perceive the linking "r" as an active insertion into a phrase, rather than the passive retention of an "r" that was already there. As such, there was nothing to stop it from intruding into a phrase like "Victoria and Albert" in the same way.

 

For people like me who come from regions that the "r"-dropping didn't reach, there was never cause to make an exception for linking "r"s, and so the interpolation of these imaginary "r"s never had a chance accidentally to develop.

 

(I realise the phrase "car alarm" probably didn't get a lot of use in the 1400s, except by the very well off.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, bollemanneke said:

Um... Well, he pronounces it as an American would say  nurture, flirt, curt etc. And the ch is pronounced as in shopping. That's definitely not right, is it?

 

We spell it as Schoenberg and pronounce it as Schernberg!!  He taught at my school and we have Schoenberg Hall and I have no idea how exactly to pronounce it correctly but generally use the "er".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The glaring problem with this video is that he uses the same four pitches for every recitation of the name. To do it correctly, you must use four new and distinct pitches for each of the first three "Arnold Schoenberg"s; then you may begin again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bespin said:

It's Sheun. It's not a sound you have in english. 

 

 

Thank you! I couldn't think of a way to say what I really meant, but that's what I mean, there is no r anywhere. The closest that English has would be the u in hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Yes, we do! :lol:

Listen: "sheun" . See?

 

The best you have in english is the sound of the vowel in "bird", but it's not even near.

 

Now, we'll try Karl Böhm. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/06/2022 at 4:13 PM, bollemanneke said:

Huh, interesting. I'd never say Schernberg, otherwise they should have named him Schörnberg.

 

I pronouce it as Schønberg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of percussions, low string ostinatos, stretched out tracks that go nowhere, samples of real orchestras processed to the point of sounding synthetic, and Epic ChoirTM.

 

So no, I don't think JW would say his music is epic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, I thought this was gonna be straightforward, but it's Microsoft, so, yeah. I have a skype export file, all my messages in .json, and just want to export them to a readable format, ideally chronologically with time stamps, per conversation. I tried Microsoft's own skype parser, but it refuses to load the conversation in question (it's about 73000 messages, no error message, just nothing). Then I tried an online one, which just didn't do anything at all. Does anyone know of a Windows app that actually does this correctly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically, JSON is human-readable (though much less so than XML). Depending on what you want to do, you can probably find some generic JSON tools (online or offline) that can extract the bits you're interested in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know any good (online) courses about one of the following subjects:

- The history of Film

- Writing about film or music

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JNHFan2000 said:

Does anyone know any good (online) courses about one of the following subjects:

- The history of Film

- Writing about film or music

 

Thanks

Yes, to both questions.

It's called JWfan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade Questions:

 

1.  Is River Phoenix's hair period accurate for a lad his age?  I've found it distracting since Day 1.

2.  Did Indy take his hat off in the library?  And was that just so that the underwater scenes could be done without a fedora?

3.  Why does the X on the floor appear sharp as can be from the staircase, but then look so washed out and barely visible in the scenes that follow when they are breaking through?

4.  Does the Knight die, or will he recover the grail and try to get his flat set up again?  If not, isn't he sort of pissed for the unceremonious burial of the grail?  Seems like someone could go back for it now that the word is out in the Republic of Hatay.  And without the temple, if Joe Iskenderun takes it home and puts it on his mantle, it would be powerless, correct?  Just an artifact without its powers?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Andy said:

4 Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade Questions:

 

1.  Is River Phoenix's hair period accurate for a lad his age?  I've found it distracting since Day 1.

2.  Did Indy take his hat off in the library?  And was that just so that the underwater scenes could be done without a fedora?

3.  Why does the X on the floor appear sharp as can be from the staircase, but then look so washed out and barely visible in the scenes that follow when they are breaking through?

4.  Does the Knight die, or will he recover the grail and try to get his flat set up again?  If not, isn't he sort of pissed for the unceremonious burial of the grail?  Seems like someone could go back for it now that the word is out in the Republic of Hatay.  And without the temple, if Joe Iskenderun takes it home and puts it on his mantle, it would be powerless, correct?  Just an artifact without its powers?

 

 

 

1.) The style, probably.  The length?  no. but i like to think the length was just a bit of Indy being punk rock compared to his dad.  although his hair is never discussed with his father in the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles.

 

2.) It used to be a church, so maybe he was just being respectful/out of habit.

 

3.) movie stuff i guess

 

4.) Yeah he probably died shortly after.  I'm assuming he was relieved to be able to pass on. Although....imagine having to explain to your boss up in heaven what just happened.  It was probably a painless death though.

 

also "Joe Iskenderun". i actually loled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: “Movie Stuff” is actually a great answer!  
 

The Grail as a macguffin can mess with your head, when you factor in all the rules and the environment.  (Although the same can be said of the Crystal Skull)

 

Would the Grail Knight know English, or would he speak Latin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Andy said:

:lol: “Movie Stuff” is actually a great answer!  
 

The Grail as a macguffin can mess with your head, when you factor in all the rules and the environment.  (Although the same can be said of the Crystal Skull)

 

Would the Grail Knight know English, or would he speak Latin?

 

Yo trust me the grail knight just being there for all those years has still messed with me.

 

The real question is how often do you think he had to drink from the grail to maintain his existence? is it like Lembas bread? One sip can you fill up for days?

 

The English or Latin question, I like to think he had some guys from the brotherhood of the cruciform sword go out and get him texts to learn languages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooh I like your Brotherhood languages explanation.   Okay, I feel better now. :lol:
 

I wonder if they’d all met the Knight and we’re on a first name basis.  “Oh, hey Kazim”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone knows anything about the music from Peter Greenaway's Nightwatching? There's no information on IMDb, no uploads on YouTube and no soundtrack available. Where this magnificent music comes from, remains a mystery for me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just saw Spielberg's "Always" for the first time today.  Wow, weak film.  Felt like a tv movie.  Score was great but it doesn't hide the weakness of the film.   It had its moments but nothing a TV film wouldn't have scored.  It makes Hook seem like a masterpiece.  Compare it to contemporary films of the same genre like "Ghost" and "Field of Dreams".   It makes me question Spielberg's strengths as a director.  Is he a director who hides behind great composers, cast, editors, cinematographers, etc., or am I nuts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@karelm,

ALWAYS is, definitely, among his weakest films, but I'd rather watch that, than the utter mess that is HOOK. Even Spielberg doesn't like that one, so that should tell you something.

Yes, it is a slight film, but it has its moments. It has a certain charm, it's nice to see Hepburn (after Sean Connery turned down the role), and Mikael Solomon's cinematography is top-notch.

ALWAYS was a personal project for Spielberg, having liked A GUY NAMED JOE (of which this is a remake), since his childhood. It's nothing special in the Spielberg ouvre, and it has absolutely nothing to say, but it passes a couple of hours, quite pleasantly.

Fun fact #1: one of the men in the boat, at the start, is none other than Pond victim Ted Grossman.

Fun fact #2: A GUY NAMED JOE can be seen playing on the television in the Freeling's bedroom, in POLTERGEIST.

Fun fact #3: Spielberg was offered GHOST, but turned it down, to make ALWAYS.

 

Ps, in answer to your question; no, you are not nuts, but, and as his works both previous to, and post ALWAYS, prove, Spielberg does not hide behind his collaborators. He is among the greatest, and most revered filmmakers to step behind a camera, and with good reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

ALWAYS is, definitely, among his weakest films, but I'd rather watch that, than the utter mess that is HOOK. Even Spielberg doesn't like that one, so that should tell you something.

I like Hook, but it really is Spielberg's weakest film, despite colorful performances and fancy set design. Nothing of all that makes up for the vacillant jumping between genres and the hypocritical and superficial discourse on happy families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 03/07/2022 at 3:10 PM, Brundlefly said:

I like Hook, but it really is Spielberg's weakest film, despite colorful performances and fancy set design. Nothing of all that makes up for the vacillant jumping between genres and the hypocritical and superficial discourse on happy families.

Perhaps an extended version might go some way to redress the balance...but I seriously doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheet music question about Beethoven for people who can read his scores. Is it really true that the fourth note of symphony 5-1 should be shorter than the eighth? I'm asking because Benjamin Zander is the only historically informed performance guy who is adamant about this, but every period instrument performance I've heard doesn't do it. Is Zander wrong? Seems unlikely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fourth note is a single half note with fermata. The eigth note is a half note tied to another half note with fermata. So while the fermate leave the exact lengths to the performers, the eigth is clearly written to be longer than the fourth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bollemanneke said:

What American (?) accent does this woman have?

 

I'd say upper midwest, like parts of Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.  Two examples, the secretary from Ferris Bueller's Day Off...
 

 

... and Frances McDormand and many others from Fargo:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there any Johann Strauss II experts here who'd be willing to assist in identifying the sources of themes/setpieces from a score that's intentionally based on his material, mostly Zigneuerbaron since the movie's an adaptation of the same novel it was based on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Was Jaws the first film to have jump scares?  If not, what preceded it?  I wouldn't really consider the shower scene or "mother's reveal" from Psycho the same thing because Hitch specialized in suspense - you know the scare is coming.  Which is different from jump scare where it came out of nowhere.  Jaws was on TV yesterday which I started watching.  It really is a great, great film so expertly crafted with memorable characters and excellent directing/editing/screenplay.  And of course, a masterful score by John Williams that is just so spot on in every way.  Though I've seen the film millions of times, I haven't seen it in maybe ten years so it was easy to get back in to the mindset of this is something I haven't seen before and how it must have felt to new audiences.  I wonder if this was the first film with jump scares, but they are still incredibly effective like when Chief Brody sees Jaws eye to eye for the first time while chumming the water and delivers the "You're going to need a bigger boat" line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.