I dunno... people seem to be glorifying our government.
If I found myself professionally acting, and found myself compelled to take on an alias for that career, I would have to at least seriously consider the name Way LaBeouf.
It's a joke almost nobody could appreciate, but would make me smile whenever someone called my adopted name.
If anyone is gonna write an opera about 'my' life, its gotta be in the spirit of 'The Pirates of Penzance' by Gilbert and Sullivan (i know not true opera -- or is it!!?? :) )
Oh and i nearly bought the domain: emailenthusiasts.org because it tickled me, is it funny or should i start ducking the rocks now? :/
IMHO, there is absolutely nothing "wrong" in calling "Pirates" (or any of the others) an "opera."
Heh, you could kinda call any musical and opera, and vice-versa.
(All of this is a tad funny to me, though, as I have "Two Ladies" from Caberet stuck in my head right now. And, yeah, go ahead and laugh Aahz, go ahead and laugh).
2014-06-30 13:57 from fleeb
Heh, you could kinda call any musical and opera, and vice-versa.
No, you couldn't.
The "line in the sand" seems to be the vocal style (or "squillo" as us opera nuts like to call it)
The certain voice-quality present in the singing you find in, for example, "The Sound of Music" or "Guys and Dolls" would *never* pass as operatic by any definition. This is *not* to lessen their importance as music or as theater - just not opera.
But there are deliciously tantalizing grey areas.
West Side Story
Porgy and Bess
You will find vehement supporters for both of those works being "opera." And in the case of West Side Story, it borders on Wagnerian - with leitmotivs, "through composing", and more. And West Side Story, when sung and performed by opera-trained singers, is a stunning musical and theatric presentation with impact far beyond Broadway's "normal conception" of "musical theater."
I would say the same about Phantom of the Opera, but Andrew Lloyd Weber is such an outright plagiarist that the thought of "that thing" makes me puke. The music was great as Puccini; then Weber came along and stole major themes and in the process ruined Fanciulla del West by the lame associations with Phantom.
I take a very practical approach: if it's written in a language I don't understand, it's opera; if it's written in English, it's musical theater. [[ BIG STUPID GRIN ]]
I knew I might touch a nerve if I made such a statement, heh heh.
It's the grey areas that make you think, of course. And I agree that people don't generally consider My Fair Lady an opera, any more than someone would regard Wagner's contributions as musicals. But of course, at the end of the day, they are musical productions of stories placed on stage before an audience (well, if anyone shows up, heh).
I love that people have blurred the line between the two. I also find it amusing that some folks created what they called 'rock operas' which might seem to further muddy the waters of what is an opera vs. a musical.
As for Weber, heh, it kind of cracks me up that people get passionate about an opportunistic guy with a good ear for what sounds right plaigerizing a bunch of music for his musicals. He's sort of another guy blurring lines... at what point are we plaigerizing music, versus standing on the shoulders of the giants before us to write something else? I've heard several compositions that seem as outright plaigerism of ... oh, I forget whose O Magnum Mysterium (Vitoria, I think), but in those days they were called parodies, and nobody seemed to think boo about it. Hell, entire masses were written based off pop tunes (e.g. Missa L'homme Arme by Des Prez, who wasn't the only person to write something based off L'Homme Arme).
There is a sense of it, though... a point beyond which you can't credibly say that you wrote something yourself. I just find that line hard to define definitively.
of ... oh, I forget whose O Magnum Mysterium (Vitoria, I think), but in
those days they were called parodies, and nobody seemed to think boo
Oh yeah, there really isn't anything better than the Weird Al version of O Magnum Mysterium.
(Admit it fleeb, as soon as you read that, the arrangement began forming in your head, accordions and all)
Oh heck yeah!
I can easily imagine a semi-klesmerized version of Vitoria's O Magnum Mysterium, with clarinets, accordian, and violins flying around in a bizarre yet mocking counterpoint.
Only you can make forest fires worth observing.
You're probably right. He cut off his left testicle as a testimony of his love, if I remember.
There is a sense of it, though... a point beyond which you can't
credibly say that you wrote something yourself. I just find that line
hard to define definitively.
For Andrew Lloyd Weber and "Phantom" that moment is defined during the last 90 seconds of "The Music of the Night" where all you need do is change the lyrics and it is right from Act II of La Fanciulla del West (Puccini). Even down to the scoring/instrumentation.
This one was **so** obvious that even the civil court agreed. Weber will be paying the Puccini estate until "Phantom" goes public domain!
Heh, some moments are obvious. Others aren't.
(All of this is a tad funny to me, though, as I have "Two Ladies" from
Caberet stuck in my head right now. And, yeah, go ahead and laugh
Aahz, go ahead and laugh).
Well yes. I'm finding it funny. And ironic.
We have a lady here who teaches students how to think critically.
I realize that sounds kind of vague phrased that way. "To think about what critically?" you may be tempted to ask. But... apparently... she teaches people how to apply logical reasoning towards a purpose. Stuff a developer takes for granted.
I dunno, but somehow, I feel a little more afraid for humankind that someone has to teach something like that.
I have attended philosophy, computational science and psychology courses at the university. You'd think it is kind of a basic skill for people who start philosophy.
Well, it isn't. They try to teach it to you constantly, but you need fertile ground to grow some plants. Sidenote: The people that call themselves "skeptics" should be feared. Most often, they are zealots of a certain kind and only pick at stuff that does not fit their believe system. Think Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.
In Computational Science, they teach you a little more logic, but without the semantic implications. They are like the engineering folks, most of them have too little imagination to be skeptical.
In psychology... they were the worst. They are breeding Mengeles there! They have a sharp eye for numbers and definitions, but they do not ask questions. If they didn't have ethics committees, they would probably sew the eyes of kittens shut, just to see if that inhibits their brain development. Oh wait, they do that with approval of ethics committees, and worse.
Real skeptical thinking is a rare condition and I have the strong feeling that it is not really teachable.