Talk:TMBG Concert - 5 Mar 2010
From Homestar Runner Wiki
Contents |
[edit] This Concert
This concert was amazing.
[edit] Actually
Currently, the article says '"With a Little Help from My Friends" was actually written by..'. I believe that we should either not use the word "actually" or we should mention that Homestar claims to have written the song. Loafing
09:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps something like "Contrary to Homestar's claim..." could start the sentence. Heimstern Läufer
10:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think that's overkill. Obviously Homestar's claim is false, and no one would take it seriously, so we don't really need to say as much. The fact as is currently written presumes that the viewer has already watched the video, and it needs the "actually" because it's contradicting something already said. Without the "actually", it feels like we're spouting off some trivia for no real reason, but with the "contrary to" it would feel like we're explaining the joke. — It's dot com 17:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- I see your point, Dot com, but I think that each article should make sense on its own. If we include "actually" then we make the (more or less) arbitrary assumption that the reader will read the first two paragraphs, then watch the video, and then read the fun facts. Currently "actually" doesn't refer to anything in the article. I don't think that's wrong or hard to understand, just not very good style ;-) Loafing 06:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I see your point, too. Maybe something could be added to the sentence that is similar to "contrary to Homestar's claim" but that isn't quite so blatant. I dunno. Maybe even that isn't so bad. Still, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume people have watched the video. Fun facts for a regular toon refer to the content of the toon and assume readers are already familiar with it. — It's dot com 07:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't watched the video yet, and the "actually" seemed odd. [Just a fan]
- I see your point, too. Maybe something could be added to the sentence that is similar to "contrary to Homestar's claim" but that isn't quite so blatant. I dunno. Maybe even that isn't so bad. Still, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume people have watched the video. Fun facts for a regular toon refer to the content of the toon and assume readers are already familiar with it. — It's dot com 07:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I see your point, Dot com, but I think that each article should make sense on its own. If we include "actually" then we make the (more or less) arbitrary assumption that the reader will read the first two paragraphs, then watch the video, and then read the fun facts. Currently "actually" doesn't refer to anything in the article. I don't think that's wrong or hard to understand, just not very good style ;-) Loafing
- I think that's overkill. Obviously Homestar's claim is false, and no one would take it seriously, so we don't really need to say as much. The fact as is currently written presumes that the viewer has already watched the video, and it needs the "actually" because it's contradicting something already said. Without the "actually", it feels like we're spouting off some trivia for no real reason, but with the "contrary to" it would feel like we're explaining the joke. — It's dot com 17:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Known transcript?
The songs that Homestar sings all have somewhat different lyrics from their original counterparts. Should we make a known transcript of that part of the concert? -- ■■ PURPLE WRENCH ■■ 16:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. Go for it. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 19:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Done and done. But there were several parts where I just had to write {unintelligible} every other line. I hope someone else can decipher them better than I can. -- ■■ PURPLE WRENCH ■■ 00:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- In response to that edit, shouldn't we then get rid of the "known" for the May 3, 2006 concert as well? -- ■■ PURPLE WRENCH ■■ 12:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Done and done. But there were several parts where I just had to write {unintelligible} every other line. I hope someone else can decipher them better than I can. -- ■■ PURPLE WRENCH ■■ 00:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Reverse Linnell and Flansburgh in the transcript
Whoever transcribed the concert attributed the interchange between Linnell and Flansburgh incorrectly. I don't edit wikis, so would the original writer please correct this?
- Thanks for pointing that out. As the original writer, I must say that it was very difficult at times to tell who was who when I couldn't see them. Is every single line mixed up, or only certain ones? -- ■■ PURPLE WRENCH ■■ 00:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Me again. Thank you for replying. After reading your transcript, I viewed one of the YouTube videos and was immediately aware that all the lines I had imagined Linnell saying, Flansburgh was saying. I didn't watch the whole thing, but returned to the transcript to make sure I wasn't crazy. I would imagine all the attributions are reversed. If in doubt in just swapping the text, Linnell's speaking voice is generally lower in pitch or more pure in timbre than Flansburgh's.
- Done and done, anonymous. -- ■■ PURPLE WRENCH ■■ 21:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Me again. Thank you for replying. After reading your transcript, I viewed one of the YouTube videos and was immediately aware that all the lines I had imagined Linnell saying, Flansburgh was saying. I didn't watch the whole thing, but returned to the transcript to make sure I wasn't crazy. I would imagine all the attributions are reversed. If in doubt in just swapping the text, Linnell's speaking voice is generally lower in pitch or more pure in timbre than Flansburgh's.
