Entertainment desk
< May 31	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 2 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 1[edit]

probably not The Egyptian[edit]

I saw part of this movie long ago; dunno why I thought of it today.

A king (pharaoh?) needs trepanation or something of the sort. A foreign surgeon (Victor Mature?) agrees to do it, saying, "If I fail, your servants will kill me. If I succeed, as my reward I want your sword of black metal." The operation succeeds, and the surgeon takes the sword back to his own people, saying, "Look, this iron sword is better than our bronze swords. This is important." (Paraphrased, of course.)

The Egyptian came somehow to mind, but the plot description doesn't fit. —Tamfang (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum Album[edit]

say we're back in the mid 1990's (when people bought physical albums etc..I realize it's all even more complicated today)..and your band sells 1 million albums in a year (quite a success)...assume 15 bucks per album for a gross of 15 million dollars...I'm assuming the record company gets back maybe half of that (with the other half going to the distribution/retailers)...so the record company gets 7.5 million...they deduct costs etc and then perhaps pass along maybe half to the band (less?)...so the band then splits up maybe 3 million (probably less) among four or five members (assuming an even split)...meaning a member of the band even with a platinum album is going to receive gross income well below 1 million dollars from that platinum album...minus income taxes and band member likely earning well below half a million dollars from record sales....??? does this seem reasonable? (I realize there are other income streams with this kind of success..concerts, publishing, whatever)...and btw the band also has an additional cut taken by managers, agents, etc....possible only clear 100k back then individually from a platinum album?68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, royalties are based on the wholesale price of the album, not the retail price. So Walmart may pay RCA $8 for the album but turn around and sell it for $15 and your band won't see any of that mark up. There are also a huge number of other costs associated with making an album that are shouldered by the band: advances from the record company, music video costs, packaging charges for each physical copy, promotion, legal fees, union dues and like you said, managers, agents, etc. [1] [2] After all that, making $100k off an album that sold 1 million copies actually seems like a lot. uhhlive (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it's often suggested that it's harder to make money in music business because people don't by albums like they did in the 90s etc..but I don't see how all that much money (relatively speaking) was made even by bands selling 500,000-1,000,000 albums (which I'm sure would land you in the top few percentile for album sales)...68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the band wrote the music themselves (which is common, but by no means universal), they'd get even less. In terms of royalties, such as from radio play, the writers get a much larger percentage than the performers. For an extreme case, check the amount of money Rick Astley made from all those millions of rick-rolls that were popular a few years ago: $12 for 39 million plays on YouTube. Matt Deres (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

indeed, I'm familiar with the common complaint that it's even harder to make money as a musician today with the downfall of record sales and the rise of the low rate of pay from internet listens/downloads etc...but I don't see band members becoming millionaires even back in the 90s and even being platinum sellers...I'd say you have a far better chance of becoming an actual millionaire from being some kind of athlete than from being a "rock star"...68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above assumes that the musicians actually have reasonable contracts with their Manager, Agents, etc., and that the latter honestly abide by them. However, it's anecdotally well known (citations welcomed) that many artists, not being well versed in financial matters, have been defrauded in various legal or illegal ways particularly at the outset of their careers.

As an example, consider Hazel O'Connor, who wrote all of the songs for the film Breaking Glass in which she starred, but never received any money from the gold soundtrack album. (This fact is not mentioned in either of the linked articles, but featured in the autobiographical live act she toured a few years ago.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

even assuming a reasonable contract, I don't see your typical rock band members in the 90s clearing more than maybe a quarter million dollars from a platinum selling album...I suspect, however, that if you have that kind of sales success you'd be able to clear at least a few hundred thousand more from concerts, publishing, radio play or whatever...but were certainly not talking about instant multimillionaires I don't believe...68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this only takes in to account record sales. There are potentially a lot of other revenue streams that have lower overhead (merchandise, concert tours, sponsorships, exclusivity agreements, etc) that can make a band significantly more money through out the life span of the album if not longer. uhhlive (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is this type of music?[edit]

Here is the full playlist. There are several tracks, so they may belong to the different genres, I'd like to know about each. These are from an old computer game and I could not find the authors, though I'd be glad to listen to more music from them or at least something similar.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a joke, right? Jazz is written all over the playlist. --Viennese Waltz 18:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he wants the sub-genre, such as progressive jazz, etc. StuRat (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I'd probably say hard bop or maybe even what is sometimes just called "mainstream jazz" (though that article won't explain it). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fairly cool to me. Cool Jazz--178.106.227.250 (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niiice. Britmax (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are some different sub genres of jazz. Here [3] is a page that discusses a few different jazz subgenres, with some artist names and examples. I agree with the above posters - there is both cool jazz and hard bop in there. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bad at recognizing jazz genres, is it possible for you or somebody else to assign each track to the particular genre?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suddenly realized that I might have a look into the credits to the game and I found out that the composer and pianist was Jim Crew, the saxophonist, Greg Gelb, and the drums, Francis Dyer. It seems that they did not make any particular band, just played together for that soundtrack.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vaudeville - married dancing pairs?[edit]

who were the first (or first recorded) married couple to take the stage as a 'dancing duo' in Vaudeville? thanks! Eartha78 (talk)

The Four Cohans come to mind, but they weren't necessarily the first. You might be able to figure out a tentative answer by reviewing List of vaudeville performers: A–K and List of vaudeville performers: L–Z. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did a duo bill themself as "Four"? —Tamfang (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Husband, wife, daughter and son. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drugs at music festivals: why?[edit]

Why are drugs prevalent in music festivals? Apparently this reputation goes as far back as Woodstock. This question came into my mind after the arrest of a drug dealer following the deaths of five people in a music festival in the Philippines. I've tried searching for answers to this question online but I couldn't find any relevant answers. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are a lot of younger people there who are away from their parents or other authority figures? Seems the most obvious answer to me... Dismas|^(talk) 22:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because 50,000 people in the same field, sleeping in their own filth, all want to be individuals. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience drugs are no more "prevalent" at festivals than, say, drink or take away food. Britmax (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The use is not restricted to "young people" as anyone who has been to one of the numerous Rolling Stones reunion concerts can attest. Granted they may still be young at heart. MarnetteD|Talk 15:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a sense it is obvious. Drugs are fun and music is fun and it's fun to do two fun things at once. More carefully: Many people find recreational drugs enjoyable, many people find music enjoyable, and many people find that recreational drugs enhance their appreciation of music. Don't draw any silly artificial line between alcohol and other drugs, btw, alcohol just happens to be a drug that is legal in many locations.

Anyway, that's just some general nonsense that I thought might help frame the issue, but whole books have been written about this topic! See e.g. here [4] [5] for some books that look good, you may be able to get them through inter library loan. Here is a scholarly research article [6] that gives some statistics and analysis of drug use in the UK dance music scene, here [7] is one for the Scottish scene. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]