My 2c on Moulin Rouge
Cam
Went and saw this last night. Definitely enjoyed it, with the 'Like A
Virgin' and 'Roxanne' scenes being highpoints. A really well done
spectacle.
If I had quibbles with it, it'd be that the scene where Christian and
Satine first meet seems so hammed as to be almost amateurish.
Juvenile, even. That and the fact that because the characters aren't
deeply drawn (and I realise this was Luhrmann's intention in order to
make it function as a musical) it doesn't resonate with you on an
emotional level once it's over. You do get swept up in the film, and
some of the scenes are quite moving while they're happening but they
don't pluck heart strings when you recollect them later. They're more
the emotional equivalent of a sugar rush.
But - and this is the strange thing - I find it's growing on me more
now that I've seen it and it's been allowed to settle. I mean,
musically, in a lot of ways, the film is a hand grenade to the face.
A huge proportion of it is fast-cut high-gear showpieces. And now
that I have seen it I do find myself thinking about it and I want to
see it again. Not for the tragedy of it, or any part of the story in
particular, but for the actual experience of seeing it.
Overall I don't think you'd be wasting money seeing this film.
Especially with half the crud that's on offer nowadays. If anything
this film deserves to be supported for the simple fact that they
managed to get something so different (and so well made) produced in
this nervous, bottom-line, cookie-cutter culture we live in.
Go see it.
Cam
____________________________________________________________
Website: www.cameron-rogers.com
The bomb lives only as it is falling.
- Iain M. Banks, 'Use of Weapons'
*LittleChinaGirl*
wrote:
>Went and saw this last night. Definitely enjoyed it, with the 'Like A
>Virgin' and 'Roxanne' scenes being highpoints. A really well done
>spectacle.
<snip>
>Overall I don't think you'd be wasting money seeing this film.
>Especially with half the crud that's on offer nowadays. If anything
>this film deserves to be supported for the simple fact that they
>managed to get something so different (and so well made) produced in
>this nervous, bottom-line, cookie-cutter culture we live in.
I loved it. Then again, I knew I would even before it came out. :)
I've been waiting 5 years for this goddamn film to come out, and
everything about the story, concept, aesthetic style and cast/crew
appealed to me.
Primarily, the art direction was sublime. The astounding detail of
costumes and set, as well as the elephant which is Satine's boudoir
made me gasp throughout. I wanna live in an elephant!
And the costumes. Ooooh, the costumes. /obligatory sigh/ This isn't
just the costume department of any generic period film. This is the
ultimate in couture, in the divinest style. Satine's wardrobe is a
glorious concoction of silk, lace, feathers, leather and lovely
corsets.
The musical theatre aspect of the film really appealed to me, but that
could just be my background in cheesy musicals. :) But I had no
problem with the spontaneous-bursting-into-song, or the frenzied
chereography- I thought it was all spectacularly executed and
wonderfully theatrical.
Kidman has a pure, clear voice- not the strongest, and breathy in
parts, but ideal for the role. Ewan McGregor has the most superb male
soprano- an angelic and fluid upper register, and yet is capable of
really growling out bottom notes. Like Nicole Kidman said, I wouldn't
be surprised if this guy really does become a rock star.
In terms of performances, I was surprised by just how _funny_ it was.
The pop culture references worked effortlessly- 'Like a Virgin' was a
comic highlight. Despite the physical beauty and feminine allure of
Nicole Kidman, and her character's impending doom, she is an amazing
comedic actress. While I do agree the first Satine/Christian boudoir
scene was a little over the top, I think Kidman is a great physical
comedienne. She's not afraid to ham it up or make a fool of herself,
which made Satine so much more endearing to the audience.
The supporting cast was excellent. John Leguiziamo is suitably funny,
but also touchingly tragic, and the onslaught of Australian faces is
also encouraging. David Wenham of 'Diver Dan' fame makes an appearance
as an artiste transvestite, Kylie Minogue as an absinthe
hallucenation, Gary McDonald as a bohemian hobo, among many others.
Richard Roxborough makes a excellent villianous Duke, and has some
hilarious comic lines as well.
Technically and stylistically, the cinematography is similar to 'Romeo
& Juliet'- lots of fast-forward frames and surreal, panorama shots. A
few scenes also reminded me of the first 'Red Curtain' film, 'Strictly
Ballroom,' in a dreamscape atmosphere.
Lurhman and Martin must be applauded for the tenacity of this
production, and the sheer sensual assault it makes on the audience.
One reviewer on the Movie Show mentioned that he would have liked to
see this film in slow motion, and in many ways I would agree. It is
such a dense, wham-bam film which not so much seduces but knocks
unconscious the senses, and I loved it. :)
*LittleChinaGirl*
jay
>Gary McDonald as a bohemian hobo
not Norman Gunston?
jay
Cam
Bingo. But if you weren't looking for him, you'd never have twigged
it was him under all that facial hair.
Cam
(*LittleChinaGirl*) wrote:
>The musical theatre aspect of the film really appealed to me, but that
>could just be my background in cheesy musicals. :) But I had no
>problem with the spontaneous-bursting-into-song, or the frenzied
>chereography- I thought it was all spectacularly executed and
>wonderfully theatrical.
The one thing that always bugged me about musicals was the fact that
there'd be stretches of fairly contemporary-style acting, and then at
the drop of a hat an entire street full of diverse people with perfect
voices break into an immaculately choreographed gymnastic dance number
about anything from love to ordering lobster.
But the difference with this film was the fact that song was treated
as the linguistic style of the film, kinda like iambic pentameter is
to Shakespeare, I suppose. So it didn't grate on me the way musicals
usually do.
I hear a few people saying this film is, in a way, reinventing the
musical. I think I can see where they're coming from.
>Kidman has a pure, clear voice- not the strongest, and breathy in
>parts, but ideal for the role. Ewan McGregor has the most superb male
>soprano- an angelic and fluid upper register, and yet is capable of
>really growling out bottom notes. Like Nicole Kidman said, I wouldn't
>be surprised if this guy really does become a rock star.
Though he does have a smile that makes me think he should be sweating
more, and maybe have a pistol pointed at his face. I really wanna see
VELVET GOLDMINE.
>In terms of performances, I was surprised by just how _funny_ it was.
>The pop culture references worked effortlessly- 'Like a Virgin' was a
>comic highlight.
And I still say I could have listened to that Argentinian singing
'Roxanne' all night. Great damn sequence.
> Despite the physical beauty and feminine allure of
>Nicole Kidman, and her character's impending doom, she is an amazing
>comedic actress. While I do agree the first Satine/Christian boudoir
>scene was a little over the top, I think Kidman is a great physical
>comedienne. She's not afraid to ham it up or make a fool of herself,
>which made Satine so much more endearing to the audience.
RE that scene I'm only referring to the 'orgasm' bit. The impromptu
performance where they try and sell the Duke on the script was pretty
damn funny.
>The supporting cast was excellent. John Leguiziamo is suitably funny,
>but also touchingly tragic, and the onslaught of Australian faces is
>also encouraging. David Wenham of 'Diver Dan' fame makes an appearance
>as an artiste transvestite,
Whom I didn't at all pick.
> Kylie Minogue as an absinthe
>hallucenation,
And voiced by Ozzy Osbourne according to the credits.
> Gary McDonald as a bohemian hobo,
So he's a boho hobo.
> among many others.
>Richard Roxborough makes a excellent villianous Duke, and has some
>hilarious comic lines as well.
He did do a great job on that. I will get around to a second viewing
on this.
Tim Hamilton
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 03:33:27 GMT, h....@ugrad.unimelb.edu.au
> (*LittleChinaGirl*) wrote:
>
>>The musical theatre aspect of the film really appealed to me, but that
>>could just be my background in cheesy musicals. :) But I had no
>>problem with the spontaneous-bursting-into-song, or the frenzied
>>chereography- I thought it was all spectacularly executed and
>>wonderfully theatrical.
>>
>
> The one thing that always bugged me about musicals was the fact that
> there'd be stretches of fairly contemporary-style acting, and then at
> the drop of a hat an entire street full of diverse people with perfect
> voices break into an immaculately choreographed gymnastic dance number
> about anything from love to ordering lobster.
Ohh but I loved that song ! I can't see how it would bug you at all...
"Whether you're an accountant or a big city mobster
Sure as cirrhosis, you'll order the lobster...."
[snip]
> Though he does have a smile that makes me think he should be sweating
> more, and maybe have a pistol pointed at his face. I really wanna see
> VELVET GOLDMINE.
Pardon the phrasing, but he rocked in VG.
>>Despite the physical beauty and feminine allure of
>>Nicole Kidman, and her character's impending doom, she is an amazing
>>comedic actress. While I do agree the first Satine/Christian boudoir
>>scene was a little over the top, I think Kidman is a great physical
>>comedienne. She's not afraid to ham it up or make a fool of herself,
>>which made Satine so much more endearing to the audience.
Check out what she did in the Batman and Robin film she was in. She
definitely got into the mentality of "I'm playing a comic book
character's love interest, time to have fun." :)
[snip]
>>Kylie Minogue as an absinthe
>>hallucenation,
>>
>
> And voiced by Ozzy Osbourne according to the credits.
*twitch*
>>Gary McDonald as a bohemian hobo,
>
> So he's a boho hobo.
*snerk*
Tim
Clinton Wins Budget; More Lies Ahead - Melbourne Herald-Sun, c. 2000
*LittleChinaGirl*
wrote:
>The one thing that always bugged me about musicals was the fact that
>there'd be stretches of fairly contemporary-style acting, and then at
>the drop of a hat an entire street full of diverse people with perfect
>voices break into an immaculately choreographed gymnastic dance number
>about anything from love to ordering lobster.
Or when every bit of dialogue gets turned into song, a la Lloyd
Webber. Like in 'Evita,' where she sings, 'I will leeeeeave him...or
maaaaybe I wooooon't...'
/sigh/
Even worse, in 'Pippin,' in which every single scene ends as a
Sensitive Coming of Age Melody trilled by the young John Farnham...
>But the difference with this film was the fact that song was treated
>as the linguistic style of the film, kinda like iambic pentameter is
>to Shakespeare, I suppose. So it didn't grate on me the way musicals
>usually do.
Which is what music in theatre musicals are supposed to do,
theoretically.
>And I still say I could have listened to that Argentinian singing
>'Roxanne' all night.
That's on the soundtrack. Unfortunately, 'Like A Virgin' is not.
>RE that scene I'm only referring to the 'orgasm' bit. The impromptu
>performance where they try and sell the Duke on the script was pretty
>damn funny.
And 'Oh look, a little green frog.' :)
Yay for absurdism.
>> Kylie Minogue as an absinthe
>>hallucenation,
>
>And voiced by Ozzy Osbourne according to the credits.
I'm still yet to figure that out.
>> Gary McDonald as a bohemian hobo,
>
>So he's a boho hobo.
*snorts*
*LittleChinaGirl*
Barbarella
>
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 15:02:59 GMT, cwro...@DIESPAMDIEtig.com.au (Cam)
> wrote:
> >The one thing that always bugged me about musicals was the fact that
> >there'd be stretches of fairly contemporary-style acting, and then at
> >the drop of a hat an entire street full of diverse people with perfect
> >voices break into an immaculately choreographed gymnastic dance number
> >about anything from love to ordering lobster.
>
> Or when every bit of dialogue gets turned into song, a la Lloyd
> Webber. Like in 'Evita,' where she sings, 'I will leeeeeave him...or
> maaaaybe I wooooon't...'
"Opera" versus "musical", non?
Barbarella.
--
TheUnfaithfulWriter: http://www.internettrash.com/users/barbarella.
Several hundred miles of snaking tarmac,
Leads to smoky door, violent sound & haunting spirits,
Amongst them, an object of fantasy,
Black lace and spiky hair, penetrating eyes, & a ghostly grin. -jbk
Kage-Ryu
<barba...@internettrash.com> inserted a refrigerator into their
person and screamed:
>*LittleChinaGirl* wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 15:02:59 GMT, cwro...@DIESPAMDIEtig.com.au (Cam)
>> wrote:
>> >The one thing that always bugged me about musicals was the fact that
>> >there'd be stretches of fairly contemporary-style acting, and then at
>> >the drop of a hat an entire street full of diverse people with perfect
>> >voices break into an immaculately choreographed gymnastic dance number
>> >about anything from love to ordering lobster.
>>
>> Or when every bit of dialogue gets turned into song, a la Lloyd
>> Webber. Like in 'Evita,' where she sings, 'I will leeeeeave him...or
>> maaaaybe I wooooon't...'
>
>
>"Opera" versus "musical", non?
Neither Moulin Rouge nor Evita are operas.
NOTHING Mr. Lloyd Weber produces/writes comes anywhere close to opera.
Except perhaps of the soap variety.
Kage-Ryu
"Crazy, I'm halfway to crazy
Suicide could save me
Oh no, but that is too extreme."
The Jesus and Mary Chain
Neef
appeared in the Weekly World News headlines claiming :
>
>Neither Moulin Rouge nor Evita are operas.
>
>NOTHING Mr. Lloyd Weber produces/writes comes anywhere close to opera.
>Except perhaps of the soap variety.
Yup..Ill agree with that.
Opera is loud music, with large breasted women in armour called
Brunhilda singing in foreign lingo!
Theres also got to be a fat bloke, singing about Pasta
Neef ( think Ive been reading to much Pratchett)
I am Defeated.
Through Judicious medication I have the bain patterns
of Lizzie Borden and the steaming Genitals of Genghis Kahn,
But I am undone... The Drugs are shit.
neef @ vurt . net
Lucid H. Dreaming
>
>Neither Moulin Rouge nor Evita are operas.
>
>NOTHING Mr. Lloyd Weber produces/writes comes anywhere close to opera.
>Except perhaps of the soap variety.
Is that because there is some talking in Weber stuff or is it because
they aren't sufficiently "artsy"?
If it's the second please take a couple of minutes to convince me on exactly
why Weber isn't an opera where the Magic Flute is...
>
>Kage-Ryu
?
--
So, to you the dark, brooding Gothic spires looming from out of history
represent Father's ponderous, inevitable and architectural force... and
you have to watch glittery sable-haired munchkins thinking they're
dancing in the _ruins_ of that same history, because it's like, really
'Goth'. Poor John. -- Cavalorn
Kage-Ryu
Dreaming) inserted a refrigerator into their person and screamed:
>In article <3b1bbead.27444835@news-server>, Kage-Ryu wrote:
>>
>>Neither Moulin Rouge nor Evita are operas.
>>
>>NOTHING Mr. Lloyd Weber produces/writes comes anywhere close to opera.
>>Except perhaps of the soap variety.
>
>Is that because there is some talking in Weber stuff or is it because
>they aren't sufficiently "artsy"?
>
>If it's the second please take a couple of minutes to convince me on exactly
>why Weber isn't an opera where the Magic Flute is...
There is talking, yes. In all of them that I know of. Mr. Lloyd
Weber himself refers to his work as musicals too.
And I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything, Daniel.
Barbarella
>
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 13:33:58 +1000, Barbarella
> <barba...@internettrash.com> inserted a refrigerator into their
> person and screamed:
> >*LittleChinaGirl* wrote:
> >> Or when every bit of dialogue gets turned into song, a la Lloyd
> >> Webber. Like in 'Evita,' where she sings, 'I will leeeeeave him...or
> >> maaaaybe I wooooon't...'
> >
> >"Opera" versus "musical", non?
>
> Neither Moulin Rouge nor Evita are operas.
Moulin Rouge is a musical, Evita (and Jesus Christ Superstar and, afaik,
all of Lloyd-Weber's early works) are generally accepted to be "rock
operas" (and doesn't _that_ sound terribly quaint these days? *grin*).
> NOTHING Mr. Lloyd Weber produces/writes comes anywhere close to opera.
> Except perhaps of the soap variety.
Or except perhaps of the "rock opera" variety.
Barbarella
>
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 05:00:08 GMT, fels...@bigpond.net.au (Kage-Ryu)
> appeared in the Weekly World News headlines claiming :
> >Except perhaps of the soap variety.
>
> Yup..Ill agree with that.
>
> Opera is loud music, with large breasted women in armour called
> Brunhilda singing in foreign lingo!
Heh. You've just reminded me of that bloody Macca's Burgermeister ad.
:)
Ever noticed how all the best things from Germany start with a B?
Blitzkreig.
Bitburg.
Belsen....
Oh, and I demand to know if the Burgermeister is made from REAL town
officials, goddamn!
Barbarella. :)
Lucid H. Dreaming
>
>There is talking, yes. In all of them that I know of. Mr. Lloyd
>Weber himself refers to his work as musicals too.
>
>And I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything, Daniel.
So what do you think of Tommy?
Kage-Ryu
Dreaming) inserted a refrigerator into their person and screamed:
>In article <3b1bcbbf.30791109@news-server>, Kage-Ryu wrote:
>>
>>There is talking, yes. In all of them that I know of. Mr. Lloyd
>>Weber himself refers to his work as musicals too.
>>
>>And I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything, Daniel.
>
>So what do you think of Tommy?
Um.
Huh?
Trayce
wrote:
>On 4 Jun 2001 19:40:12 +1100, dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au (Lucid H.
>Dreaming) inserted a refrigerator into their person and screamed:
>
>>In article <3b1bcbbf.30791109@news-server>, Kage-Ryu wrote:
>>>
>>>There is talking, yes. In all of them that I know of. Mr. Lloyd
>>>Weber himself refers to his work as musicals too.
>>>
>>>And I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything, Daniel.
>>
>>So what do you think of Tommy?
>
>Um.
>
>Huh?
I think Daniels trying to be a smartarse becoz "Tommy" is a "rock
opera" *waves finger in the air in a circle*. Woop de doo.
Trayce (and uhhh, Daniel? Tommy is by the Who, not Andrew Lloyd
Webber...)
--
faith in chaos
trace @ connect.net.au
new site: http://www.memorygongs.f2s.com
Neef
<barba...@internettrash.com> appeared in the Weekly World News
headlines claiming :
>
>Oh, and I demand to know if the Burgermeister is made from REAL town
>officials, goddamn!
You know...P and I asked ourselves that *exact* same question :)
Mmmmm...Long Pig...
Neef (woohoo!)
--
You know, maybe it was the syphilis talking, But some of
that actually made sense.
Lucid H. Dreaming
>On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 10:06:24 GMT, fels...@bigpond.net.au (Kage-Ryu)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Huh?
>
>I think Daniels trying to be a smartarse becoz "Tommy" is a "rock
>opera" *waves finger in the air in a circle*. Woop de doo.
>
>Trayce (and uhhh, Daniel? Tommy is by the Who, not Andrew Lloyd
>Webber...)
That's why I asked.
I'm curious whether the animosity is towards Webber or rock operas.
Barbarella
>
> In article <3b1bcbbf.30791109@news-server>, Kage-Ryu wrote:
> >
> >There is talking, yes. In all of them that I know of. Mr. Lloyd
> >Weber himself refers to his work as musicals too.
> >
> >And I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything, Daniel.
>
> So what do you think of Tommy?
Brilliant. :)
Who else but Pete Townshend would think to cast OLIVER REED in a major
role in an opera? I ask you.
Barbarella - "Fiddling about, Fiddling about!"
Tim Hamilton
> "Lucid H. Dreaming" wrote:
>
>>In article <3b1bcbbf.30791109@news-server>, Kage-Ryu wrote:
>>
>>>There is talking, yes. In all of them that I know of. Mr. Lloyd
>>>Weber himself refers to his work as musicals too.
>>>
>>>And I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything, Daniel.
>>>
>>So what do you think of Tommy?
>>
>
> Brilliant. :)
>
> Who else but Pete Townshend would think to cast OLIVER REED in a major
> role in an opera? I ask you.
Hell, if he could do the main character for the movie based on the Gor
novels, he can do a rock opera g'dammit.
Incidentally, I ask this only because I'm not sure of the definition
myself, but an opera is something that is purely music, no ...spoken
dialogue as it were ?
If so, I'm surprised no-one has mentioned The Wall yet :)
Tim (who will if noone else does)
Barbarella
>
> Barbarella wrote:
> > "Lucid H. Dreaming" wrote:
> >>So what do you think of Tommy?
> > Brilliant. :)
> > Who else but Pete Townshend would think to cast OLIVER REED in a major
> > role in an opera? I ask you.
>
> Hell, if he could do the main character for the movie based on the Gor
> novels, he can do a rock opera g'dammit.
Heh. He was a gem. "Jogging the Oliver Reed way" is still my favourite
euphanism for sex. :)
> Incidentally, I ask this only because I'm not sure of the definition
> myself, but an opera is something that is purely music, no ...spoken
> dialogue as it were ?
Dictionary definition cites opera as "dramatic performance or
composition of which music is an essential part", but in common parlance
we delineate between 'opera' and 'musical' by absence or inclusion of
spoken dialogue, yes.
('tis also the plural form of "opus", I just learnt)
> If so, I'm surprised no-one has mentioned The Wall yet :)
I try not to allow any mention of P*nk Fl*yd to pollute my brain. :)
> Tim (who will if noone else does)
Bad Poet! Bad, BAD Poet! *rolled-up newspaper to the muzzle*
Barbarella.
Lucid H. Dreaming
>myself, but an opera is something that is purely music, no ...spoken
>dialogue as it were ?
Generaly that's right.
But what would a play consisting totaly of rapping be considered?
>
>Tim (who will if noone else does)
?
Trayce
Dreaming) wrote:
>In article <3B1C42B0...@bigpond.net.au>, Tim Hamilton wrote:
>>Barbarella wrote:
>>
>>Incidentally, I ask this only because I'm not sure of the definition
>>myself, but an opera is something that is purely music, no ...spoken
>>dialogue as it were ?
>
>Generaly that's right.
>
>But what would a play consisting totaly of rapping be considered?
Boring?
Trayce (heh... sorry... carry on)
Barbarella
>
> On 5 Jun 2001 12:45:33 +1100, dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au (Lucid H.
> Dreaming) wrote:
>
> >In article <3B1C42B0...@bigpond.net.au>, Tim Hamilton wrote:
> >>Incidentally, I ask this only because I'm not sure of the definition
> >>myself, but an opera is something that is purely music, no ...spoken
> >>dialogue as it were ?
> >
> >Generaly that's right.
> >But what would a play consisting totaly of rapping be considered?
>
> Boring?
My first thought was "gratuitous and offensive". But I was parsing the
sentence with one less 'p'.
D'oh.
> Trayce (heh... sorry... carry on)
We gotta read SOMEthing! :)
Barbarella - bored.
Neef
>
>> Tim (who will if noone else does)
>
>Bad Poet! Bad, BAD Poet! *rolled-up newspaper to the muzzle*
>
Guess that makes Tim a Beat Poet.
Hur hur hur...
:)
Neef (blah)
StoneFace
> Dictionary definition cites opera as "dramatic performance or
> composition of which music is an essential part", but in common parlance
> we delineate between 'opera' and 'musical' by absence or inclusion of
> spoken dialogue, yes.
Going by what's been hammered into my head about music/operas/etc, a "musical"
is a play/theatre performance set to music. It uses mostly modern singing
styles (ie, not the bizarre open-mouthed operatic voice), and doesn't rely
entirely on a symphonic orchestra for musical accompaniment. A musical relies
heavily on acting and stage movement. Productions that come to mind are Miss
Saigon, Les Mis, et al.
Opera, on the other hand, is a term more commonly applied to much older
productions. Someone already mentioned Mozart's Magic Flute. Though the Magic
Flute does has the extravagance of a modern day musical, it was still written
as a way to display the music visually, rather than using music as an
accompaniment to the story. The style of singing differs greatly as well. If
anyone has heard opera then you'll get the whole style thing. It's loud, it
resonates, it's intensely dramatic. And opera relies much more on musical
performance than acting. You hear about critics saying this person acts well
in thsi opera, but you'll often find they are referring to their performance
as a singer rather than a stage actor.
I have absolutely no idea why I decided to elaborate on the topic in such
detail, so my apologies to anyone who found that excruciatingly boring. But my
mind is kinda full of music type stuff at the moment. Practise exams coming
up. Music overload sort of thing.
*I don't know, I don't care,
and it doesn't make any difference.*
Lucid H. Dreaming
>
>Dictionary definition cites opera as "dramatic performance or
>composition of which music is an essential part", but in common parlance
>we delineate between 'opera' and 'musical' by absence or inclusion of
>spoken dialogue, yes.
Well onew thing to remember is that the concept of a musical is a fairly
recent invention. Late 19th century I think. There's a lot of things
from before that that would be considered a musical nowdays that were
operas back then.
>
>('tis also the plural form of "opus", I just learnt)
I didn't know that.
How does the derivation work? Is it considered an Opus for the composer
or is it a bit more roundabout?
>
>Barbarella.
Lucid H. Dreaming
>
>accompaniment to the story. The style of singing differs greatly as well. If
>anyone has heard opera then you'll get the whole style thing. It's loud, it
>resonates, it's intensely dramatic. And opera relies much more on musical
>performance than acting. You hear about critics saying this person acts well
>in thsi opera, but you'll often find they are referring to their performance
>as a singer rather than a stage actor.
I have a theory about that. Obviously we don't have any recordings
from back when the operas were performed but if you compare recordings
from the turn of the century to ones now the singing is more forced and
dramatic and I suspect that that trend is continueing. Modern Operatic
performances are probably getting to the stage of being parodies of
themselves.
>~SF
Tim Hamilton
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 12:41:51 +1000, Barbarella
> <barba...@internettrash.com> appeared in the Weekly World News
> headlines claiming :
>
>>>Tim (who will if noone else does)
>>>
>>Bad Poet! Bad, BAD Poet! *rolled-up newspaper to the muzzle*
>
> Guess that makes Tim a Beat Poet.
> Hur hur hur...
> :)
Don't tell me, you're here all week arent' you ? :)
Tim
Tim Hamilton
> In article <3B1C42B0...@bigpond.net.au>, Tim Hamilton wrote:
>
>>Barbarella wrote:
>>
>>Incidentally, I ask this only because I'm not sure of the definition
>>myself, but an opera is something that is purely music, no ...spoken
>>dialogue as it were ?
>>
>
> Generaly that's right.
>
> But what would a play consisting totaly of rapping be considered?
Depends on the type of rap. Some of it falls into the camp of fast,
rhyming poetry, some of it is goes into R&B.
As for quality, I leave that to the writer.
Tim (Gil Scott-Heron fan)
Neef
appeared in the Weekly World News headlines claiming :
>
>
>Don't tell me, you're here all week arent' you ? :)
Thank you thank you thank you!
Hey, did I tell you Im here all week?
I swear, melbourne is freaking me out, I just flew in from the gold
coast, and Boy! Are my arms tired!
*boom tish*
....
Take me wife....please!
*boom tish*
Say!, a Funny thing happened my way to the NG this evening..
Neef (woohoo)
Sandro
>wrote:
>>accompaniment to the story. The style of singing differs
>>greatly as well. If anyone has heard opera then you'll get the
>>whole style thing. It's loud, it resonates, it's intensely
>>dramatic. And opera relies much more on musical performance
>>than acting. You hear about critics saying this person acts
>>well in this opera, but you'll often find they are referring
>>to their performance as a singer rather than a stage actor.
It's all about the voice, primarily, but a great opera singer,
whether male or female, is seen as such both for the range and
power of their voice as well as their ability to communicate the
story through their performance in a role as a *character*. I
get the feeling that many people have a somewhat stereotypical
view of operas being nothing more than a Rubenesque Brunhilda
screaming out "Ride of the Valkyries" or some fat Pavarotti
look alike yelling loudly and going red in the face asking for
another plate of spaghetti. There is a great deal of range,
charisma, subtlety and emotion involved in opera. After all, it
is both a form of entertainment *AND* storytelling. They may be
singing, but they're still acting, even if it is in a very
stylised manner.
>I have a theory about that. Obviously we don't have any
>recordings from back when the operas were performed but if you
>compare recordings from the turn of the century to ones now the
>singing is more forced and dramatic and I suspect that that
>trend is continueing. Modern Operatic performances are probably
>getting to the stage of being parodies of themselves.
No. You haven't watched a single opera ever, have you?
Sandro - And they don't sing constantly during operas. And
musicals are the bastard offspring of opera: same source,
slightly different execution.
--
Carthage Must Be Destroyed - Cato the Elder
Neef
in the Weekly World News headlines claiming :
>
>It's all about the voice, primarily, but a great opera singer,
>whether male or female, is seen as such both for the range and
>power of their voice as well as their ability to communicate the
>story through their performance in a role as a *character*. I
>get the feeling that many people have a somewhat stereotypical
>view of operas being nothing more than a Rubenesque Brunhilda
>screaming out "Ride of the Valkyries" or some fat Pavarotti
>look alike yelling loudly and going red in the face asking for
>another plate of spaghetti.
Why Sandro M'dear, that couldnt possibly be directed at me could it?
:)
All becuase of a teensy TP reference? :)
Neef (pointless, plotless and pining for the Happy Tree)
Lucid H. Dreaming
>
>>I have a theory about that. Obviously we don't have any
>>recordings from back when the operas were performed but if you
>>compare recordings from the turn of the century to ones now the
>>singing is more forced and dramatic and I suspect that that
>>trend is continueing. Modern Operatic performances are probably
>>getting to the stage of being parodies of themselves.
>
>No. You haven't watched a single opera ever, have you?
You mean the ones being produced _now_?
I realy doubt that native speakers of the language the opera was in
couldn't understand a word that was being sung back then...
Or were you being sarcastic?
>
>Sandro - And they don't sing constantly during operas. And
>musicals are the bastard offspring of opera: same source,
>slightly different execution.
?
Sandro
Neef <ne...@sloth.vurt.net> wrote:
>On 5 Jun 2001 15:53:49 +1000, "Sandro" <cein...@my-deja.com>
>appeared in the Weekly World News headlines claiming :
>>It's all about the voice, primarily, but a great opera singer,
>>whether male or female, is seen as such both for the range and
>>power of their voice as well as their ability to communicate
>>the story through their performance in a role as a
>>*character*. I get the feeling that many people have a
>>somewhat stereotypical view of operas being nothing more than
>>a Rubenesque Brunhilda screaming out "Ride of the Valkyries"
>>or some fat Pavarotti look alike yelling loudly and going red
>>in the face asking for another plate of spaghetti.
>Why Sandro M'dear, that couldnt possibly be directed at me
>could it? :)
Not at all, sweetcheeks, it was aimed more at Stoneface (?) and
Oh Danny Boy who seem to have gleaned their knowledge of opera
from the same sources that taught Homer Simpson that the ballet
actually consists of a monkey wearing a hat riding a bicycle :)
Sandro
Unknown
>seem to have gleaned their knowledge of opera
from the same sources that taught Homer Simpson that the ballet
actually consists of a monkey wearing a hat riding a bicycle :)
Actually it was a bear riding a bicycle ...
Susan
Yes I watch too much television ...
----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.net/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals
Grizzly
> Not at all, sweetcheeks, it was aimed more at Stoneface (?) and
> Oh Danny Boy who seem to have gleaned their knowledge of opera
> from the same sources that taught Homer Simpson that the ballet
> actually consists of a monkey wearing a hat riding a bicycle :)
>
It doesn't?
Grizzly
(sorta confused now... ;) )
solitaire
<sp...@spam.com> wrote:
><snip>
>> Not at all, sweetcheeks, it was aimed more at Stoneface (?) and
>> Oh Danny Boy who seem to have gleaned their knowledge of opera
>> from the same sources that taught Homer Simpson that the ballet
>> actually consists of a monkey wearing a hat riding a bicycle :)
>>
><snip>
>
>It doesn't?
>
HTH, HAND.
sol.
.
--
Jai Cornes.
Portal Developer/Integrator
jai.c...@its.monash.edu.au -- 99055140
This line left intentionally blank.
Lucid H. Dreaming
>
>>Why Sandro M'dear, that couldnt possibly be directed at me
>>could it? :)
>
>Not at all, sweetcheeks, it was aimed more at Stoneface (?) and
>Oh Danny Boy who seem to have gleaned their knowledge of opera
>from the same sources that taught Homer Simpson that the ballet
>actually consists of a monkey wearing a hat riding a bicycle :)
Hi. I'm basing it on my extensive music collection, including the
entirety of Tristan and Isoulde. Going to operas watching them on
the ABC when they're on etc etc. Y'know lil' things like that....
And what little snippets I've heard from the turn of the century
definetly sound less forced than modern singers do.
At the rate things are going I'm willing to place bets that Diamanda
will sound like nothing special in 20 years.
Of course I can't prove it but I'm getting pretty strong vibes that
operas as performed in the 17th-18th century would seem more like a musical to
a modern audience than an opera.
The opera as an overbearing dramatic event realy only started with Wagner
and his micromanagement of the entire affair.
For example if I played snippets from Mozarts operas to a random audience
without telling them what it was I suspect few who didn't already know
would peg them as being from an opera.
The problem with modern opera performances is pretty much that they are
all desperately trying to _not_be_a_musical_.
If you still don't believe me then read the score of an opera and then
compare it to how it's being sung. The singers _will_ be messing up
the actual rhythm constantly for "artistic effect".
Contrast post-romantic operas with their total refusal to use a catchy
melody line to earlier operas.
So when's the last time you listened to anything from an opera?
>
>Sandro
Sandro
>>>I have a theory about that. Obviously we don't have any
>>>recordings from back when the operas were performed but if you
>>>compare recordings from the turn of the century to ones now
>>>the singing is more forced and dramatic and I suspect that
>>>that trend is continueing. Modern Operatic performances are
>>>probably getting to the stage of being parodies of themselves.
>>No. You haven't watched a single opera ever, have you?
>You mean the ones being produced _now_?
No, I meant that you've never gone back in time using a temporal
interplexing device and watched real opera as it was in the 17th
century. Naturally.
You've never watched any opera at all, both in this and in any
alternate timelines, is what I was pretty obviously asking.
>I realy doubt that native speakers of the language the opera
>was in couldn't understand a word that was being sung back
>then...
Huh? Italians didn't understand Italian in the past? The French
"common folk" didn't understand French? Operas aren't written in
Swahili in general, ya know.
>Or were you being sarcastic?
No. I wasn't. Do you always finish a post with a question?
Lucid H. Dreaming
>
>>I realy doubt that native speakers of the language the opera
>>was in couldn't understand a word that was being sung back
>>then...
>
>Huh? Italians didn't understand Italian in the past? The French
>"common folk" didn't understand French? Operas aren't written in
>Swahili in general, ya know.
Hunt down an opera singer singing in english and you'll see what I mean,
it's fairly rare but there should be something out there.
>
>>Or were you being sarcastic?
>
>No. I wasn't. Do you always finish a post with a question?
Maybe?
>
>Sandro
Sandro
>>>Why Sandro M'dear, that couldnt possibly be directed at me
>>>could it? :)
>>Not at all, sweetcheeks, it was aimed more at Stoneface (?) and
>>Oh Danny Boy who seem to have gleaned their knowledge of opera
>>from the same sources that taught Homer Simpson that the ballet
>>actually consists of a monkey wearing a hat riding a bicycle :)
>Hi. I'm basing it on my extensive music collection, including
>the entirety of Tristan and Isoulde.
Hi yourself. Wow, you know the name of an opera. That's really
neat, Danny. I take back everything I ever said about your
ignorance regarding opera, since you've convinced me that you
are in fact an expert because you mentioned one opera. I stand
corrected. Tristan and Isolde? That's an opera? I thought it was
a new pairing of fragances from Calvin Klein.
Both of us obviously have access to the net, we can search for
any info we need to fabricate our arguments. Your statements
prior to this clearly showed that you don't really know anything
about opera, and I very much doubt you could make the statements
you had if you did in fact have the wealth of experience that
you claim. But as always, I have to be mindful of the fact that
I might be wrong. In your case, Danny, I'll give myself the
benefit of the doubt and distrust anything you say :)
>Going to operas
Really? What were the last 4 that you went to, out of curiousity?
Quick, do a search for 4 operas that played at the Art Centre
over the last few years, there's bound to be some info on the
net!
>watching them on the ABC when they're on etc etc. Y'know lil'
>things like that....
Knowing that there is often opera on telly (usually Sundays,
yes?), doesn't mean you've actually watched it.
>And what little snippets I've heard from the turn of the century
>definetly sound less forced than modern singers do.
Poppycock and balderdash. The limits on the human voice have
not changed in the interim. Acoustics in architecture and design
have improved, thus taking the pressure off singers to sing their
guts out. This in turn has allowed for an evolution of the
subtleties in performance that are now standard. This was told
to me by Julia and Ebony, two lovely ladies that studied opera
singing at the Melbourne Conservatory.
>At the rate things are going I'm willing to place bets that
>Diamanda will sound like nothing special in 20 years.
>Of course I can't prove it but I'm getting pretty strong vibes
>that operas as performed in the 17th-18th century would seem
>more like a musical to a modern audience than an opera.
>The opera as an overbearing dramatic event realy only started
>with Wagner and his micromanagement of the entire affair.
Rubbish. Opera has always had an "overbearing" dramatic element,
most of them are tragedys you nincompoop. Blaming Wagner is
like blaming The Beatles for creating the Poptarts.
>For example if I played snippets from Mozarts operas to a
>random audience without telling them what it was I suspect few
>who didn't already know would peg them as being from an opera.
A random audience? If I played a random audience something from
VNV Nation I'm guaranteed that most of them will think its crap
and not be able to identify the source. What's your point?
Anyone with even a passing familiarity with orchaestral/classical
music would recognise what works they came from. An ignorant
audience won't know shit about anything, so what's their
relevance?
>The problem with modern opera performances is pretty much that
>they are all desperately trying to _not_be_a_musical_.
I don't think a lot of people are going to confuse Batavia with
Mamma Mia!!
>If you still don't believe me then read the score of an opera
>and then compare it to how it's being sung. The singers _will_
>be messing up the actual rhythm constantly for "artistic
>effect".
Ah, extrapolating an opinion to constitute some form of specious
evidence, lovely. You accusation ignores the fact that
conductors themselves don't follow the score precisely at all
times, do they?
>Contrast post-romantic operas with their total refusal to use a
>catchy melody line to earlier operas.
Can you give me the link to the website that you got this from
please? I'd like to examine the evidence myself.
>So when's the last time you listened to anything from an opera?
Two nights ago, Les Troyes by Berlioz, and Don Giovanni on
Saturday night. Well, that was an argument winner, wasn't it
little Missy?
Sandro - so what did you think of Batavia, Danny? Did it meet
your lofty expectations, dear boy?
Sandro
>>>I realy doubt that native speakers of the language the opera
>>>was in couldn't understand a word that was being sung back
>>>then...
>>Huh? Italians didn't understand Italian in the past? The French
>>"common folk" didn't understand French? Operas aren't written
>>in Swahili in general, ya know.
>Hunt down an opera singer singing in english and you'll see
>what I mean, it's fairly rare but there should be something out
>there.
Double Huh?? Are we having the same argument, or is this like
a Brigadoon situation where we intersect only for a day every
hundred years to continue this argument on the same plane of
existence?
You're not making much sense. I'm sure it makes sense to you,
but it's not clear what you're trying to say. To me at least,
maybe it's clear to anyone else.
>>>Or were you being sarcastic?
>>No. I wasn't. Do you always finish a post with a question?
>Maybe?
You're a regular George Bernard Shaw, ain't ya.
Sandro - it was a rhetorical question
Cam
Dreaming) wrote:
>But what would a play consisting totaly of rapping be considered?
Bad comedy?
Cam
____________________________________________________________
Website: www.cameron-rogers.com
The bomb lives only as it is falling.
- Iain M. Banks, 'Use of Weapons'
Kage-Ryu
Dreaming) inserted a refrigerator into their person and screamed:
>Of course I can't prove it but I'm getting pretty strong vibes that
>operas as performed in the 17th-18th century would seem more like a musical to
>a modern audience than an opera.
Actually, they tended to be more often than not a social event where
the upper classists were seen to be seen.
*shrug*
Kage-Ryu
"Crazy, I'm halfway to crazy
Suicide could save me
Oh no, but that is too extreme."
The Jesus and Mary Chain
Lucid H. Dreaming
>
>dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au (Lucid H. Dreaming) wrote:
>>In article <3b1c7bdf$1...@nexus.comcen.com.au>, Sandro wrote:
>
>>>>Why Sandro M'dear, that couldnt possibly be directed at me
>>>>could it? :)
>
>>>Not at all, sweetcheeks, it was aimed more at Stoneface (?) and
>>>Oh Danny Boy who seem to have gleaned their knowledge of opera
>>>from the same sources that taught Homer Simpson that the ballet
>>>actually consists of a monkey wearing a hat riding a bicycle :)
>
>>Hi. I'm basing it on my extensive music collection, including
>>the entirety of Tristan and Isoulde.
>
>Hi yourself. Wow, you know the name of an opera. That's really
>neat, Danny. I take back everything I ever said about your
>ignorance regarding opera, since you've convinced me that you
>are in fact an expert because you mentioned one opera. I stand
>corrected. Tristan and Isolde? That's an opera? I thought it was
>a new pairing of fragances from Calvin Klein.
It's one by Wagner it's based on the arthurian legend.
But you already know that don't you?
Just to make you feel better I'll point out when I've had to
websearch.
>
>Both of us obviously have access to the net, we can search for
>any info we need to fabricate our arguments. Your statements
>prior to this clearly showed that you don't really know anything
>about opera, and I very much doubt you could make the statements
>you had if you did in fact have the wealth of experience that
>you claim. But as always, I have to be mindful of the fact that
>I might be wrong. In your case, Danny, I'll give myself the
>benefit of the doubt and distrust anything you say :)
You haven't done anything other than attack the man and make
appeals to authority. C'mon prove you know something about the
music.
What's a hexachord?
What's the dorian mode?
What's a leitmotif?
Who wrote the soundtrack to The Temple of the Golden Pavilion?
How many BPM is Headhunter by Front242?
How many strings did a greek lyre have?
Why doesn't gamelan music have any relation to traditional western
modes?
What's a hurdy-gurdy?
If you have two singers how come singing together they aren't twice
as loud as one singer?
What causes distortion?
Which composer almost single-handedly popularised the use of the clarinet
in the orchestra?
Is modern tuning higher or lower in pitch than 300 years ago?
A lot of Beethovens works are written for "the well tempered clavier"
what does "well tempered" in this case mean?
What natural sound do the harmonics of almost all the instruments
in an orchestra at least approximate?
Even in a surround sound set up, why do you only need one subwoofer?
Where can you still hear chinese court music circa 600AD?
I know all these without needing to check them up on the net simply
because they're all areas of music I've looked into.
Now I may not have listened to as much opera as you but I'm definetly
not talking out my arse on it's history ok?
And waxing poetic about it's beauty doesn't prove anything other
than that you're a fanboy.
>
>>Going to operas
>
>Really? What were the last 4 that you went to, out of curiousity?
>Quick, do a search for 4 operas that played at the Art Centre
>over the last few years, there's bound to be some info on the
>net!
The last I went to was about three years ago. I don't remember it's
name and it bored me silly. And unlike you I don't have the money
to throw away $80 to watch people butcher something written several
hundred years ago.
>
>>watching them on the ABC when they're on etc etc. Y'know lil'
>>things like that....
>
>Knowing that there is often opera on telly (usually Sundays,
>yes?), doesn't mean you've actually watched it.
Well you're just going to have to trust me on that aren't you?
>
>>And what little snippets I've heard from the turn of the century
>>definetly sound less forced than modern singers do.
>
>Poppycock and balderdash. The limits on the human voice have
>not changed in the interim. Acoustics in architecture and design
>have improved, thus taking the pressure off singers to sing their
>guts out. This in turn has allowed for an evolution of the
>subtleties in performance that are now standard. This was told
>to me by Julia and Ebony, two lovely ladies that studied opera
>singing at the Melbourne Conservatory.
And I'd ask Bon Jovi (Yes I had to check that up) on the artistic
merits of his music.
You _don't_ ask the artists. Geez where did you get your critic
stripes from? The artists are going to inflate their own importance
and say _anything_ to avoid sounding like wankers.
Talked to a metalhead about guitar solos recently? I mean I didn't
think you knew much about music. But this is just soooo naive.
Innovation isn't always an improvement. And your friends are suffering
from the same disease that makes people play music intended for the
harpsichord on a piano.
Wankers.
>
>>At the rate things are going I'm willing to place bets that
>>Diamanda will sound like nothing special in 20 years.
>
>>Of course I can't prove it but I'm getting pretty strong vibes
>>that operas as performed in the 17th-18th century would seem
>>more like a musical to a modern audience than an opera.
>
>>The opera as an overbearing dramatic event realy only started
>>with Wagner and his micromanagement of the entire affair.
>
>Rubbish. Opera has always had an "overbearing" dramatic element,
>most of them are tragedys you nincompoop. Blaming Wagner is
>like blaming The Beatles for creating the Poptarts.
Ooooo your ignorance is showing.
The tradition Mozart (who arguably wrote the first modern operas)
was writing to was that of the italian operas which were _comedies_
(How would I check this up anyway if I didn't already know this I wouldn't
have known where to start) and The Magic Flute was definetly written
in this vein. There's catchy tunes, dancing.... Hey waitasec
this is starting to look a lot like... well a musical.
Don Giovanni bombed because it wasn't what this audience was expecting
being a tradgedy and all that. But even so it's unlikely the
now operatic style of singing suddenly sprang up overnight in
responce to it. But there were light elements to it. And until
the romantic era (and even during, eg Carmen)
those "comedic" elements were still part of the operatic tradition.
And the removal of them from the operatic lexicon is part of the
same movement that has every word from shakespeares pen ennunciated
in a grave tone and an english accent, totaly ignoring that there
were jesters in his plays and the accent they would have been performed
in would be closer to the modern american than queens english.
>>For example if I played snippets from Mozarts operas to a
>>random audience without telling them what it was I suspect few
>>who didn't already know would peg them as being from an opera.
>
>A random audience? If I played a random audience something from
>VNV Nation I'm guaranteed that most of them will think its crap
>and not be able to identify the source. What's your point?
>Anyone with even a passing familiarity with orchaestral/classical
>music would recognise what works they came from. An ignorant
>audience won't know shit about anything, so what's their
>relevance?
A random audience would probably quite like VNV-Nation _because_ it
is shit but anyway.
What we'd be doing here is the equivalent of taking a Delta symbol
and asking whether it's more like a triangle or a D.
Too much knowledge would be counterproductive in both cases as
their knowledge of the relations between the two would cause them
to link the two which are bound by history rather than by similarity.
Lets do a thought experiment.
J. Blow : Hrrrrrm lots of people dancing and singing... OOoo it's
a musical.
M. Wanker : Hrrrrm lots of people dancing and singing is it some obscure
italian musical?... waaaitasec
it's The Magic Flute... WTF!
See the problem?
>
>>The problem with modern opera performances is pretty much that
>>they are all desperately trying to _not_be_a_musical_.
>
>I don't think a lot of people are going to confuse Batavia with
>Mamma Mia!!
And that is _exactly_ the problem. Defining something by what it isn't
is a good way to end up in a rut.
And to be honest opera hit the point progressive rock was at
a long time ago and then bravely forged ahead.
>
>>If you still don't believe me then read the score of an opera
>>and then compare it to how it's being sung. The singers _will_
>>be messing up the actual rhythm constantly for "artistic
>>effect".
>
>Ah, extrapolating an opinion to constitute some form of specious
>evidence, lovely. You accusation ignores the fact that
>conductors themselves don't follow the score precisely at all
>times, do they?
Hehehe. There's a difference between doing it occasionaly for effect
and doing it constantly.
Those notes and those time signatures were written down by the
composer for a reason. (And no they aren't vague guidelines)
Did you like Orgys cover of Blue Monday?
>
>>Contrast post-romantic operas with their total refusal to use a
>>catchy melody line to earlier operas.
>
>Can you give me the link to the website that you got this from
>please? I'd like to examine the evidence myself.
The evidence is in the music. Y'know first hand evidence as opposed
to second or third hand evidence... I thought you listened to this stuff
constantly.
Compare and contrast Mozart to Wagner to Puccini. The progression
following the chronology is obvious. Less obvious harmonies, less catchy
melodies more melodrama.
So do you actualy listen to the operas you
attend or do you just go for elitist points and to try and pick up
h0t 0pera ch1cks!!!?
I don't know about more contemporary opera other than rock operas, that
you probably don't consider to be operas, but considering what
you've been saying I don't think the trend has reversed.
>
>>So when's the last time you listened to anything from an opera?
>
>Two nights ago, Les Troyes by Berlioz, and Don Giovanni on
>Saturday night. Well, that was an argument winner, wasn't it
>little Missy?
I realy don't understand how you managed to get so arrogant about
something you know nothing about. From what you've said you
like about opera you realy should be off bothering alt.fan.meatloaf
or whatever his newsgroup is instead of running your mouth
off here.
>
>Sandro - so what did you think of Batavia, Danny? Did it meet
>your lofty expectations, dear boy?
I don't know what it is, I haven't heard of it, and I can't be bothered
doing a websearch. If I see a recording in the bargain bin for
$2 I may just be bothered picking it up. :)
? - Now fuck off fan-boy.
Lucid H. Dreaming
>On 5 Jun 2001 17:00:22 +1100, dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au (Lucid H.
>Dreaming) inserted a refrigerator into their person and screamed:
>
>>Of course I can't prove it but I'm getting pretty strong vibes that
>>operas as performed in the 17th-18th century would seem more like a musical to
>>a modern audience than an opera.
>
>Actually, they tended to be more often than not a social event where
>the upper classists were seen to be seen.
I've heard that a lot and it's probably true.
But there had to be some component of amusement in them otherwise
operas by previously popular composers would never have bombed.
>Kage-Ryu
Lucid H. Dreaming
>
>>Hunt down an opera singer singing in english and you'll see
>>what I mean, it's fairly rare but there should be something out
>>there.
>
>Double Huh?? Are we having the same argument, or is this like
>a Brigadoon situation where we intersect only for a day every
>hundred years to continue this argument on the same plane of
>existence?
I'm arguing that modern productions of operas are becoming a parody
of their original performances. I'm not sure what you're arguing.
Lets compare notes.
For example the ennunciation (sp?) used by opera singers is constantly
getting more and more exaggerated as is the production.
etc etc blah blah blah.
>
>You're not making much sense. I'm sure it makes sense to you,
>but it's not clear what you're trying to say. To me at least,
>maybe it's clear to anyone else.
I'm afraid I can't answer that... You'll have to ask someone else.
>
>>>>Or were you being sarcastic?
>
>>>No. I wasn't. Do you always finish a post with a question?
>
>>Maybe?
>
>You're a regular George Bernard Shaw, ain't ya.
>
>Sandro - it was a rhetorical question
:p
? - Avoiding real work by writing long ranty posts on music.
Lucid H. Dreaming
> http://flem.dhs.org/comic/193.htm
Oh yeah Obscenity warnings for people who aren't willing to take
responsibility for their own actions when they follow links off that page.
?
Lucid H. Dreaming
>Lucid H. Dreaming <dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>
>:Oh yeah Obscenity warnings for people who aren't willing to take
>:responsibility for their own actions when they follow links off that page.
>
>last few days with its questionable nature to the weak (e.g. co-workers)
>already mentioned several times.
Shhhhh it's supposed to be a snide annoying remark. You're ruining
the joke with all the seriousness :)
Sandro
dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au (Lucid H. Dreaming) wrote:
>In article <3b1c9444$1...@nexus.comcen.com.au>, Sandro wrote:
>>dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au (Lucid H. Dreaming) wrote:
>>>In article <3b1c7bdf$1...@nexus.comcen.com.au>, Sandro wrote:
Goddamn this is going to take a long time to respond to.
>>>>>Why Sandro M'dear, that couldnt possibly be directed at me
>>>>>could it? :)
>>>>Not at all, sweetcheeks, it was aimed more at Stoneface (?)
>>>>and Oh Danny Boy who seem to have gleaned their knowledge of
>>>>opera from the same sources that taught Homer Simpson that
>>>>the ballet actually consists of a monkey wearing a hat
>>>>riding a bicycle :)
>>>Hi. I'm basing it on my extensive music collection, including
>>>the entirety of Tristan and Isoulde.
>>Hi yourself. Wow, you know the name of an opera. That's really
>>neat, Danny. I take back everything I ever said about your
>>ignorance regarding opera, since you've convinced me that you
>>are in fact an expert because you mentioned one opera. I stand
>>corrected. Tristan and Isolde? That's an opera? I thought it
>>was a new pairing of fragances from Calvin Klein.
>It's one by Wagner it's based on the arthurian legend.
Do tell. It sounds like the sort of music they would have had
in something like Excalibur, or something equally preposterous.
Nah, maybe not.
>But you already know that don't you?
What, me? Tristan and Isolde? Didn't they used to work behind
the bar at the Great Britain and sell drugs?
>Just to make you feel better I'll point out when I've had to
>websearch.
Liar :) Oh wait, that's libellous. I take that back lest you
sic mummy and daddy's lawyer on to me.
>>Both of us obviously have access to the net, we can search for
>>any info we need to fabricate our arguments. Your statements
>>prior to this clearly showed that you don't really know
>>anything about opera, and I very much doubt you could make the
>>statements you had if you did in fact have the wealth of
>>experience that you claim. But as always, I have to be mindful
>>of the fact that I might be wrong. In your case, Danny, I'll
>>give myself the benefit of the doubt and distrust anything you
>>say :)
>You haven't done anything other than attack the man and make
>appeals to authority. C'mon prove you know something about the
>music.
The man? Which man is that? There's only one man in this argument
rentboy.
>What's a hexachord?
Um, is this "Who Wants to Be a Squillionare", or "Who Wants to
Give Danny a few slaps"?
six pitch classes?
>What's the dorian mode?
The Picture of Dorian Mode? That Oscar Wilde play based on the
oft neglected ageless member of Depeche Mode? A mode consisting
of a pattern of tones and semitones, perhaps? The sequence of
which I can't be arsed replicating.
>What's a leitmotif?
Leif Garret's brother? A melodic line used to express an idea
or emotion, usually in opera
>Who wrote the soundtrack to The Temple of the Golden Pavilion?
Ya mum or Phillip Glass. Both equally repetitive.
>How many BPM is Headhunter by Front242?
No fucking idea nor do I care
>How many strings did a greek lyre have?
Since it was often used as an ancient equivalent of a tennis
racquet, in a game where the heads of child prodigies were lobbed
over temple walls, it had forty eight, to get the right amount
of tension required, of course. Or perhaps it had only eight, I
forget.
>Why doesn't gamelan music have any relation to traditional
>western modes?
Because it comes from Indonesia? Or fifteen other reasons?
Including the fact that it imitates frog calls? Or the pentatonic
scale? Or the myriad amount of instruments that can constitute
a "gamelan" orchaestra? Or its roots in Hindu mysticism? Give
it a rest, anyone that's listened to Dead Can Dance or Lisa
Gerrard's solo stuff could have answered that.
>What's a hurdy-gurdy?
A great cover of a Donovan song by the Butthole Surfers.
>If you have two singers how come singing together they aren't
>twice as loud as one singer?
Ego. It's usually an ego thing. Or interference / disruption.
>What causes distortion?
Satan, the lord of all that is inconvenient. Or Bill Gates.
>Which composer almost single-handedly popularised the use of
>the clarinet in the orchestra?
Perry Como. GG Allin. Brahms.
>Is modern tuning higher or lower in pitch than 300 years ago?
>A lot of Beethovens works are written for "the well tempered
>clavier" what does "well tempered" in this case mean?
He was the guy that cleaned the latrines at the concert halls.
If the music wasn't to his liking, for he was known to have a
bad temper, he would pour the refuse from a balcony to show his
displeasure. Thus, the music that Clavier liked had to be "well
tempered". Beethoven may have been stone deaf, but nothing tells
you how much a critic dislikes your music like a face full of
urine.
Clothboard, dampeners, call them what you will. And Bach had
more use for them, what with their prevalent use in his
variations, inventions et al.
>What natural sound do the harmonics of almost all the
>instruments in an orchestra at least approximate?
Don't know what you mean.
>Even in a surround sound set up, why do you only need one
>subwoofer?
Don't know. Who the fuck do you think I am, the saleperson at
JB Hifi? If I was I'd get security to turf you out into the
gutter for sticking Bardot CD's down your pants.
>Where can you still hear chinese court music circa 600AD?
>I know all these without needing to check them up on the net
>simply because they're all areas of music I've looked into.
Wow. I'm sure every boy and girl on this newsgroup is just
getting soooo wet in the pants department over the length and
breadth of your knowledge and appreciation of music. None of
which you've actually shown in this post. But keep trying, some
one will fuck you for it eventually.
>Now I may not have listened to as much opera as you but I'm
>definetly not talking out my arse on it's history ok?
You've regurgitated many facts about musical theory et al. None
of which even remotely indicate any knowledge or appreciation of
opera. As to its history, you never even touched on it, did you:)
>And waxing poetic about it's beauty doesn't prove anything other
>than that you're a fanboy.
I never commented on its beauty. I never declaimed anyone as
being an ingrate for not appreciating opera. I wouldn't even
describe myself as a lover of opera, and I find it perfectly
understandable that the vast majority of people, both in this
newsgroup and in the greater world don't give a fat rat's
fuckhole about it. I don't like monster trucks, ballet, Bacardi
Breezers or Big Brother. I don't care if anyone else likes opera.
I merely commented on the fact that people were expressing
opinions regarding something which they knew nothing about, a
premise which you have entirely supported with your petty
attempts at by making extensive use of the "Do Too!!" concept
of argumentation. By your own admission, whilst you may or may
not know much about music itself, you know nothing about opera.
>>>Going to operas
>>Really? What were the last 4 that you went to, out of
>>curiousity? Quick, do a search for 4 operas that played at the
>>Arts Centre over the last few years, there's bound to be some
>>info on the net!
>The last I went to was about three years ago. I don't remember
>it's name and it bored me silly. And unlike you I don't have
>the money to throw away $80 to watch people butcher something
>written several hundred years ago.
Wonderfully avoided, Danny Bonnaducce. You've been to one opera
in your life who's name you don't remember. Do you also have a
bridge, possibly the Sydney Harbour, that you'd like to sell me
as well? :) Just admit it, Daniel, you know not of what you speak
>>>watching them on the ABC when they're on etc etc. Y'know lil'
>>>things like that....
>>Knowing that there is often opera on telly (usually Sundays,
>>yes?), doesn't mean you've actually watched it.
>Well you're just going to have to trust me on that aren't you?
Trust you. That's funny. Real funny.
>>>And what little snippets I've heard from the turn of the
>>>century definetly sound less forced than modern singers do.
>>Poppycock and balderdash. The limits on the human voice have
>>not changed in the interim. Acoustics in architecture and
>>design have improved, thus taking the pressure off singers to
>>sing their guts out. This in turn has allowed for an evolution
>>of the subtleties in performance that are now standard. This
>>was told to me by Julia and Ebony, two lovely ladies that
>>studied opera singing at the Melbourne Conservatory.
>And I'd ask Bon Jovi (Yes I had to check that up) on the
>artistic merits of his music.
Yes. Obviously the same. Fuck that's a lame reposte even for you.
>You _don't_ ask the artists.
You're right. Classically trained musicians and vocalists have
no experience or knowledge to share with me. I should be taking
the word of hyperactive dilettantes that can never admit when
they're talking shit and make stuff up as they go along.
>Geez where did you get your critic stripes from?
They were on the skull of my forefather, washed up on a deserted
beach, I swore an oath...
>The artists are going to inflate their own importance
>and say _anything_ to avoid sounding like wankers.
>Talked to a metalhead about guitar solos recently? I mean I
>didn't think you knew much about music. But this is just soooo
>naive.
I was classically trained from a young age up until I gave it up
at age eighteen, qualified in both prac and theory. You don't
got a fucking clue, do you, you whiny little child.
>Innovation isn't always an improvement. And your friends are
>suffering from the same disease that makes people play music
>intended for the harpsichord on a piano.
They definitely weren't my friends, and what you said is doubly
silly. The women that my housemate slept with on a regular basis
rarely tarried long enough to become friends. But we did have
interesting conversations.
>Wankers.
That's brilliant. Insult people that know far more about music
than your sweet self simply because I use them to support a
contention. Wonderful debating technique you have there, sweetie
Whose argument are you supporting? Read back through that and
tell me where it contradicts my assertion.
>And the removal of them from the operatic lexicon is part of the
>same movement that has every word from shakespeares pen
>enunciated in a grave tone and an english accent, totaly
>ignoring that there were jesters in his plays and the accent
>they would have been performed in would be closer to the modern
>american than queens english.
{To class} Do you see what Daniel did here? (points to
blackboard). This is where Daniel continued rambling to hide the
fact that he knows little to nothing about the subject matter at
hand, trying to obfuscate by using extraneous material in an
argument. Bad Daniel, bad Daniel!
>>>For example if I played snippets from Mozarts operas to a
>>>random audience without telling them what it was I suspect few
>>>who didn't already know would peg them as being from an opera.
>>A random audience? If I played a random audience something from
>>VNV Nation I'm guaranteed that most of them will think its crap
>>and not be able to identify the source. What's your point?
>>Anyone with even a passing familiarity with
>>orchaestral/classical music would recognise what works they
>>came from. An ignorant audience won't know shit about
>>anything, so what's their relevance?
>A random audience would probably quite like VNV-Nation
>_because_ it is shit but anyway.
>What we'd be doing here is the equivalent of taking a Delta
>symbol and asking whether it's more like a triangle or a D.
No, what we're doing is arguing about gardening. I may know
something about gardening, you may or may not anything about
gardening, but you'll be damned if you admit that you know
nothing about it, and you're happy to bring up particle physics
and James Bond films to hide that fact.
>Too much knowledge would be counterproductive in both cases as
>their knowledge of the relations between the two would cause
>them to link the two which are bound by history rather than by
>similarity.
Meaningless pseudo-sophistry
>Lets do a thought experiment.
Let's not and say we did
>J. Blow : Hrrrrrm lots of people dancing and singing... OOoo
>it's a musical.
>M. Wanker : Hrrrrm lots of people dancing and singing is it
>some obscure italian musical?... waaaitasec
>it's The Magic Flute... WTF!
>See the problem?
Nup, since I posted ages ago on this same thread saying that the
concepts of "opera" and "musicals" were pretty much the same.
>>>The problem with modern opera performances is pretty much that
>>>they are all desperately trying to _not_be_a_musical_.
That's not my problem, nor my contention.
>>I don't think a lot of people are going to confuse Batavia with
>>Mamma Mia!!
>And that is _exactly_ the problem. Defining something by what
>it isn't is a good way to end up in a rut.
One has a full orchestral score. One has ABBA music. Your parents
think you're smart, have high hopes for you, you figure it out,
Epstein.
>And to be honest opera hit the point progressive rock was at
>a long time ago and then bravely forged ahead.
>>>If you still don't believe me then read the score of an opera
>>>and then compare it to how it's being sung. The singers _will_
>>>be messing up the actual rhythm constantly for "artistic
>>>effect".
>>Ah, extrapolating an opinion to constitute some form of
>>specious evidence, lovely. You accusation ignores the fact that
>>conductors themselves don't follow the score precisely at all
>>times, do they?
>Hehehe. There's a difference between doing it occasionaly for
>effect and doing it constantly.
>Those notes and those time signatures were written down by the
>composer for a reason. (And no they aren't vague guidelines)
Really? I thought they were all pretty much if you felt like it,
you know, go with the flow, let yourself go etc......
>Did you like Orgys cover of Blue Monday?
Yes, I masturbate to it daily.
>>>Contrast post-romantic operas with their total refusal to use
>>>a catchy melody line to earlier operas.
>>Can you give me the link to the website that you got this from
>>please? I'd like to examine the evidence myself.
>The evidence is in the music. Y'know first hand evidence as
>opposed to second or third hand evidence... I thought you
>listened to this stuff constantly.
Never claimed to. "First hand" is an appropriate phrase for thou
to use. One wonders what you are typing with, and which hand is
busier.
>Compare and contrast Mozart to Wagner to Puccini.
Mozart and Wagner each have six letters in their surnames. Poor
sod Puccini has seven. Mozart starts with an M, Wagner with a
W, and Puccini with a P. Their names all start with consonants.
Mozart was a poor eskimo whose daddy Leopold was caught shagging
a walrus, which brought disgrace upon his house. Wagner secretly
loved J*ws, especially with the right hollondaise sauce, but
only pretended to hate them in order to please his friend Nitschy
Puccini was a notorious rootrat, so much so that his name became
synonymous with raw, steamy sex in alleyways. They all died in
relative obscurity, awaiting the day when they could be used in
senseless venal arguments on acg, whereupon what remains of their
corpses spin in their graves like roast chickens in a rotisserie
each time Daniel takes their names in vain.
>The progression following the chronology is obvious. Less
>obvious harmonies, less catchy melodies more melodrama.
Chronologically, it doesn't follow at all. You have made an
assumption that it is so, yet have nothing to back it up apart
from a supposition. Which is fine, but your suppositions aren't
yet accepted as universal truths just yet.
You have of late, I know not how recently, developed a standpoint
on opera based on your own obviously limited knowledge of the
subject, gleaned mostly from television and cereal boxes. It has
mutated to serve your questionable need to avoid facing the
truth: that you neither know nor care that much about opera, but
cannot admit that you are less than a Rhodes scholar on any
topic. I have never tried to contend that I have expert knowledge
on this or any other topics except pornography, the music of
Dead Can Dance, the works of Gabriel Garcia Marquez and vampire
movies. Right now I am in the process of forgetting what this
argument is about.
>So do you actualy listen to the operas you attend or do you
>just go for elitist points and to try and pick up h0t 0pera
>ch1cks!!!?
Why the fuck would I bother going to the opera if not to see the
operas themselves and to hear the music / hear & see the
performances? And my boyfriend doesn't like it when I bring home
opera-trash.
>I don't know about more contemporary opera other than rock
>operas, that you probably don't consider to be operas, but
>considering what you've been saying I don't think the trend has
>reversed.
Huh?
>>>So when's the last time you listened to anything from an
>>>opera?
>>Two nights ago, Les Troyes by Berlioz, and Don Giovanni on
>>Saturday night. Well, that was an argument winner, wasn't it
>>little Missy?
>I realy don't understand how you managed to get so arrogant
>about something you know nothing about.
I am not being arrogant about this argument, Daniel. I just think
it would be slightly more topical and interesting if I was
discussing it with a) someone that actually knew or liked opera,
b) an adult, or c) an amphibian.
>From what you've said you like about opera you realy should be
>off bothering alt.fan.meatloaf or whatever his newsgroup is
>instead of running your mouth off here.
Then I wouldn't have the questionable pleasure of your company,
nor would I be able to watch your childish antics on any other
newsgroup.
>>Sandro - so what did you think of Batavia, Danny? Did it meet
>>your lofty expectations, dear boy?
>I don't know what it is, I haven't heard of it, and I can't be
>bothered doing a websearch.
It was a contemporary opera staged in Melbourne a scant few weeks
ago, based on the wreck of a ship called the Batavia. Stirring
stuff.
>If I see a recording in the bargain bin for $2 I may just be
>bothered picking it up. :)
Along with your hard earned degree
>? - Now fuck off fan-boy.
You sawn-off little runt, go back to doing your Corey Hart
impression by wearing your sunglasses at night, and leave the
adults to discuss weighty matters <sniff>.
Sandro - you really can be tiresome, Danny
Sandro
>>>Hunt down an opera singer singing in english and you'll see
>>>what I mean, it's fairly rare but there should be something
>>>out there.
>>Double Huh?? Are we having the same argument, or is this like
>>a Brigadoon situation where we intersect only for a day every
>>hundred years to continue this argument on the same plane of
>>existence?
>I'm arguing that modern productions of operas are becoming a
>parody of their original performances. I'm not sure what you're
>arguing.
So, are you arguing that the contemporary performances of all
ye olde worlde operas are more, something or other? Wouldn't both
you and I have to see at least a substantial proportion of
all the performances to be able to judge that? Is that really
your argument? That the source material has been torn, spindled
and mutilated in the hands of contemporary hacks who've rendered
it unrecognisable compared to the original? Wouldn't I have to
see every performance to judge that? And doesn't it follow that
the "accepted" performances, the ones that end up as Decca
recordings as well, wouldn't those necessarily follow the
"traditional" format?
The performers themselves, with rare exceptions, have to be
conversant in the language they're singing in (mostly Italian).
They are trained as opera singers, yes? And schooled in the
"correct" pronounciation required for the songs? I think you
may be trying to say that, like Shakespeare's drivel, it started
off as populist for the masses type stuff, and was co-opted by
the elites and made all poncy with different pronounciations
and haughtiness to take it out of the hands of the common folk.
Opera's not like that. Popular support ranked (and ranks) a
distant fifteenth behind patronage and the peerages. That the
"common folk" loved it as well is more a testament to the quality
of the music and the performances than it does to any notions of
accessability.
>Lets compare notes.
>For example the enunciation (sp?) used by opera singers is
>constantly getting more and more exaggerated as is the
>production.
I entirely disagree, only so far as I don't have access to a
time machine in order to judge it comprehensively by going into
the past to see the Masters putting on their own shows. If you
read up on the great performances, even those that occured in
practical antiquity compared to us, you'd see that the
performances more often than not were extremely extravagant
affairs, as dictated by the city, venue patron and composer /
creator. The sums and money involved have changed, but the
performances most often "traditionally" follow the same format.
You claim to know something about Chinese opera. Is there not a
strict, traditional format that lasted for hundreds of years
with little variation as the performances themselves were handed
down from generation to generation? The same can go for European
opera, albeit with greater complexity. The operas that I've seen
placed emphasis on sets etc., but not to an overwhelming extent,
and not to detract from the real reason people are there. The
performances held true to the original formats, almost to an
anachronistic extent. Contemporary opera is an entirely different
kettle of fish, but we're talking about the staging of the
classics. Aren't we?
>etc etc blah blah blah.
>>You're not making much sense. I'm sure it makes sense to you,
>>but it's not clear what you're trying to say. To me at least,
>>maybe it's clear to anyone else.
>I'm afraid I can't answer that... You'll have to ask someone
>else.
I did. My mum said you're a very naughty boy who needs to take
the toffey out of his mouth before he speaks.
>>>>>Or were you being sarcastic?
>>>>No. I wasn't. Do you always finish a post with a question?
>>>Maybe?
>>You're a regular George Bernard Shaw, ain't ya.
>>Sandro - it was a rhetorical question
>:p
Sandro
Lucid H. Dreaming
>
>dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au (Lucid H. Dreaming) wrote:
>>In article <3b1c9444$1...@nexus.comcen.com.au>, Sandro wrote:
>>>dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au (Lucid H. Dreaming) wrote:
>>>>In article <3b1c7bdf$1...@nexus.comcen.com.au>, Sandro wrote:
>
>Goddamn this is going to take a long time to respond to.
Don't argue with me when I'm avoiding homework. It's messy.
>
>>It's one by Wagner it's based on the arthurian legend.
>
>Do tell. It sounds like the sort of music they would have had
>in something like Excalibur, or something equally preposterous.
>Nah, maybe not.
Nothing like that. Mostly it's just moody soundscapes...
Very "romantic".
>
>>But you already know that don't you?
>
>What, me? Tristan and Isolde? Didn't they used to work behind
>the bar at the Great Britain and sell drugs?
>
>>Just to make you feel better I'll point out when I've had to
>>websearch.
>
>Liar :) Oh wait, that's libellous. I take that back lest you
>sic mummy and daddy's lawyer on to me.
>
>>>Both of us obviously have access to the net, we can search for
>>>any info we need to fabricate our arguments. Your statements
>>>prior to this clearly showed that you don't really know
>>>anything about opera, and I very much doubt you could make the
>>>statements you had if you did in fact have the wealth of
>>>experience that you claim. But as always, I have to be mindful
>>>of the fact that I might be wrong. In your case, Danny, I'll
>>>give myself the benefit of the doubt and distrust anything you
>>>say :)
>
>>You haven't done anything other than attack the man and make
>>appeals to authority. C'mon prove you know something about the
>>music.
>
>The man? Which man is that? There's only one man in this argument
>rentboy.
Don't be so literal fanboy.
>
>>What's a hexachord?
>
>Um, is this "Who Wants to Be a Squillionare", or "Who Wants to
>Give Danny a few slaps"?
>
>six pitch classes?
Had to websearch to see what you meant since my backgrounds more
music history than classical training. But yes.
They were specificaly used a lot in church music pre-renaisance and are
what the various modes and eventualy the modern twelve tone scale.
>
>>What's the dorian mode?
>
>The Picture of Dorian Mode? That Oscar Wilde play based on the
>oft neglected ageless member of Depeche Mode? A mode consisting
>of a pattern of tones and semitones, perhaps? The sequence of
>which I can't be arsed replicating.
Yeah it's basicaly the same as a minor mode except for one semitone.
Scarbourough (sp?) fair is in it.
>>What's a leitmotif?
>
>Leif Garret's brother? A melodic line used to express an idea
>or emotion, usually in opera
First used by Wagner yes. A lot of modern movies actualy use it in their
soundtracks.
>
>>Who wrote the soundtrack to The Temple of the Golden Pavilion?
>
>Ya mum or Phillip Glass. Both equally repetitive.
Yeap.
>
>>How many BPM is Headhunter by Front242?
>
>No fucking idea nor do I care
About 130 IIRC.
>
>>How many strings did a greek lyre have?
>
>Since it was often used as an ancient equivalent of a tennis
>racquet, in a game where the heads of child prodigies were lobbed
>over temple walls, it had forty eight, to get the right amount
>of tension required, of course. Or perhaps it had only eight, I
>forget.
5 the greeks used a pentameter.
>
>>Why doesn't gamelan music have any relation to traditional
>>western modes?
>
>Because it comes from Indonesia? Or fifteen other reasons?
>Including the fact that it imitates frog calls? Or the pentatonic
>scale? Or the myriad amount of instruments that can constitute
>a "gamelan" orchaestra? Or its roots in Hindu mysticism? Give
>it a rest, anyone that's listened to Dead Can Dance or Lisa
>Gerrard's solo stuff could have answered that.
Nah it's because traditional western modes are based around the
harmonics of the human voice. Most music around the world can be at
least well approximated because their harmonic systems are based around
the human voice as well but gamelan music being percussive is based
around totaly different harmonics.
They've only recently managed to get bells that follow traditional
western harmonics and that's only because they used computer simulation
to design them. They look like gourds cut in half.
>
>>What's a hurdy-gurdy?
>
>A great cover of a Donovan song by the Butthole Surfers.
So wouldn't it just be a Donovan song then?
>
>>If you have two singers how come singing together they aren't
>>twice as loud as one singer?
>
>Ego. It's usually an ego thing. Or interference / disruption.
That's one way of looking at it. I always just view it as even
if the two are singing at an identical pitch it's pretty much impossible
to have the two voices re-inforce each other perfectly this getting
double the noise level.
>
>>What causes distortion?
>
>Satan, the lord of all that is inconvenient. Or Bill Gates.
It's just when the waveform is squashed at the top. Analogue distortion
where the squashing is "smooth" and curved. Is what most people
want. Digital distortion just lops off the top of the waveform.
>
>>Which composer almost single-handedly popularised the use of
>>the clarinet in the orchestra?
>
>Perry Como. GG Allin. Brahms.
Mozart :p
>
>>Is modern tuning higher or lower in pitch than 300 years ago?
>>A lot of Beethovens works are written for "the well tempered
>>clavier" what does "well tempered" in this case mean?
>
>He was the guy that cleaned the latrines at the concert halls.
>If the music wasn't to his liking, for he was known to have a
>bad temper, he would pour the refuse from a balcony to show his
>displeasure. Thus, the music that Clavier liked had to be "well
>tempered". Beethoven may have been stone deaf, but nothing tells
>you how much a critic dislikes your music like a face full of
>urine.
>
>Clothboard, dampeners, call them what you will. And Bach had
>more use for them, what with their prevalent use in his
>variations, inventions et al.
Geez... All it means is that you can transpose the music to any key
on the instrument and it will still sound right compared to the standard
tuning of the day where some keys would sound more strident than others.
(That's another thing we've lost in modern performances of classical
music BTW)
>
>>What natural sound do the harmonics of almost all the
>>instruments in an orchestra at least approximate?
>
>Don't know what you mean.
If you get a string attach it to a box and start twanging you don't get
the same harmonics as you do with a violin.
Most orchestral instruments are made to approximate the harmonics of the
human voice so that the western 12 tone scale and the expected consonance
and dissonance will "work".
Unfortunatly with most brass the higher pitches realy start getting out
of whack with what's expected, hence their piercing sound.
(It's the same deal with high notes on a guitar that's why they're
used so often in guitar solos)
>
>>Even in a surround sound set up, why do you only need one
>>subwoofer?
>
>Don't know. Who the fuck do you think I am, the saleperson at
>JB Hifi? If I was I'd get security to turf you out into the
>gutter for sticking Bardot CD's down your pants.
Geez and people think classical training teaches something?
As far as peoples perception goes the bass frequencies are
non-directional so it doesn't realy matter where the subwoofer is.
How can you use sound if you don't know it's qualities?
>
>>Where can you still hear chinese court music circa 600AD?
>>I know all these without needing to check them up on the net
>>simply because they're all areas of music I've looked into.
>
>Wow. I'm sure every boy and girl on this newsgroup is just
>getting soooo wet in the pants department over the length and
>breadth of your knowledge and appreciation of music. None of
>which you've actually shown in this post. But keep trying, some
>one will fuck you for it eventually.
In the japanese imperial court. Stick that in your google and smoke it.
>
>>Now I may not have listened to as much opera as you but I'm
>>definetly not talking out my arse on it's history ok?
>
>You've regurgitated many facts about musical theory et al. None
>of which even remotely indicate any knowledge or appreciation of
>opera. As to its history, you never even touched on it, did you:)
"leitmotif" *cough*
And Gabba Gabba hey! I gave you a great chance to get your great big
musical d*ck out and wave it around so what are you worried about?
>
>>And waxing poetic about it's beauty doesn't prove anything other
>>than that you're a fanboy.
>
>I never commented on its beauty. I never declaimed anyone as
>being an ingrate for not appreciating opera. I wouldn't even
>describe myself as a lover of opera, and I find it perfectly
>understandable that the vast majority of people, both in this
>newsgroup and in the greater world don't give a fat rat's
>fuckhole about it. I don't like monster trucks, ballet, Bacardi
>Breezers or Big Brother. I don't care if anyone else likes opera.
>I merely commented on the fact that people were expressing
>opinions regarding something which they knew nothing about, a
>premise which you have entirely supported with your petty
>attempts at by making extensive use of the "Do Too!!" concept
>of argumentation. By your own admission, whilst you may or may
>not know much about music itself, you know nothing about opera.
Opera is just another form of music. Same rules for harmony and melody
and structure with
a couple of extra conventions to stick to.
Large hunks of this knowledge would pertain to opera even _if_I_didn't_know
_opera_existed_. The same way that knowledge of fluid dynamics would
allow a physicist who'd never seen a river before to understand it's
nature.
Given this and that I have _listened_ to a fair chunk of various
operas I think that any analysis I do on the musical elements of
operas is going to be at least pointing in the vague direction of
the target.
If it makes you feel better this whole thread has made me drag what I own
out of the dusty corner of my music collection to see whether I'm talking out
my arse.
>
>>>>Going to operas
>
>>>Really? What were the last 4 that you went to, out of
>>>curiousity? Quick, do a search for 4 operas that played at the
>>>Arts Centre over the last few years, there's bound to be some
>>>info on the net!
>
>>The last I went to was about three years ago. I don't remember
>>it's name and it bored me silly. And unlike you I don't have
>>the money to throw away $80 to watch people butcher something
>>written several hundred years ago.
>
>Wonderfully avoided, Danny Bonnaducce. You've been to one opera
>in your life who's name you don't remember. Do you also have a
>bridge, possibly the Sydney Harbour, that you'd like to sell me
>as well? :) Just admit it, Daniel, you know not of what you speak
So recordings just _don't_count_?
>
>
>>>Knowing that there is often opera on telly (usually Sundays,
>>>yes?), doesn't mean you've actually watched it.
>
>>Well you're just going to have to trust me on that aren't you?
>
>Trust you. That's funny. Real funny.
What do you want as proof? Date stamped video tapes?
Talking of which if you want proof I want proof. Your attendance
at these operas. Scanned tickets webbed pronto buster.
>
>>>>And what little snippets I've heard from the turn of the
>>>>century definetly sound less forced than modern singers do.
>
>>>Poppycock and balderdash. The limits on the human voice have
>>>not changed in the interim. Acoustics in architecture and
>>>design have improved, thus taking the pressure off singers to
>>>sing their guts out. This in turn has allowed for an evolution
>>>of the subtleties in performance that are now standard. This
>>>was told to me by Julia and Ebony, two lovely ladies that
>>>studied opera singing at the Melbourne Conservatory.
>
>>And I'd ask Bon Jovi (Yes I had to check that up) on the
>>artistic merits of his music.
>
>Yes. Obviously the same. Fuck that's a lame reposte even for you.
The only difference between a conservatory trained musician and
Bon Jovi is that one of them spent 4 years getting a piece of
paper proving they've learnt to digitaly manipulate their genitals
from the appropriate authorities.
>
>>You _don't_ ask the artists.
>
>You're right. Classically trained musicians and vocalists have
>no experience or knowledge to share with me. I should be taking
>the word of hyperactive dilettantes that can never admit when
>they're talking shit and make stuff up as they go along.
I'm just taking knowledge aquired from _other_ fields and applying
it to opera.
From my perspective the two lovely ladies are witchdocters explaining
why their ridiculous little dance brings rain.
>
>>Geez where did you get your critic stripes from?
>
>They were on the skull of my forefather, washed up on a deserted
>beach, I swore an oath...
Phantom references. And you think that me wearing shades out because
I'm coming directly from work is lame.
Of course I've just admitted I recognize that reference but
you win some... you lose some.
>
>>The artists are going to inflate their own importance
>>and say _anything_ to avoid sounding like wankers.
>>Talked to a metalhead about guitar solos recently? I mean I
>>didn't think you knew much about music. But this is just soooo
>>naive.
>
>I was classically trained from a young age up until I gave it up
>at age eighteen, qualified in both prac and theory. You don't
>got a fucking clue, do you, you whiny little child.
You don't get classicaly trained unless your parents have money,
a lot of it. So where's the hostility to me from? Misplaced self
hatred? Or did yer parents kick the bucket and leave all the
dough to your elder brother or something?
And since when does a lifetime training in a quasi-mystic,
ad-hoc musical vocabulary with a primitive sense of rhythm,
that a vast majority of the population
doesn't even understand mean you know music?
Next you're going to tell me that the latin classes you took
qualify you as a linguist.
Go play with a real synth, some FX, and a waveform editor and
then we can talk.
Music is a collection of sounds. So at a fundamental level you
need to understand how and why sound operate to understand music.
>>Innovation isn't always an improvement. And your friends are
>>suffering from the same disease that makes people play music
>>intended for the harpsichord on a piano.
>
>They definitely weren't my friends, and what you said is doubly
>silly. The women that my housemate slept with on a regular basis
>rarely tarried long enough to become friends. But we did have
>interesting conversations.
You're avoiding the issue... At least when I do it I sidestep it
gracefully and make a pretence of having answered it.
>
>>Wankers.
>
>That's brilliant. Insult people that know far more about music
>than your sweet self simply because I use them to support a
>contention. Wonderful debating technique you have there, sweetie
See the bit about classical training a couple of paragraphs up.
>
>>Ooooo your ignorance is showing.
>>The tradition Mozart (who arguably wrote the first modern
>>operas) was writing to was that of the italian operas which
>>were _comedies_ (How would I check this up anyway if I didn't
>>already know this I wouldn't have known where to start) and The
>>Magic Flute was definetly written in this vein. There's catchy
>>tunes, dancing.... Hey waitasec this is starting to look a lot
>>like... well a musical.
>>Don Giovanni bombed because it wasn't what this audience was
>>expecting being a tradgedy and all that. But even so it's
>>unlikely the now operatic style of singing suddenly sprang up
>>overnight in responce to it. But there were light elements to
>>it. And until the romantic era (and even during, eg Carmen)
>>those "comedic" elements were still part of the operatic
>>tradition.
>
>Whose argument are you supporting? Read back through that and
>tell me where it contradicts my assertion.
I'm supporting _my_ argument. Which is that opera is progressively
turning into a parody of itself. Or even better a parody of a parody
of itself and has dissapeared up it's own arse so many times that
it's starting to cause fractures in space/time.
Since you accused me of learning everything I know about Opera
from the Simpsons I also have as a secondary objective to prove
a passing familiarity with opera.
As a tertiary objective I'm going to see whether I can prove that
opera has turned into a twisted parody of itself because of it's
need to contrast itself from the musical.
Everything else is simply because I like arguing with you...
It's _fun_.
>
>>And the removal of them from the operatic lexicon is part of the
>>same movement that has every word from shakespeares pen
>>enunciated in a grave tone and an english accent, totaly
>>ignoring that there were jesters in his plays and the accent
>>they would have been performed in would be closer to the modern
>>american than queens english.
>
>{To class} Do you see what Daniel did here? (points to
>blackboard). This is where Daniel continued rambling to hide the
>fact that he knows little to nothing about the subject matter at
>hand, trying to obfuscate by using extraneous material in an
>argument. Bad Daniel, bad Daniel!
So is or is not the tendancy to take Shakespeare too seriously
coming from the same ground as the tendancy to take opera too seriously?
>
>>A random audience would probably quite like VNV-Nation
>>_because_ it is shit but anyway.
>
>>What we'd be doing here is the equivalent of taking a Delta
>>symbol and asking whether it's more like a triangle or a D.
>
>No, what we're doing is arguing about gardening. I may know
>something about gardening, you may or may not anything about
>gardening, but you'll be damned if you admit that you know
>nothing about it, and you're happy to bring up particle physics
>and James Bond films to hide that fact.
So how isn't playing operas to an ignorant audience and seeing
whether they think it's a musical or an opera not relevant
to establishing whether operas tend towards becoming parodies
of themselves?
>
>>Too much knowledge would be counterproductive in both cases as
>>their knowledge of the relations between the two would cause
>>them to link the two which are bound by history rather than by
>>similarity.
>
>Meaningless pseudo-sophistry
The sophists were right Socrates and Aristotle were full of it
go read some Nietzsche.
>
>Nup, since I posted ages ago on this same thread saying that the
>concepts of "opera" and "musicals" were pretty much the same.
Well in that case what exactly are you saying below?
>>>>The problem with modern opera performances is pretty much that
>>>>they are all desperately trying to _not_be_a_musical_.
>
>That's not my problem, nor my contention.
Too bad. It's half of what I've been arguing all along.
>
>>>I don't think a lot of people are going to confuse Batavia with
>>>Mamma Mia!!
>
>>And that is _exactly_ the problem. Defining something by what
>>it isn't is a good way to end up in a rut.
>
>One has a full orchestral score. One has ABBA music. Your parents
>think you're smart, have high hopes for you, you figure it out,
>Epstein.
If the musical didn't exist then would the opera be free to experiment
outside the classical tradition where it isn't now?
If the answer to the above is yes I win.
>
>>And to be honest opera hit the point progressive rock was at
>>a long time ago and then bravely forged ahead.
>
>>Those notes and those time signatures were written down by the
>>composer for a reason. (And no they aren't vague guidelines)
>
>Really? I thought they were all pretty much if you felt like it,
>you know, go with the flow, let yourself go etc......
That's jazz. When the composers wrote those wierd squigly lines
they were actualy labouring under the (probably false) impression that
the artists were going to follow their instructions.
>
>>Did you like Orgys cover of Blue Monday?
>
>Yes, I masturbate to it daily.
Figures.
>
>
>>The evidence is in the music. Y'know first hand evidence as
>>opposed to second or third hand evidence... I thought you
>>listened to this stuff constantly.
>
>Never claimed to. "First hand" is an appropriate phrase for thou
>to use. One wonders what you are typing with, and which hand is
>busier.
Ever had to do _real_ research?
>
>>Compare and contrast Mozart to Wagner to Puccini.
>
>Mozart and Wagner each have six letters in their surnames. Poor
>sod Puccini has seven. Mozart starts with an M, Wagner with a
>W, and Puccini with a P. Their names all start with consonants.
>Mozart was a poor eskimo whose daddy Leopold was caught shagging
>a walrus, which brought disgrace upon his house. Wagner secretly
>loved J*ws, especially with the right hollondaise sauce, but
>only pretended to hate them in order to please his friend Nitschy
>Puccini was a notorious rootrat, so much so that his name became
>synonymous with raw, steamy sex in alleyways. They all died in
>relative obscurity, awaiting the day when they could be used in
>senseless venal arguments on acg, whereupon what remains of their
>corpses spin in their graves like roast chickens in a rotisserie
>each time Daniel takes their names in vain.
Less insults more arguing. And just go listen to them in chronological
order and then come back and tell me with a straight face that
the newer the less catchy and the more melodramatic the work is.
>
>>The progression following the chronology is obvious. Less
>>obvious harmonies, less catchy melodies more melodrama.
>
>Chronologically, it doesn't follow at all. You have made an
>assumption that it is so, yet have nothing to back it up apart
>from a supposition. Which is fine, but your suppositions aren't
>yet accepted as universal truths just yet.
You know in the original post which you later used as an excuse to
claim that my knowledge of opera was limited to the simpsons I
actualy did say it was a theory. So yes the above
follows on from that.
>
>You have of late, I know not how recently, developed a standpoint
>on opera based on your own obviously limited knowledge of the
>subject, gleaned mostly from television and cereal boxes. It has
>mutated to serve your questionable need to avoid facing the
>truth: that you neither know nor care that much about opera, but
>cannot admit that you are less than a Rhodes scholar on any
>topic. I have never tried to contend that I have expert knowledge
>on this or any other topics except pornography, the music of
>Dead Can Dance, the works of Gabriel Garcia Marquez and vampire
>movies. Right now I am in the process of forgetting what this
>argument is about.
When did I claim expert knowledge?
Unless expert knowledge claims are implied by claims of contact
with the thing in question or claims about it's nature in which case
you're just as guilty as I am.
>
>Why the fuck would I bother going to the opera if not to see the
>operas themselves and to hear the music / hear & see the
>performances? And my boyfriend doesn't like it when I bring home
>opera-trash.
I suspect quite a few other people do go to operas for reasons
other than music.
>
>>I don't know about more contemporary opera other than rock
>>operas, that you probably don't consider to be operas, but
>>considering what you've been saying I don't think the trend has
>>reversed.
>
>Huh?
I'll retract that. It's been rendered irrelevant by some clarifications
you've made elsewhere.
>
>>I realy don't understand how you managed to get so arrogant
>>about something you know nothing about.
>
>I am not being arrogant about this argument, Daniel. I just think
>it would be slightly more topical and interesting if I was
>discussing it with a) someone that actually knew or liked opera,
>b) an adult, or c) an amphibian.
Reference a)
Next you'll be telling me people need to like prog-rock to
have an opinion or theories about it.
>
>>From what you've said you like about opera you realy should be
>>off bothering alt.fan.meatloaf or whatever his newsgroup is
>>instead of running your mouth off here.
>
>Then I wouldn't have the questionable pleasure of your company,
>nor would I be able to watch your childish antics on any other
>newsgroup.
I'm sure I'd drop by occasionaly to keep you entertained.
>
>It was a contemporary opera staged in Melbourne a scant few weeks
>ago, based on the wreck of a ship called the Batavia. Stirring
>stuff.
That's the dutch ship that was wrecked on the western seaboard isn't
it? Sounds rather lame... Gimme the Flying Dutchman any day.
>
>>If I see a recording in the bargain bin for $2 I may just be
>>bothered picking it up. :)
>
>Along with your hard earned degree
Nah real life seems to have gotten in the way of that one.
>
>>? - Now fuck off fan-boy.
>
>You sawn-off little runt, go back to doing your Corey Hart
>impression by wearing your sunglasses at night, and leave the
>adults to discuss weighty matters <sniff>.
Which is kinda funny 'cos even after a websearch I have no idea who
Corey Hart is or what his relevance is...
*shrug*
Enlighten me.
>
>Sandro - you really can be tiresome, Danny
? - Muahahahaha
Lucid H. Dreaming
>
>dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au (Lucid H. Dreaming) wrote:
>
>>I'm arguing that modern productions of operas are becoming a
>>parody of their original performances. I'm not sure what you're
>>arguing.
>
>So, are you arguing that the contemporary performances of all
>ye olde worlde operas are more, something or other? Wouldn't both
>you and I have to see at least a substantial proportion of
>all the performances to be able to judge that? Is that really
>your argument? That the source material has been torn, spindled
>and mutilated in the hands of contemporary hacks who've rendered
>it unrecognisable compared to the original? Wouldn't I have to
>see every performance to judge that? And doesn't it follow that
>the "accepted" performances, the ones that end up as Decca
>recordings as well, wouldn't those necessarily follow the
>"traditional" format?
Didn't you say that contemporary opera singers use techniques that
advances in acoustics allow them? It's obvious that change of
some description has occured. What we're disagreeing on is whether
it's for the better or for the worse.
This is only inductive logic so obviously can't prove anything but
every style of music that we do have actual recordings of from
beginning to end always starts out as something fresh and ends up
being a twisted parody of itself.
Black Sabbath to the NWOBM
Joy Division to Suspira
Sex Pistols to Greenday
Early Pink Floyd to Late Pink Floyd (*smirk*)
Why would opera be any different based on these trends.
>
>The performers themselves, with rare exceptions, have to be
>conversant in the language they're singing in (mostly Italian).
>They are trained as opera singers, yes? And schooled in the
>"correct" pronounciation required for the songs? I think you
>may be trying to say that, like Shakespeare's drivel, it started
>off as populist for the masses type stuff, and was co-opted by
>the elites and made all poncy with different pronounciations
>and haughtiness to take it out of the hands of the common folk.
>Opera's not like that. Popular support ranked (and ranks) a
>distant fifteenth behind patronage and the peerages. That the
>"common folk" loved it as well is more a testament to the quality
>of the music and the performances than it does to any notions of
>accessability.
I just thought of the perfect explanation.
Considering the cultural carpet bombing that's been inflicted on us
by the distributers of Moulin Rouge (hey look we've come full circle)
you've surely seen at least some of the imagery used in that?
Compare that to actual historical documentation of the Moulin Rouge
which seems almost bland in comparison. The chicks are fatter and
no-where near as glamourous and the buildings don't look quite as
exciting.
My theory is that modern performances of opera are similar to this.
Instead of getting something similar to what the audiences in the
way back when where getting. We're getting a highly romanticised and
stylized version of what we _think_ it was like back then. Hence
the newer and "better" vocalizations, lush sets, personal interpretation
of the score by the performer, and over-the-top of over-the-top melodrama.
If nothing else most of those composers were control freaks who definetly
wouldn't appreciate interpretation of their scores for dramatic effect.
I think there are records of Mozart firing a performer on one of his
operas for daring to do exactly that.
>
>>Lets compare notes.
>
>>For example the enunciation (sp?) used by opera singers is
>>constantly getting more and more exaggerated as is the
>>production.
>
>I entirely disagree, only so far as I don't have access to a
>time machine in order to judge it comprehensively by going into
>the past to see the Masters putting on their own shows. If you
>read up on the great performances, even those that occured in
>practical antiquity compared to us, you'd see that the
>performances more often than not were extremely extravagant
>affairs, as dictated by the city, venue patron and composer /
>creator. The sums and money involved have changed, but the
>performances most often "traditionally" follow the same format.
>You claim to know something about Chinese opera. Is there not a
>strict, traditional format that lasted for hundreds of years
>with little variation as the performances themselves were handed
>down from generation to generation? The same can go for European
>opera, albeit with greater complexity. The operas that I've seen
>placed emphasis on sets etc., but not to an overwhelming extent,
>and not to detract from the real reason people are there. The
>performances held true to the original formats, almost to an
>anachronistic extent. Contemporary opera is an entirely different
>kettle of fish, but we're talking about the staging of the
>classics. Aren't we?
Well actualy I claimed to know about Chinese Imperial Court music
but yeah I do know a _little_ about Chinese opera. One major difference
is that in China not only was the music static but also the entire
culture. If you compare architecture from 1000BC right up until about
the Manchu dynasty there was little to no change in anything literature,
organization, fashion etc etc. The only comparable situation is that
of Byzantine literature and in that case it was an abberation practiced
by maybe a 200 or so people in Constantinople itself.
Considering the rate of cultural change in europe at the time and the
innovations introduced by each generation of composers I doubt the
presentation of operas has been static.
As I said all I can offer for evidence is recordings from the turn of
the century... I wonder whether there's any way I could could get
away with posting any snippets I find along with newer versions
without the RIAA busting my arse.
>
>>I'm afraid I can't answer that... You'll have to ask someone
>>else.
>
>I did. My mum said you're a very naughty boy who needs to take
>the toffey out of his mouth before he speaks.
*pthhhhhhhhhbt*
>
>Sandro
?
Neef
appeared in the Weekly World News headlines claiming :
>>
>Only if you're Twyla Tharp.
>
twyla tharp lemon snickety!
Ive had that going through my head for hours now....)
Neef (OHHHH! We've got this notion that we'd quite-)
Cam
>Neef (OHHHH! We've got this notion that we'd quite-)
It took me three days to get that out of my head.
Sandro
dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au (Lucid H. Dreaming) wrote:
>In article <3b1cfe77$1...@nexus.comcen.com.au>, Sandro wrote:
>>dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au (Lucid H. Dreaming) wrote:
>>>I'm arguing that modern productions of operas are becoming a
>>>parody of their original performances. I'm not sure what
>>>you're arguing.
>>So, are you arguing that the contemporary performances of all
>>ye olde worlde operas are more, something or other? Wouldn't
>>both you and I have to see at least a substantial proportion of
>>all the performances to be able to judge that? Is that really
>>your argument? That the source material has been torn, spindled
>>and mutilated in the hands of contemporary hacks who've
>>rendered it unrecognisable compared to the original? Wouldn't
>>I have to see every performance to judge that? And doesn't it
>>follow that the "accepted" performances, the ones that end up
>>as Decca recordings as well, wouldn't those necessarily follow
>>the "traditional" format?
>Didn't you say that contemporary opera singers use techniques
>that advances in acoustics allow them?
I said that opera singers don't have to continuously sing their
guts out because of advances in acoustics and electronic
amplification. That allows for greater range in vocal subtlety.
It doesn't mean they're changing the original song / music. It
doesn't mean their raping the creator.
>It's obvious that change of some description has occured. What
>we're disagreeing on is whether it's for the better or for the
>worse.
>This is only inductive logic so obviously can't prove anything
>but every style of music that we do have actual recordings of
>from beginning to end always starts out as something fresh and
>ends up being a twisted parody of itself.
So what you're really saying is that despite the fact that you
have no first hand knowledge as to the current state of
contemporary vs. classical opera, you are assumming that your
premise is correct because of how music in other styles
"degrades" over time. What a weird barrow to voluntarily push.
>Black Sabbath to the NWOBM
>Joy Division to Suspira
>Sex Pistols to Greenday
>Early Pink Floyd to Late Pink Floyd (*smirk*)
You can smirk all you want, but the analogy doesnae cross over,
nor is it relevant.
>Why would opera be any different based on these trends.
Why indeed? Are you also going to complain about how Beethoven's
9th is played these days vs 200 years ago, and how modern
conductors and performers have grown lazy and indulgent thus
degrading the state of classical music performances? That doesnae
work either.
There's no validity to that example. Primarily because the two
mediums are so fundamentally different. "Back then", as you say,
wouldn't every performance have varied, from night to night, and
from performer to performer? :) You can't compare Luhrman's
Moulin Rouge to La Traviata, simply because there are elements
ripped off. It's a modern musical. That's all. Well, actually,
in some ways I consider it science fiction, but that's by the
by. And moreso, it's a film. It has as much to do with classical
opera as football does.
Ultimately, what you're saying is this: The Bell Shakespeare
company put on a modernist, mutated version of Julius Caesar,
therefore all contemporary productions of Shakey's stuff are
fucked and they betray the original. Which is nonsensical.
>If nothing else most of those composers were control freaks who
>definetly wouldn't appreciate interpretation of their scores
>for dramatic effect.
They're dead. They don't care.
>I think there are records of Mozart firing a performer on one
>of his operas for daring to do exactly that.
Is it on tape or CD? Or was it in Amadeus?
>>>Lets compare notes.
My reading of chinese history is that there were definite peaks
and troughs betwixt and during dynasties. Each major dynasty
with any longevity had its particularly recognisable "style",
leaving behind recognisable examples of the differences between
them, ie. Sung dynasty artworks vary greatly from those preceding
and following, Tang dynasty music reached a peak etc.
>Considering the rate of cultural change in europe at the time
>and the innovations introduced by each generation of composers
>I doubt the presentation of operas has been static.
Again, you're assuming. The "rate" of cultural change in China,
as you say, may have been entirely different, but if you can
say that the move from hereditary privilidge to the Examinations
selected elite had no recognisable effect on the form or
performance of Chinese Opera, then you have to be able to prove
that the French Revolution or electricity or tighter underwear
fundamentally altered European opera to the extent where it
barely resembles the original.
>As I said all I can offer for evidence is recordings from the
>turn of the century...
Huh, you mean like off a phonograph? Turn of the century
recordings? What Star Trek technology do you have access to?
I have recordings from 1927 of Robert Johnson singing his
ancient songs, and there's so much hiss on the recordings that
you'd think it was Whacking Day all over again.
>I wonder whether there's any way I could could get away with
>posting any snippets I find along with newer versions without
>the RIAA busting my arse.
You can fantasise all you want about getting your arse busted
by some big burly convict, somehow I doubt you'll either raise
the ire of anyone or prove your supposition. How does that
qualify as a "scientific" experiment or examination of the
facts at hand?
>>>I'm afraid I can't answer that... You'll have to ask someone
>>>else.
>>I did. My mum said you're a very naughty boy who needs to take
>>the toffey out of his mouth before he speaks.
Sandro
--
"It appears that your syphillis is infested with crabs, and your
crabs are carrying gonorrhea" - Strangers With Candy
solitaire
>appeared in the Weekly World News headlines claiming :
>
>
>>>
>>Only if you're Twyla Tharp.
>>
>
>twyla tharp lemon snickety!
>
>Ive had that going through my head for hours now....)
Hah! I spent my evening, since Moulin Rouge was utterly unwatchable
SHITE, composing brief essays on Twyla's role in the redefinition of
Dance as an art form in the twentieth century. Just to remind myself
how much I'd forgotten. Think yourself lucky.
*sigh*
>
>Neef (OHHHH! We've got this notion that we'd quite-)
Careful. Rabbit will hear you.
sol.
.
Thorfinn
solitaire <soli...@lioness.tygger.net> wrote:
> Hah! I spent my evening, since Moulin Rouge was utterly unwatchable
> SHITE,
Hrm. I've got some interesting ideas on why people might think
that...
This is probably spoiler territory (well, meta-spoilers, really), so:
Okay. What I think is going on, is that Baz Luhrmann has done the
movie equivalent of sample composers or collage artists.
He's made a film composed entirely of pop-culture references, but put
together with a story of its own... much like sample composers grab
short bits of music from everywhere else, and make their own
compositions with them, and collage artists grab a zillion little
pictures, and plonk them together to make a collage which means
something different to and more than the parts the collage is made
of...
If you get bogged down in the detail while watching it, you're going
to hate it. If you go look at all the individual pictures making up a
collage before you look at the whole collage, you're going to hate it.
If you listen separately to all the sound samples of a sample
composer's work, you'll hate that too.
And no surprise... because, IMO, you're *missing the main show*.
You're looking at the trees, and claiming that they're blocking your
view of the forest.
If you don't *stand back* and look at the forest, how can you judge
whether it's good as a whole? Look at the trees later, if you must...
but look at the forest *first*.
The part of the critique I've heard that, IMO, *is* very valid, is
that there's *too much* detail, and it moves *too fast*.
I think I agree with that, and that some segments could have
been cut shorter and that camera motion could have been less hurried...
For various odd reasons, I have way overdeveloped levels of automatic
mental filtering, and a really strong ability to block irrelevancies
and focus on what's "important" visually and sonically, while
everything is flying past at breakneck pace, yet still be able to
notice a high proportion of the detail as well.
Without that kind of ability, it *is* genuinely hard to see the forest
for the trees in Moulin Rouge. It's especially so if you've got
training in seeing the trees (Jai, you're an ex-ballet artiste, you're
extremely trained to see the trees, not the forest), or if you have a
lot of personal and up-close attachment to a lot of the trees (ie, you
know too much about every individual pop-culture reference, and can't
help going into brainwalk every time the movie hits one - which is
*constantly*)...
It's also no surprise that reviewers' consistently comment, "I'd like
to see that again in slow motion"...
And, hey, I would too! Every moment in that movie is chock full of
detail, and I'd love to see it all again... and again... and again...
but that detail is all put together to create a whole, and a form, and
a *story*... which is, ultimately, a beautiful story, told in a
beautiful way.
Sure, it's a story that's been told before... but not this way, and
not in the form it's been told this time. And, IMO, the whole is
beautiful. 10/10 from me.
Ook,
Thorf
--
<a href="http://tertius.net.au/~thorfinn">thor...@tertius.net.au</a>
"Kinship is a bondage dragons feel more keenly than men. Their
mothers-in-law live longer."
-- Ka'a Orto'o, Gnomic Utterances I iii. (Diana Wynne Jones)
Hobbes
>In article <200106...@xenu.thingy.apana.org.au>, David Gerard wrote:
>>On 5 Jun 2001 22:06:51 +1100,
>>Lucid H. Dreaming <dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>:Oh yeah Obscenity warnings for people who aren't willing to take
>>:responsibility for their own actions when they follow links off that page.
>>
>>In this case, I didn't warn because it's been discussed a fair bit in the
>>last few days with its questionable nature to the weak (e.g. co-workers)
>>already mentioned several times.
>
>Shhhhh it's supposed to be a snide annoying remark. You're ruining
>the joke with all the seriousness :)
>
You never say anything intelligent - you spend far to much time being
argumentative and a wanker and trying desparatly and unsuccessfully
to convince us you have clue
You annoy and bore me.
*plonk*
Hobbes (gosh two plonks!)
--
<arty> non-gender-specific deranged non-specific sharp pointy
thing on a stick weilding homicidal maniac
<Holocaine> arty: You mean Hobbes?
Benji
"Lucid H. Dreaming" <dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au> wrote in message
news:slrn9hj7dc....@zen.art.rmit.edu.au...
> In article <3b1bcbbf.30791109@news-server>, Kage-Ryu wrote:
> >
> >There is talking, yes. In all of them that I know of. Mr. Lloyd
> >Weber himself refers to his work as musicals too.
> >
> >And I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything, Daniel.
>
> So what do you think of Tommy?
"Rock opera",
Kinda like "Theatre restaurant" where the association of the two words
creates something which is barely either.
B
solitaire
Moulin Rouge, don't read this. If you *liked* Moulin Rouge, you may
want to give it a miss too. I didn't.
No, really.
GO back now, before it's too late!
Oh, alright then. Last chance.
On 6 Jun 2001 02:01:19 GMT, Thorfinn
<thor...@tertius.net.au> wrote:
>In aus.culture.gothic, on 6 Jun 2001 01:25:16 GMT
>solitaire <soli...@lioness.tygger.net> wrote:
>> Hah! I spent my evening, since Moulin Rouge was utterly unwatchable
>> SHITE,
>
>Hrm. I've got some interesting ideas on why people might think
>that...
>
>This is probably spoiler territory (well, meta-spoilers, really), so:
>
>Okay. What I think is going on, is that Baz Luhrmann has done the
>movie equivalent of sample composers or collage artists.
Yup.
>
>He's made a film composed entirely of pop-culture references, but put
>together with a story of its own...
*snort* You dignify it with the word "story". We differ already. It
had a plot, hackneyed though it was. That doesn't make it a story. I like
my characters *three* dimensional.
>
>If you get bogged down in the detail while watching it, you're going
>to hate it. If you go look at all the individual pictures making up a
>collage before you look at the whole collage, you're going to hate it.
>If you listen separately to all the sound samples of a sample
>composer's work, you'll hate that too.
And if you go see a crap collage, you might just hate that too...
>
>lot of personal and up-close attachment to a lot of the trees (ie, you
>know too much about every individual pop-culture reference, and can't
>help going into brainwalk every time the movie hits one - which is
>*constantly*)...
Maybe. I enjoyed a few of the references. Because a *few* of them - a
very small few - had some kind of meaning or relevance to the actual
"story". _Diamonds Are Forever_, and the segue into _Material World_?
Yes. So yes. Why? Because they're invocations of the eternal vamp, the
age-old story of the hard-done by courtesan , who trades love for
money. And yes, that's what the "story" was about. The David Bowie
line from "Heroes"? Yes. So yes. Why? Because it was about the only
line in that love-medley that he didn't have to munge in order to have
her reject his advances - "Nothing will keep us together". It sums up
not only the tension at that point in the movie but is also a fractal
of the ending - "Heroes just for one day", the bittersweet taste of
love and fame cut short.
So yes. So fitting. So appropriate. So damn right and clever.
So explain to me Edith Piaff? Explain to me *any* relevance the film
had to Edith Piaff beyond "Oh, well, it's french and it's tragic"
Because the other defence of this film I've seen is "Oh, it's a
tribute." And I'm sorry, but I don't understand how referring to
Kidman's character as "Little Sparrow" - when she's little more than a
two dimensional vamp who does nothing but lie, cheat and pimp herself
out to put money in her boyfriends pocket and get her name in lights -
is a "tribute" to Edith Piaff. Nor do I understand what relevance the
rest of the film has to Edith Piaff.
_Cabaret_, also. I'll grant you the references in _Moulin Rouge_ to
_Cabaret_ are more subtle, but they're there. Why? Sure , _Cabaret_ is
also about a two dimensional vamp who does nothing but lie, cheat and pimp
herself out to put money in her boyfriends pocket and get her name in
lights, but the entire fucking *point* of Cabaret is that the deceit
and glamour ultimately cost Sally her relationship, that the deceit
and glamour triumph over "love" and "passion" in much the way Nazi
Germany was triumphing over Europe. If any of that came through in
_Moulin Rouge_, I missed it, what with the bad guy being defeated and
the love triumphing, albeit tragically. So, er, what again is the
connection, other than "Oh, they dance a bit"?
That's the thing about collages. There has to be some kind of
connection between the pictures, *and* they have to add up to a whole.
So given that the "story" of _Moulin Rouge_ was trite and appalling, and
an *overwhelming* majority of the pop-culture references were there
*simply* to be pop-culture references...
Unless there's some "great tragic french cabaret" connection for, say
Nirvana? Oooh - jaded palettes and disillusionment with "safe"
entertainment isn't restricted to the Seattle grunge scene? What a
searing insight, Baz....
>
>It's also no surprise that reviewers' consistently comment, "I'd like
>to see that again in slow motion"...
I'd like to see it with all the gratuitous pop-culture references
taken out, and only the ones that were relevant to the story left in.
That'd give Baz, conservatively, another hour and a half to devote to,
say, character development, or depth, or a *real* story.
It'd give him a chance to do something *powerful* with the irony of
loudly proclaiming the Bohemian Ideals of "Truth, beuty and freedom"
while lying and whoring your art and your body for a few dollars and
your name in lights. It'd give him a chance to polish up the "Ooh. In
the musical-inside-a-musical, I play a sitar who speaks the truth. See
how clever it is for me to be the voice of truth in the film as well".
That's the thing about "meta, Thorf, it generally requires a suffix to
be meaningful. Because I agree with the "If you're going to do it,
that's *is* the only way to do it" defense. If you're going to make a
film about how many pop-culture references you can cram into a film
at the expense of character and plot, then yes, that's how you do it.
I'd argure that one shouldn't bother, though. I'd argue that, given a
budget and talent of that nature - massive - one could, perhaps, ease
off a little on showing everyone how much you know about pop-culture
and actually try for a film of your own.
Post-modern.
It *is* a dirty word, children. Cf Twyla Tharp, in a heinously
retconned back-thread reference.
Ironically enough, the other challenge I got last night was "Well have
you *studied* film?"
No. No I haven't But the inherently filmic qualities were, in fact,
the only decent bit - the cinematography was stunning.
It's not a Musical. It's not an Opera. Baz has resurrected the farce.
But he's done it in the style of Shelley's _Frankenstein_ - he's
cobbled together a lot of old bits that should have stayed dead,
stitched them tenously together, and galvanised it with a bolt of
special effects to lurch from scene to scene, with no subtlety, no
cohesion, no art, and no real point.
*shrug* I think I'm seriously pissed simply because I thought, after
Romeo and Juliet, that Baz could do better. Because that had ( apart
from a better writer) subtlety. "Modernising" Shakespeare is perfectly
valid - CF John Bell - and the "pop culture references" were
appropriate and relevant. Subtle, even. And I'll grant you, I'm a fan
of "subtle". But in the absence of subtle, I'll settle for plot,
character, empathy, or originality. All of which were conspicuously
absent from Moulin Rouge. As was acting, though I suspect that was
deliberate....
*shrug*
IMHO. I can see why people might like it, but it requires a massive
suspension of disbelief - not in the realism, but in the story and
characters. And I wasn't prepared to make that effort. It may well be
my loss.
sol.
.
Lucid H. Dreaming
>>
>Daniel - you never ever say anything funny and interesting
>You never say anything intelligent - you spend far to much time being
>argumentative and a wanker and trying desparatly and unsuccessfully
>to convince us you have clue
*chorus* Aaaaaaaaaw.
>
>You annoy and bore me.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaw.
>
>*plonk*
Aaaaaaaaaw.
>
>Hobbes (gosh two plonks!)
? - Who realy does know more than you do.
Sandro
dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au (Lucid H. Dreaming) wrote:
>In article <3b1cf74f$1...@nexus.comcen.com.au>, Sandro wrote:
>>dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au (Lucid H. Dreaming) wrote:
>>>In article <3b1c9444$1...@nexus.comcen.com.au>, Sandro wrote:
>>>>dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au (Lucid H. Dreaming) wrote:
>>>>>In article <3b1c7bdf$1...@nexus.comcen.com.au>, Sandro wrote:
>>Goddamn this is going to take a long time to respond to.
>Don't argue with me when I'm avoiding homework. It's messy.
Anything to stop you from getting a degree. I know it will be
used for evil and not good.
>>>It's one by Wagner it's based on the arthurian legend.
>>Do tell. It sounds like the sort of music they would have had
>>in something like Excalibur, or something equally preposterous.
>>Nah, maybe not.
>Nothing like that. Mostly it's just moody soundscapes...
>Very "romantic".
Actually, Sherlock, parts of Tristan and Isolde *were* used in
Excalibur. That's wherein lies the funny. The funny ah hell I
give up.
<snip pop quiz>
>And Gabba Gabba hey! I gave you a great chance to get your
>great big musical d*ck out and wave it around so what are you
>worried about?
Careful, or I'll whack you to death with my clitoris.
>Opera is just another form of music. Same rules for harmony and
>melody and structure with a couple of extra conventions to
>stick to.
>Large hunks of this knowledge would pertain to opera even
>_if_I_didn't_know _opera_existed_. The same way that knowledge
>of fluid dynamics would allow a physicist who'd never seen a
>river before to understand it's nature.
Yeah but that doesn't make him a winemaker, a sailor or a pearl
diver, nor does it make him an expert on oenology,
navigation or the current state of the deep sea diving fraternity
>Given this and that I have _listened_ to a fair chunk of various
>operas I think that any analysis I do on the musical elements of
>operas is going to be at least pointing in the vague direction
>of the target.
Very vague, very shaky, aiming like William S Burroughs at the
glass above his wife's head, missing the glass entirely, William
Tell. You "know" science. That don't make you a carpenter, a
cook or a conductor.
>If it makes you feel better this whole thread has made me drag
>what I own out of the dusty corner of my music collection to
>see whether I'm talking out my arse.
It doesn't make me feel better, since I keep imagining all that
poor music falling on deaf ears. The horror...
>>>>>Going to operas
>>>>Really? What were the last 4 that you went to, out of
>>>>curiousity? Quick, do a search for 4 operas that played at
>>>>the Arts Centre over the last few years, there's bound to be
>>>>some info on the net!
>>>The last I went to was about three years ago. I don't remember
>>>it's name and it bored me silly. And unlike you I don't have
>>>the money to throw away $80 to watch people butcher something
>>>written several hundred years ago.
>>Wonderfully avoided, Danny Bonnaducce. You've been to one opera
>>in your life who's name you don't remember. Do you also have a
>>bridge, possibly the Sydney Harbour, that you'd like to sell me
>>as well? :) Just admit it, Daniel, you know not of what you
>>speak
>So recordings just _don't_count_?
Thus you were commenting purely on recordings? Then the truth is
that you've never seen anywhere near enough operas live to be
able to make an even approximately informed judgement, yet are
happy to make general statements based on your knowledge of
sub-woofers and toe jam. That's just Super, Danny.
>Talking of which if you want proof I want proof. Your attendance
>at these operas. Scanned tickets webbed pronto buster.
The way to prove it Diver Dan would be to talk about them in
any other way apart from "Oh I went to one, it was boring, didn't
like it." Clearly that doesn't give you a wealth of experience
from which to draw upon, does it, of how operas are performed
live here on downtown Melbourne?
>I'm just taking knowledge aquired from _other_ fields and
>applying it to opera.
It's like a mule with a spinning wheel, danged if you know how
he got it, and danged if he knows how to use it. How about using
knowledge of opera to talk about opera, or is that too much to
ask?
>From my perspective the two lovely ladies are witchdocters
>explaining why their ridiculous little dance brings rain.
From your perspective you should be more mindful of the fact that
children should be seen and not heard. They're far more qualified
to discuss matters of opera and singing since they are operatic
singers, far moreso than you, you tech monkey.
>You don't get classicaly trained unless your parents have money,
>a lot of it. So where's the hostility to me from? Misplaced self
>hatred? Or did yer parents kick the bucket and leave all the
>dough to your elder brother or something?
The "hostility", as you so artfully put it, has to do with your
unmitigated preciousness, your inability to admit that you are
anything less than omniscient when it comes to any topic, and the
fact that you can be quite the poncy little git. It has nothing
to do with wealth. The rest is colour commentary which amuses me
wholeheartedly, Ponsonby.
>And since when does a lifetime training in a quasi-mystic,
>ad-hoc musical vocabulary with a primitive sense of rhythm,
>that a vast majority of the population doesn't even understand
>mean you know music?
I have big purty certificates! With red seals on them! They must
be worth something?
>Next you're going to tell me that the latin classes you took
>qualify you as a linguist.
Or that being a tech monkey makes you a cosmologist.
>Go play with a real synth, some FX, and a waveform editor and
>then we can talk.
Go piss up a rope, Ross Geller, and play on your synth in your
own time.
>Music is a collection of sounds. So at a fundamental level you
>need to understand how and why sound operate to understand
>music.
Wow. Allow me to do a Bill & Ted's and go get Mozart, Mussorgsky,
Rachmaninov and Chopin so that you can give them instruction as
well. I'm sure they need it.
<snippage>
>>>What we'd be doing here is the equivalent of taking a Delta
>>>symbol and asking whether it's more like a triangle or a D.
>>No, what we're doing is arguing about gardening. I may know
>>something about gardening, you may or may not anything about
>>gardening, but you'll be damned if you admit that you know
>>nothing about it, and you're happy to bring up particle physics
>>and James Bond films to hide that fact.
>The sophists were right Socrates and Aristotle were full of it
>go read some Nietzsche.
I read Nietzsche when you were still in primary school, you
nappy wearing mummy's boy.
>>Nup, since I posted ages ago on this same thread saying that
>>the concepts of "opera" and "musicals" were pretty much the
>>same.
>Well in that case what exactly are you saying below?
>>>>>The problem with modern opera performances is pretty much
>>>>>that they are all desperately trying to _not_be_a_musical_.
>>That's not my problem, nor my contention.
>Too bad. It's half of what I've been arguing all along.
I never argued it. Musicals are the populist dumbed down bastard
offspring of opera. That doesn't make them the same thing or
that they exist in opposition. As an example, the blues led to
rock and jazz. Rock doesn't define itself as being "not jazz".
The traditional "blues" is a particular sound, recorded, played
and loved. Twelve bar white boy blues is a variation on it.
Traditional old style blues is defined by being in a particular
format, having a certain "purity". Jazz doesn't owe anything
to rock, nor does it mutate to signpost itself as being
fundamentally different. It doesn't have to. They're not in
competition with each other. The same is true of the opera vs
musicals: they're not entirely going for the same audience, and
they can happily coexist. They don't expect the same fuckers who
saw Lisa McCune in the Sound of Music to be in the same audience
for De Flaudermouse, but they're not going to care either way.
>>>>I don't think a lot of people are going to confuse Batavia
>>>>with Mamma Mia!!
>>>And that is _exactly_ the problem. Defining something by what
>>>it isn't is a good way to end up in a rut.
>>One has a full orchestral score. One has ABBA music. Your
>>parents think you're smart, have high hopes for you, you
>>figure it out, Epstein.
>If the musical didn't exist then would the opera be free to
>experiment outside the classical tradition where it isn't now?
"Opera", whatever that beast is, can do whatever the fuck it
wants, it doesn't need permission from you, me or Lloyd Webber
to do its thing.
>If the answer to the above is yes I win.
In your own petty little mind, maybe.
>>>And to be honest opera hit the point progressive rock was at
>>>a long time ago and then bravely forged ahead.
>>>Those notes and those time signatures were written down by the
>>>composer for a reason. (And no they aren't vague guidelines)
>>Really? I thought they were all pretty much if you felt like
>>it, you know, go with the flow, let yourself go etc......
>That's jazz. When the composers wrote those wierd squigly lines
>they were actualy labouring under the (probably false)
>impression that the artists were going to follow their
>instructions.
Thanks for the quick lesson. All those years of playing and
harsh instruction were obviously wasted on me, as irony was on
thou.
>>>The evidence is in the music. Y'know first hand evidence as
>>>opposed to second or third hand evidence... I thought you
>>>listened to this stuff constantly.
>>Never claimed to. "First hand" is an appropriate phrase for
>>thou to use. One wonders what you are typing with, and which
>>hand is busier.
>Ever had to do _real_ research?
No, but I've definitely masturbated at least once or twice.
>Less insults more arguing. And just go listen to them in
>chronological order and then come back and tell me with a
>straight face that the newer the less catchy and the more
>melodramatic the work is.
Mozart, Wagner and Puccini: comparing and contrasting them is
like comparing Michael Jordan, Dawn Fraser and George Best. It's
not just apples and oranges, it's beyond that, your point is lost
entirely.
>>>The progression following the chronology is obvious. Less
>>>obvious harmonies, less catchy melodies more melodrama.
>>Chronologically, it doesn't follow at all. You have made an
>>assumption that it is so, yet have nothing to back it up apart
>>from a supposition. Which is fine, but your suppositions aren't
>>yet accepted as universal truths just yet.
>You know in the original post which you later used as an excuse
>to claim that my knowledge of opera was limited to the simpsons
>I actualy did say it was a theory. So yes the above follows on
>from that.
Perfect. I knew this argument was pointless, you just confirmed
it. Thus my contribution to it ceases here. Smooches, Noochie
Boochie!
<snip>
>Which is kinda funny 'cos even after a websearch I have no idea
>who Corey Hart is or what his relevance is...
He was a Canadian who had a song where the chorus was "I Wear My
Sunglasses At Night", back in the 80's. You'd have loved him.
>*shrug*
>Enlighten me.
I'd need a drill and a mallet, and I'm swamped with just trying
to squeeze in a post or two.
Neef
Dreaming) appeared in the Weekly World News headlines claiming :
>>Hobbes (gosh two plonks!)
>
>? - Who realy does know more than you do.
About what Daniel?
When making a statement like that it really is a wise idea to actually
say what area you know more about?
Hrmm..lets see...areas where daniel has been wrong and hobbes has been
right..
Ohh..I dont know..the Debate about Social Security perchance????
You know...if you were being this argumentative with one person
instead of the entire NG, I would have said "Why dont you just fuck
and get it over with?"
Neef (to much playback)
Sandro
Susan (susan_s...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>Sandro wrote:
>>seem to have gleaned their knowledge of opera
>>from the same sources that taught Homer Simpson that the ballet
>>actually consists of a monkey wearing a hat riding a bicycle :)
>Actually it was a bear riding a bicycle ...
>Susan
>Yes I watch too much television ...
You're absolutely right, Susan. My memory is getting as dyslexic
as my vision, substituting lions, monkeys and bears on bikes.
Shame on me, I must have seen that episode "where Marge gets a
friend!" a thousand times
Sandro - Standing Corrected
Sandro
>Hobbes wrote:
>>Daniel - you never ever say anything funny and interesting
>>You never say anything intelligent - you spend far to much
>>time being argumentative and a wanker and trying desparatly
>>and unsuccessfully to convince us you have clue
>*chorus* Aaaaaaaaaw.
One person doesn't constitute a chorus, dingaling, I thought you
knew something about music.
>? - Who realy does know more than you do.
This is why I love you, Danny Boy. Because you're one of the
only regular posters who is more roundly disliked than myself.
You make me look good. Thankyou, smug sweetcheeks, your arrogance
whilst entirely loathsome, still has a silver lining that
brightens my day.
Sandro - keep it up
--
Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges - Cicero.
Lucid H. Dreaming
>On 6 Jun 2001 12:49:51 +1100, dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au (Lucid H.
>Dreaming) appeared in the Weekly World News headlines claiming :
>
>>>Hobbes (gosh two plonks!)
>>
>>? - Who realy does know more than you do.
>
>About what Daniel?
>When making a statement like that it really is a wise idea to actually
>say what area you know more about?
>
>Hrmm..lets see...areas where daniel has been wrong and hobbes has been
>right..
>Ohh..I dont know..the Debate about Social Security perchance????
You mean that thing were I said I was a bit iffy about paying taxes for
social security I'm not eligible for and 5 people strawmanned about
how I was the right-ring fascist menace come to eat innocent babies?
This despite me saying either in that very same post or
soon afterwoulds that I supported
universal safety nets.
After 50 posts of me pointing at my original post going "look! universal
safety nets!" I just gave up.
That doesn't make Hobbes and co right. It just makes them more pig-headed
than me (a truely amazing achievement).
After all if majorities were always right democracies would work.
>
>
>You know...if you were being this argumentative with one person
>instead of the entire NG, I would have said "Why dont you just fuck
>and get it over with?"
After that lil' performance I decided that _some_ people (not naming any names)
were fill of sh*t and don't actualy read prefering instead to decide what
I think off in their own little fantasy land and then get off on
making wild accusations.
I will admit I've been hamming it up for their gratification every now and
then (what else would you call prefacing most of my arguments with the
fallacies and assumptions that I make so that they don't even have to engage
the noodle matter when they flame me for making them).
I play a great buffoon
don't I? :)
But honestly I'd much prefer it if I could give my opinion on my topic
without having to whip out 50 million supporting facts and engaging in
pompous academic d*ck waving to scare off the "little dogs" who'd otherwise
be doing the newsgroup equivalent of mounting me to prove their dominance to
all the "big dogs".
Especialy when I state clearly that it's a theory with little to no supporting
evidence as of now *cough*.
>
>Neef (to much playback)
? - Who's quite polite to people who are polite to him.
Lucid H. Dreaming
>
>>? - Who realy does know more than you do.
>
>This is why I love you, Danny Boy. Because you're one of the
>only regular posters who is more roundly disliked than myself.
>You make me look good. Thankyou, smug sweetcheeks, your arrogance
>whilst entirely loathsome, still has a silver lining that
>brightens my day.
I'm a villain acting the part in a bad comedy. You manage to do it without
any effort on your part. I still acknowledge you as my superior and hope
to learn more from such a master.
>
>Sandro - keep it up
?
Barbarella
>
> In article <3B1C46EF...@internettrash.com>, Barbarella wrote:
> >
> >('tis also the plural form of "opus", I just learnt)
>
> I didn't know that.
>
> How does the derivation work? Is it considered an Opus for the composer
> or is it a bit more roundabout?
Each musical composition is seen as an opus, so collectively the body of
work is an opera.
Yes.
Barbarella.
--
TheUnfaithfulWriter: http://www.internettrash.com/users/barbarella.
Several hundred miles of snaking tarmac,
Leads to smoky door, violent sound & haunting spirits,
Amongst them, an object of fantasy,
Black lace and spiky hair, penetrating eyes, & a ghostly grin. -jbk
Trayce
Dreaming) wrote:
blah blah blah blah blah fart rant patooey Im better than you ner ner
gimme back my tonka truck.
Shut up. For the love of god, shut up!
Trayce (muffins in muh mainframe)
--
faith in chaos
trace @ connect.net.au
new site: http://www.memorygongs.f2s.com
Sandro
>>>?- Who realy does know more than you do.
>>This is why I love you, Danny Boy. Because you're one of the
>>only regular posters who is more roundly disliked than myself.
>>You make me look good. Thankyou, smug sweetcheeks, your
>>arrogance whilst entirely loathsome, still has a silver lining
>>that brightens my day.
>I'm a villain acting the part in a bad comedy.
Don't flatter yourself. I doubt many people see you as anything
more than a whiny annoyance much of the time. You may think
that you're Alan Rickman in Die Hard or Robin Hood: Ponce of
Thieves, but I'd say you're more Deuce Bigolow.
>You manage to do it without any effort on your part.
Flattery isn't going to get you anywhere with me, jailbait, you
don't get my gussett moist.
>I still acknowledge you as my superior and hope to learn more
>from such a master.
Your first lesson is to write at least one post in five which
isn't calculated to annoy anyone. Being genuinely funny every
now and then helps too. Are you taking notes?
Sandro - you aren't my protege, nutjob, and I work alone.
--
"It appears that your syphillis is infested with crabs, and the
Lucid H. Dreaming
>"Lucid H. Dreaming" wrote:
>>
>> In article <3B1C46EF...@internettrash.com>, Barbarella wrote:
>> >
>> >('tis also the plural form of "opus", I just learnt)
>>
>> I didn't know that.
>>
>> How does the derivation work? Is it considered an Opus for the composer
>> or is it a bit more roundabout?
>
>Each musical composition is seen as an opus, so collectively the body of
>work is an opera.
That makes sense. Any idea how the whole evolution of the term went?
I'd imagine it would be something a long the lines of, at the time the
only collections of music as opposed to stand alone works would
be the things we know now as operas and the term got used so much
to refer to them that it stuck.
>Yes.
So yeah.
I'm going to wander around to another topic now.
I got Japan - Oil on Canvas a while ago and It's darn good. I know you're
a fan so what dya reccomend I look at next?
Oh and heard about the new FotN stuff? Peril is getting it in tommorow
so I'm going to go have a listen ans possibly buy it depending on whether it's
any good. Rawk.
>
>Barbarella.
Trayce
Dreaming) wrote:
>I got Japan - Oil on Canvas a while ago and It's darn good. I know you're
>a fan so what dya reccomend I look at next?
Get Tin Drum. Get "assemblage" if you want a compliation of the
earlier, more disco stuff such as "life in tokyo". And if you like
their quiet, sophisticated cool then dont bother with the first album,
cause its tacky glam rock at its best (its great, but its not "the"
japan - and I have an original 70s Japanese pressing! Yay!).
I really must get out all my old Japan albums and mp3 them *scratches
chin*
Trayce (oh, for the art of parties)
Lucid H. Dreaming
>
>Sandro - you aren't my protege, nutjob, and I work alone.
Your sarcasm meter on the fritz too? My condolences.
Mines been failing to catch the most obvious sarcasm lately.
Maybe it's an infectious?
Lucid H. Dreaming
>On 6 Jun 2001 14:02:31 +1100, dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au (Lucid H.
>Dreaming) wrote:
>
>blah blah blah blah blah fart rant patooey Im better than you ner ner
>gimme back my tonka truck.
>
>Shut up. For the love of god, shut up!
There's not that many of them and the
"
>On foo bar bar bar bar, Sandro wrote:
>>>On blah blah blah blah, Lucid H. Dreaming wrote:
>>>>On whatever date it is, Sandro wrote:
"
At the start of each post should realy give you the hint that the rest of
the post is going to be content free and that now's a good time to press
the 'n' key. :)
Aaah well your wish is my command. I'll lay off and delete the posts I
had saved.
>Trayce (muffins in muh mainframe)
?
Barbarella
>
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 14:17:50 +1000, StoneFace <ston...@bigSTINKYfoot.com> wrote:
> :Going by what's been hammered into my head about music/operas/etc, a "musical"
> :is a play/theatre performance set to music. It uses mostly modern singing
> :styles (ie, not the bizarre open-mouthed operatic voice), and doesn't rely
> :entirely on a symphonic orchestra for musical accompaniment. A musical relies
> :heavily on acting and stage movement. Productions that come to mind are Miss
> :Saigon, Les Mis, et al.
> :Opera, on the other hand, is a term more commonly applied to much older
> :productions.
>
> That's about the only difference in what they are. The main distinction is
> class and snobbery: opera is for the rich, Andrew Lloyd Webber is for the
> plebs.
*applause*
I was going to try and make an attempt at saying precisely this. But
you've gone and said it much betterer than me anyhow.
"Wot 'e sed!"
Lucid H. Dreaming
>
>Get Tin Drum. Get "assemblage" if you want a compliation of the
>earlier, more disco stuff such as "life in tokyo". And if you like
>their quiet, sophisticated cool then dont bother with the first album,
>cause its tacky glam rock at its best (its great, but its not "the"
>japan - and I have an original 70s Japanese pressing! Yay!).
*jots down notes*
Well I'll definetly keep an eye out.
I've never quite understood why they went over so big in japan tho...
I mean imagine how a band called oz would go down in australia.
Oh well...
>
>I really must get out all my old Japan albums and mp3 them *scratches
>chin*
Will they be archived for posterity or are you going to be an evil pirate ;)
and free them to the world?
Do they even press Japan stuff anymore?
>
>Trayce (oh, for the art of parties)
?
Thorfinn
solitaire <soli...@lioness.tygger.net> wrote:
> $DEITY knows how to preserve the spoiler space. If you haven't seen
> Moulin Rouge, don't read this. If you *liked* Moulin Rouge, you may
> want to give it a miss too. I didn't.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No, really.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> GO back now, before it's too late!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh, alright then. Last chance.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 6 Jun 2001 02:01:19 GMT, Thorfinn
> <thor...@tertius.net.au> wrote:
> >He's made a film composed entirely of pop-culture references, but put
> >together with a story of its own...
> *snort* You dignify it with the word "story". We differ already. It
> had a plot, hackneyed though it was. That doesn't make it a story. I like
> my characters *three* dimensional.
*chuckle* I don't always. :) Usually I do... but sometimes, if the
ride is fun, I'm happy to just go along.
> >If you get bogged down in the detail while watching it, you're going
> >to hate it. If you go look at all the individual pictures making up a
> >collage before you look at the whole collage, you're going to hate it.
> >If you listen separately to all the sound samples of a sample
> >composer's work, you'll hate that too.
> And if you go see a crap collage, you might just hate that too...
*nodnod* That's true. :)
> >lot of personal and up-close attachment to a lot of the trees (ie, you
> >know too much about every individual pop-culture reference, and can't
> >help going into brainwalk every time the movie hits one - which is
> >*constantly*)...
> Maybe. I enjoyed a few of the references. Because a *few* of them - a
> very small few - had some kind of meaning or relevance to the actual
> "story".
Mm... I think that's where we disagree... I don't *care* whether the
references are relevant or not... at all. All I cared about was
whether they segued into each other cleanly... ie, did that line work
as a followup to the line before it, and work in with the line after
it? Yes? Good.
I wasn't paying attention to where the lines came from, really... I
didn't *care*... because I didn't feel that that was the point.
There's a spectrum between blocky collage (a few large bits collated
from elsewhere and put together to make a picture) and mosaic art
(teeny tiny little photos all making up one big picture)... and I *do*
think Moulin Rouge erred towards the direction of mosaic art, a little
*too* much... but that's a fuzzy line to draw.
It worked for me. It clearly *doesn't* work for everyone.
> _Diamonds Are Forever_, and the segue into _Material World_?
> Yes. So yes. Why? Because they're invocations of the eternal vamp, the
> age-old story of the hard-done by courtesan , who trades love for
> money. And yes, that's what the "story" was about. The David Bowie
> line from "Heroes"? Yes. So yes. Why? Because it was about the only
> line in that love-medley that he didn't have to munge in order to have
> her reject his advances - "Nothing will keep us together". It sums up
> not only the tension at that point in the movie but is also a fractal
> of the ending - "Heroes just for one day", the bittersweet taste of
> love and fame cut short.
> So yes. So fitting. So appropriate. So damn right and clever.
*nod*
> So explain to me Edith Piaff? Explain to me *any* relevance the film
> had to Edith Piaff beyond "Oh, well, it's french and it's tragic"
[snippage]
> the love triumphing, albeit tragically. So, er, what again is the
> connection, other than "Oh, they dance a bit"?
There wasn't much of a connection. :) I didn't care.
> That's the thing about collages. There has to be some kind of
> connection between the pictures,
Hrm... I'm not sure I agree with that, actually. I think if you can
put together mostly unrelated pictures that add up to a nice whole,
that's just fine.
> *and* they have to add up to a whole.
Now, they *do* have to add up to a whole, and that whole has to hang
together...
> So given that the "story" of _Moulin Rouge_ was trite and appalling, and
> an *overwhelming* majority of the pop-culture references were there
> *simply* to be pop-culture references...
So? And no, I don't agree that they were just simply to be
pop-culture references... I think that *ignoring whether they were
references*, they worked in with the story, and the way it was being
told.
> Unless there's some "great tragic french cabaret" connection for, say
> Nirvana? Oooh - jaded palettes and disillusionment with "safe"
> entertainment isn't restricted to the Seattle grunge scene? What a
> searing insight, Baz....
*chuckle* I wasn't there for searing insights... I was there to watch
a pretty movie, and to go along for the ride.
> >It's also no surprise that reviewers' consistently comment, "I'd like
> >to see that again in slow motion"...
> I'd like to see it with all the gratuitous pop-culture references
> taken out, and only the ones that were relevant to the story left in.
I wouldn't... because I think that they worked *as is*. Eg, your
complaint about the use of Roxanne... so? Now, I'm the first to
admit, I'm *not* familiar with pop culture since about the early '90s,
because I just stopped paying attention... But...
The words of the song were appropriate, the music *fit* the visuals,
and the dance fit the music. It was a pop culture reference, too. So?
So what? If it had *not* been a pop-culture reference (ie, lets say
the music had been composed on the spot, fresh for the movie, instead
of "stolen" from elsewhere), it would still have worked.
IMO, of course. :)
> That'd give Baz, conservatively, another hour and a half to devote to,
> say, character development, or depth, or a *real* story.
[snippage]
*nod* That would have been a different tale. Quite possibly a better
tale... but I think it was a very good tale done exactly as it was.
> That's the thing about "meta, Thorf, it generally requires a suffix to
> be meaningful. Because I agree with the "If you're going to do it,
> that's *is* the only way to do it" defense. If you're going to make a
> film about how many pop-culture references you can cram into a film
> at the expense of character and plot, then yes, that's how you do it.
Yar. "Filmmosaic", rather than "photomosaic", I think. And I don't
mind photomosaic, even when the individual photos have a fairly
tenuous connection, and the same applied here, for me...
> I'd argure that one shouldn't bother, though. I'd argue that, given a
> budget and talent of that nature - massive - one could, perhaps, ease
> off a little on showing everyone how much you know about pop-culture
> and actually try for a film of your own.
I'll agree with you on that... it *is* possible that he could have
just left out the pop-culture references, and gone with a wholly
original movie, which might have been "better" in some sense. I
think, though, it would *not* have been as successful as *this* one
will be... because those myriad pop-culture references *will* roll in
the punters.
> Post-modern.
> It *is* a dirty word, children. Cf Twyla Tharp, in a heinously
> retconned back-thread reference.
Hrm. I don't agree... :) But then, I'm also of the opinion that
artists either are good enough to support themselves, or they can go
away... which means sometimes they have to pander to a lower
denominator than "Art" demands... But that's an entirely different
debate.
> Ironically enough, the other challenge I got last night was "Well have
> you *studied* film?"
Heh. I don't care whether you have or haven't. :) I did a couple of
years of it back in highschool... but that was a damned long time ago,
and I'm not sure it's informing my discussion here in any way.
> No. No I haven't But the inherently filmic qualities were, in fact,
> the only decent bit - the cinematography was stunning.
*nodnod* The cinematography *was* stunning. :)
> It's not a Musical. It's not an Opera. Baz has resurrected the farce.
> But he's done it in the style of Shelley's _Frankenstein_ - he's
> cobbled together a lot of old bits that should have stayed dead,
> stitched them tenously together, and galvanised it with a bolt of
> special effects to lurch from scene to scene, with no subtlety, no
> cohesion, no art, and no real point.
Yar. I do understand where you're coming from there... I agree with
you that there *were* too many old bits stuck together. I *still*
think it was good despite that... Partly probably because I wasn't
distracted by the fact that they were old bits, so I didn't notice the
stitching as often as you obviously were.
> *shrug* I think I'm seriously pissed simply because I thought, after
> Romeo and Juliet, that Baz could do better. Because that had ( apart
> from a better writer) subtlety. "Modernising" Shakespeare is perfectly
> valid - CF John Bell - and the "pop culture references" were
> appropriate and relevant. Subtle, even. And I'll grant you, I'm a fan
> of "subtle". But in the absence of subtle, I'll settle for plot,
> character, empathy, or originality. All of which were conspicuously
> absent from Moulin Rouge. As was acting, though I suspect that was
> deliberate....
Will you settle for Pretty? :) It *was* that, undeniably. Very very
pretty. Possibly going beyond the baroque and into the rococo... And
that is probably part of the problem... Rococo *is* way over the top,
and unbalanced, and asymmetric...
And, yeah, I think that's the same point again... I think there was a
minor error of scale, as opposed to an error of type. I think he
*did* put too much detailwork in, on average... but I'm far from
opposed to the concept of what he was trying to do... and I,
personally, *liked* the level of detail he put in.
It's like baroque music... you *don't* pick it all up first time you
hear it. It's not possible to... and you'll get different stuff every
time you listen to it... because there's too much detail there for
your head to grasp at once. I'm reasonably good at hanging on to a
lot of detail at the same time (it's why I like singing in baroque
period classical choral works, and why I like writing really *big*
pieces of software, and why I like multi-linear plots, and...), so I
enjoyed it.
> *shrug*
> IMHO. I can see why people might like it, but it requires a massive
> suspension of disbelief - not in the realism, but in the story and
> characters. And I wasn't prepared to make that effort. It may well be
> my loss.
Hrm... I'm going to have to see it again, and not be as distracted by
the pretty visuals, and evaluate the story and characters in a bit more
detail... I don't recall anything happening that was particularly out
of character (yes, the characters were pretty much two-dimensional),
nor do I recall any parts of the story being particularly jolting...
But, hey, I can see why it might be perceived that way, particularly
if you *were* noticing the seams and the stitching a lot. I wasn't,
probably because I'm ignorant of most of the more recent pop-culture
references (less ignorant of the older references, mostly thanks to
two years of watching old films in film studies at highschool).
Ook,
Thorf
--
<a href="http://tertius.net.au/~thorfinn">thor...@tertius.net.au</a>
"It was mostly a dickwaving thing, and having thorfy wave his dick at
you is like being lightly gummed by a mildly peeved cat."
-- Hob...@vurt.net
solitaire
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh, alright then. Last chance.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6 Jun 2001 02:01:19 GMT, Thorfinn
>> <thor...@tertius.net.au> wrote:
>> >He's made a film composed entirely of pop-culture references, but put
>> >together with a story of its own...
>> *snort* You dignify it with the word "story". We differ already. It
>> had a plot, hackneyed though it was. That doesn't make it a story. I like
>> my characters *three* dimensional.
>
>*chuckle* I don't always. :) Usually I do... but sometimes, if the
>ride is fun, I'm happy to just go along.
Yeah. But if it's just a fun ride, don't spoil it by dragging in all
sorts of cultural references to make it seem more :)
>
>
>> So given that the "story" of _Moulin Rouge_ was trite and appalling, and
>> an *overwhelming* majority of the pop-culture references were there
>> *simply* to be pop-culture references...
>
>So? And no, I don't agree that they were just simply to be
>pop-culture references... I think that *ignoring whether they were
>references*, they worked in with the story, and the way it was being
>told.
Ah. If they're pop-culture references, I *can't* ignore them :0
I suspect it boils down to a feeling that it's far harder to make them
relevant, so you get points for that. It's *not* as hard to drag in
any old reference, so, no, no points. And I *can't* ignore them, so
not only do you get no points, you actively piss me off, because,
well, it's a copout.
>
>> Unless there's some "great tragic french cabaret" connection for, say
>> Nirvana? Oooh - jaded palettes and disillusionment with "safe"
>> entertainment isn't restricted to the Seattle grunge scene? What a
>> searing insight, Baz....
>
>*chuckle* I wasn't there for searing insights... I was there to watch
>a pretty movie, and to go along for the ride.
Ah. I dunno. If you're going to try to tug at my heartstrings, these
days, you'd damn well better give me more than a pretty facade.
Not that I'm bitter ;P
>
>> I'd like to see it with all the gratuitous pop-culture references
>> taken out, and only the ones that were relevant to the story left in.
>
>I wouldn't... because I think that they worked *as is*. Eg, your
>complaint about the use of Roxanne... so? Now, I'm the first to
>admit, I'm *not* familiar with pop culture since about the early '90s,
>because I just stopped paying attention... But...
>
>The words of the song were appropriate, the music *fit* the visuals,
>and the dance fit the music.
Heh. This is me being precious about my Tango Argentino. The music
did, in fact, have to be all bent out of shape till it was barely
recognisable. And there are much better tangoes out there. They just
happen not to be pop-culture references. So ina sense that's what I
object to. the *only* reason roxanne was used was that it was a
pop-culture reference with lyrics that matched. There are better
tangoes, with lyrics that match. Eschewing those for an inferior
piece of music that has only the barest remaining connection with the
song you're referenceing.... I dunno.
>> That'd give Baz, conservatively, another hour and a half to devote to,
>> say, character development, or depth, or a *real* story.
>[snippage]
>
>*nod* That would have been a different tale. Quite possibly a better
>tale... but I think it was a very good tale done exactly as it was.
Ah, see there we differ. If I "ignore" all the pop-culture references,
I'm left with a *very* second rate hackneyed plot with two dimensional
characters. *that* has to be fixed before it can stand on it's own.
Then you add the pop-culture references. CF Romeo and Juliet :)
>
>
>I'll agree with you on that... it *is* possible that he could have
>just left out the pop-culture references, and gone with a wholly
>original movie, which might have been "better" in some sense. I
>think, though, it would *not* have been as successful as *this* one
>will be... because those myriad pop-culture references *will* roll in
>the punters.
Yep. Notch up another disappointment, then - a man who can do much
better sacrificing art for income.
>
>> It's not a Musical. It's not an Opera. Baz has resurrected the farce.
>> But he's done it in the style of Shelley's _Frankenstein_ - he's
>> cobbled together a lot of old bits that should have stayed dead,
>> stitched them tenously together, and galvanised it with a bolt of
>> special effects to lurch from scene to scene, with no subtlety, no
>> cohesion, no art, and no real point.
>
>Yar. I do understand where you're coming from there... I agree with
>you that there *were* too many old bits stuck together. I *still*
>think it was good despite that... Partly probably because I wasn't
>distracted by the fact that they were old bits, so I didn't notice the
>stitching as often as you obviously were.
*nodnod* Again, we disagree largely on the quality of the final
product. If I didn't notice the stitching, I *might* see a nice quilt.
But in this particular case, I think I'd see a fairly hideous one - I
don't think it had enough of itself left after you take away the
pop-culture references.
>
>
>> *shrug*
>> IMHO. I can see why people might like it, but it requires a massive
>> suspension of disbelief - not in the realism, but in the story and
>> characters. And I wasn't prepared to make that effort. It may well be
>> my loss.
>
>Hrm... I'm going to have to see it again, and not be as distracted by
>the pretty visuals, and evaluate the story and characters in a bit more
>detail... I don't recall anything happening that was particularly out
>of character (yes, the characters were pretty much two-dimensional),
>nor do I recall any parts of the story being particularly jolting...
>
I find myself whistling the final tune, and desperately fighting the
urge to go see it again, actually. Perhaps I should, and try to ignore
the stitching, but I still think it'll be too mindless and carp.
And it's not so much "out of character" given certain basic premises -
He's a coward, she's a tramp, they're both in it for the money and the
fame and they're prepared to lie for it, even to each other. *shrug*
but once you get down to that, again, why am I supposed to feel
anything for either of them? That's the aspect I would have liked to
see more of. If Truth and Freedom are so goddamned important, why are
they both lying for the money and fame? The bad guys, AFAICT, are the
two supposed heroes, and you need a *shitload* more emotional depth to
get at the real meat of *why* people behave that way, and get away
with constructing a story that way.
*shrug*
Whatever :)
But yes, it's very pretty. No, that's not enough - for *me*.
sol.
.
Thorfinn
solitaire <soli...@lioness.tygger.net> wrote:
> If you're reading this, you know about the spoilers. Deal.
> <thor...@tertius.net.au> wrote:
> >*chuckle* I don't always. :) Usually I do... but sometimes, if the
> >ride is fun, I'm happy to just go along.
> Yeah. But if it's just a fun ride, don't spoil it by dragging in all
> sorts of cultural references to make it seem more :)
I can understand that as a criticism. :) I just failed to notice
enough of them that it didn't bother me.
> > So? And no, I don't agree that they were just simply to be
> > pop-culture references... I think that *ignoring whether they were
> > references*, they worked in with the story, and the way it was being
> > told.
> Ah. If they're pop-culture references, I *can't* ignore them :0
*nod*
> I suspect it boils down to a feeling that it's far harder to make them
> relevant, so you get points for that. It's *not* as hard to drag in
> any old reference, so, no, no points. And I *can't* ignore them, so
> not only do you get no points, you actively piss me off, because,
> well, it's a copout.
Yeps. I felt that they 'worked' enough for me to appreciate them,
so... but people are going to have different thresholds on what
proportion of not-so-perfect references are 'okay' before it becomes
pointless and stupid.
> >*chuckle* I wasn't there for searing insights... I was there to watch
> >a pretty movie, and to go along for the ride.
> Ah. I dunno. If you're going to try to tug at my heartstrings, these
> days, you'd damn well better give me more than a pretty facade.
> Not that I'm bitter ;P
*chuckle*
> >*nod* That would have been a different tale. Quite possibly a better
> >tale... but I think it was a very good tale done exactly as it was.
> Ah, see there we differ. If I "ignore" all the pop-culture references,
> I'm left with a *very* second rate hackneyed plot with two dimensional
> characters. *that* has to be fixed before it can stand on it's own.
> Then you add the pop-culture references. CF Romeo and Juliet :)
Which I must get 'round to seeing. :)
> >I'll agree with you on that... it *is* possible that he could have
> >just left out the pop-culture references, and gone with a wholly
> >original movie, which might have been "better" in some sense. I
> >think, though, it would *not* have been as successful as *this* one
> >will be... because those myriad pop-culture references *will* roll in
> >the punters.
> Yep. Notch up another disappointment, then - a man who can do much
> better sacrificing art for income.
*grin* That's a debate I'm not gunna go any nearer to than I already
have.
> >Yar. I do understand where you're coming from there... I agree with
> >you that there *were* too many old bits stuck together. I *still*
> >think it was good despite that... Partly probably because I wasn't
> >distracted by the fact that they were old bits, so I didn't notice the
> >stitching as often as you obviously were.
> *nodnod* Again, we disagree largely on the quality of the final
> product. If I didn't notice the stitching, I *might* see a nice quilt.
Yar. I think the quilt per-se is pretty crap, come to think of it...
it's the fact that it's been embroidered in a rococo style, using
approximately photomosaic level of detail, that means I like it... *to
look at*. Not to keep me warm at night... but it's a *very* nice
piece to hang on the wall.
But, I do feel that the rococo is probably too much... he could have
stuck to baroque, rather than rococo, and it would have been enough.
> But in this particular case, I think I'd see a fairly hideous one - I
> don't think it had enough of itself left after you take away the
> pop-culture references.
Hrm... possibly not. I was sufficiently distracted by the sheer
volume of detail (whether it was pop-culture referential or *not*),
that I wasn't bothered by the probably sadly lacking plot.
> >Hrm... I'm going to have to see it again, and not be as distracted by
> >the pretty visuals, and evaluate the story and characters in a bit more
> >detail... I don't recall anything happening that was particularly out
> >of character (yes, the characters were pretty much two-dimensional),
> >nor do I recall any parts of the story being particularly jolting...
> I find myself whistling the final tune, and desperately fighting the
> urge to go see it again, actually. Perhaps I should, and try to ignore
> the stitching, but I still think it'll be too mindless and carp.
It might be. I definitely want to watch it in slow motion, just to
be able to stare at all the secondary imagery that I didn't get time
to look at in detail during the film.
> And it's not so much "out of character" given certain basic premises -
> He's a coward, she's a tramp, they're both in it for the money and the
> fame and they're prepared to lie for it, even to each other. *shrug*
:s/each other/themselves/
IMO. :)
> but once you get down to that, again, why am I supposed to feel
> anything for either of them? That's the aspect I would have liked to
> see more of. If Truth and Freedom are so goddamned important, why are
> they both lying for the money and fame? The bad guys, AFAICT, are the
> two supposed heroes, and you need a *shitload* more emotional depth to
> get at the real meat of *why* people behave that way, and get away
> with constructing a story that way.
The supposed heroes are stereotypical tragic heroes... Fatal flaw and
all. Sure, they *aren't* very well fleshed out... in fact, they're
not fleshed out at all (although they both display some very pretty
flesh)... they're just embroidered stereotypes. :)
> *shrug*
> Whatever :)
> But yes, it's very pretty. No, that's not enough - for *me*.
*nodnod* It was enough for me. :) Plenty of pretty detail to stare at,
listen to, and just let it happen.
Ook,
Thorf
--
<a href="http://tertius.net.au/~thorfinn">thor...@tertius.net.au</a>
Putting heated bricks close to the news.admin.net-abuse.* groups.
-- MegaHal, trained on the scary.devil.monastery
solitaire
<thor...@tertius.net.au> wrote:
>
>> And it's not so much "out of character" given certain basic premises -
>> He's a coward, she's a tramp, they're both in it for the money and the
>> fame and they're prepared to lie for it, even to each other. *shrug*
>
>:s/each other/themselves/
Oh, absolutely. Both, then.
>
>
>> but once you get down to that, again, why am I supposed to feel
>> anything for either of them? That's the aspect I would have liked to
>> see more of. If Truth and Freedom are so goddamned important, why are
>> they both lying for the money and fame? The bad guys, AFAICT, are the
>> two supposed heroes, and you need a *shitload* more emotional depth to
>> get at the real meat of *why* people behave that way, and get away
>> with constructing a story that way.
>
>The supposed heroes are stereotypical tragic heroes... Fatal flaw and
>all. Sure, they *aren't* very well fleshed out... in fact, they're
>not fleshed out at all (although they both display some very pretty
>flesh)... they're just embroidered stereotypes. :)
Yup. And for me to believe or sympathise with a fatal flaw, it needs
to have a deep, deep root in character or internal tension.
*shrug* Again, it's about internal consistency. If you can see the
*reason* for the fatal flaw, and the dichotomy in the character that
leads to it, then ok. But if you have two-dimensional characters, you
*can't* show that, you're just left with inconsistent characters. Then
you can justify the inconsistency just by saying "Well, if I had time
to develop this character a little, you'd see that it's actualy a
fatal flaw." See point about copout :)
sol.
.
Greylock
>I'd like to see it with all the gratuitous pop-culture references
>taken out, and only the ones that were relevant to the story left in.
>That'd give Baz, conservatively, another hour and a half to devote to,
>say, character development, or depth, or a *real* story.
You have no soul.
I liked it - despite myself.
It is a musical - it requires no real characterisation, merely
two-dimensional iconic characters whom we can place our faith in, and a
world of internal logic to which we can give our trust.
It was also amazingly pretty and well shot. As a musical, it must rate as
one of Hollywood's best. It made my friend cry. It made me whistful and
mopey. Can there be a greater barometer of success than that?
I don't know, the whole romantic notions of MR appealed to me, and I liked
what I heard of the soundtrack was well. Scary, huh?
-----
H*ydn
Sandro on clubs:
"... Wanting to have people dancing all the time is the equivalent of the "Applause" sign
they light up for studio audiences when they're recording a
tv program: it's to convince us that something or some place
is more popular and likable than it really is."
stranger..
Greylock wrote
:It made me whistful and mopey. Can there
:be a greater barometer of success than that?
Fish.
Barrel.
Marksmanship.
--
stranger..
(etc)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.goth.net/~stranger
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
image is everything - obey your image