Trip to New York or Chicago
Mads Vestergaard
I am going to the US for the first time which of theese to cities should I
visit. If you have another surgestion for a city I would like to know it.
Yours faithfully
Mads Vestergaard
Rita
wrote:
I really recommend Cleveland, Ohio.
>
Mike
<and...@tiscali.dk> wrote:
East Coast -- NYC if you could only go to one city. If time permits
Washington, DC, Baltimore, Boston are fun cities. Philadelphia also.
Quebec City and Montreal Canada are also good bets.
Mid-west - Chicago for sure.
Far West - San Francisco followed by Seattle and San Diego. If Canada
is ok, add Vancouver.
Claim Guy
"Rita" <rknyd...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:hpe7o0dh47os91vec...@4ax.com...
Pan
<and...@tiscali.dk> wrote:
They're both worthwhile places to visit, and there are others. Could
you give us any criteria that would help us give you advice?
Best,
Michael
If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Shawn Hearn
"Mads Vestergaard" <and...@tiscali.dk> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am going to the US for the first time which of theese to cities should I
> visit. If you have another surgestion for a city I would like to know it.
That's easy. Visit the city that interests you the most. I have no idea
which city would interest you the most because I do not know you, nor
do I have a clue what your interests are, or even the time of year you
plan to make this trip.
Gregory Morrow
Pan wrote:...
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:37:06 +0200, "Mads Vestergaard"
> <and...@tiscali.dk> wrote:
>
> >Hi
> >
> >I am going to the US for the first time which of theese to cities should
I
> >visit. If you have another surgestion for a city I would like to know it.
> >
> >Yours faithfully
> >
> >Mads Vestergaard
>
> They're both worthwhile places to visit, and there are others.
Chicago is a very *American* city, New York is, well, a *world* unto itself.
Chicago is the best representative of a big *American* city (again I am
excluding NYC) - we've got superb architecture, a lively cultural scene,
scores of ethnic neighborhoods to explore...practically speaking we have a
great easy - to - use public transport system, the city is relatively
compact and easy to navigate, there is oodles of great food. We have a
strong and vibrant urban inner core with the neighborhoods radiating out
from that, so that is another factor to consider...you won't have to be in
car zooming down a freeway past strip malls and such to get from place to
place ('though we have that out in the suburbs). People tend to have basic
"midwestern" values, e.g. they are fairly sensible, fairly friendly, and
don't feel they have to put on airs about anything (which is not a problem
so much for most New Yorkers as it is with Californians...and I've always
found New Yorkers unfailingly helpful and proud of their city, glad to help
visitors). We are fairly cosmopolitan but many of us are just one step
removed from midwestern small towns or farms or Chicago working class
neighborhoods...or from just about anyplace around the world.
Oh, and one thing I've heard from visitors (including those from New York)
is how clean a city Chicago is...
Fodder for thought...
--
Best
Greg in Chicago
Mads Vestergaard
Thank you very much for your postings in this thread
My interests are art-museums, good zoo愀, it would be great if there are
some great naturespots nearby.
I don愒 have any drivers license as a drivers license costs about 1500 US$
so I have to use public transportation to get arround.
I am thinking of visiting Seattle. Do you recomend that?. I can see that it
is close to Vancouver Canada. I have heard that this is a vey beautiful
city. It is worth a visit?.
Thank you again
Mads Vestergaard
Mads Vestergaard
I am planning of visiting the US in April or May 2005
ncurtis
> My interests are art-museums, good zoo´s, it would be great if there are
> some great naturespots nearby.
> I don´t have any drivers license as a drivers license costs about 1500 US$
have as many or as much variety, although it's superb for
*architecture*. Really good zoos--tie between New York and Chicago.
Chicago has 2 zoos, though, and 1 of them (the OK but not really good
one) is very easy to get to by public transportation. Great
naturespots by public transportation--could be hard to find in both
cities.
>
> I am thinking of visiting Seattle. Do you recomend that?.
Nancy
Jon Bell
ncurtis <nrc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [...] Great
>naturespots by public transportation--could be hard to find in both
>cities.
A notable exception near New York is the Hudson River valley, especially
the section that runs through the mountains near West Point. There is
frequent local train service to Poughkeepsie, along a route that runs
right at the river's edge much of the way. If you're interested in
hiking, some of the smaller stations between Peekskill and Poughkeepsie
would probably make good starting points.
--
Jon Bell <jtbe...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
Pan
>That's more like it! OK, New York for the art museums. Chicago doesn't
>have as many or as much variety,
Chicago Art Institute is fantastic.
> although it's superb for
>*architecture*.
[snip]
Yep.
Pan
Good time to visit.
April can be rainy at times in New York and the first half of April
can even be snowy at times in various parts of the U.S., but generally
speaking, those months are pretty mild and pleasant.
Pan
<and...@tiscali.dk> wrote:
>Hi all
>
>Thank you very much for your postings in this thread
>
>My interests are art-museums,
The great art museums in the U.S. are in New York, Washington, LA,
Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, and perhaps Cleveland (I've never been
to the Cleveland Art Institute, so I can't say).
>good zoo´s,
I haven't visited a lot of zoos. The Bronx Zoo in New York is a great
zoo, but I think most people consider the San Diego Zoo the best. Most
big cities will have a zoo.
> it would be great if there are
>some great naturespots nearby.
There's some virgin forest in Inwood Park near the northern tip of
Manhattan, but in general, the bigger the city, the more distant you
are from big nature.
>I don´t have any drivers license as a drivers license costs about 1500 US$
>so I have to use public transportation to get arround.
No problem in New York, Chicago, Boston, Washington, Philadelphia, San
Francisco, Seattle, and several other cities (but not LA).
>I am thinking of visiting Seattle. Do you recomend that?
No great art museum and I don't know their zoo, but I like the
Arboretum there very much and the whole area is full of big, fragrant
cedars, and Mt. Rainier's snow-capped peak is visible.
>. I can see that it
>is close to Vancouver Canada. I have heard that this is a vey beautiful
>city. It is worth a visit?.
[snip]
I haven't had the pleasure yet, but why wouldn't it be?
Ben
And don't forget Central Park Zoo and all there is to see in
Central Park.
There are many parks scattered round NYC but Central Park is the biggest
and most impressive of them all. There isn't another city in the world
that has a park like Central Park, that is so huge, so many different
things going on at the same time, right slap bang in the middle of a
bustling city. You can easily spend all day in Central Park and not see
it all or get bored.:)
--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Miguel Cruz
> There are many parks scattered round NYC but Central Park is the biggest
> and most impressive of them all. There isn't another city in the world
> that has a park like Central Park, that is so huge, so many different
> things going on at the same time, right slap bang in the middle of a
> bustling city.
Chapultepec in Mexico City definitely gives it a run for its money. Larger,
more magnificent structures, more different things going on, more vibrant.
Really I think the only way Central Park scores on it is the skyline view.
miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Dave Smith
> I am thinking of visiting Seattle. Do you recomend that?. I can see that it
> is close to Vancouver Canada. I have heard that this is a vey beautiful
> city. It is worth a visit?.
Vancouver is definitely worth visiting. Of you are going to travel by ferry you
might also consider Victoria, much smaller but quite charming.
PTRAVEL
"Dave Smith" <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4186BEB6...@sympatico.ca...
I agree about Vancouver and Victoria, and would only add that Vancouver has
some of the best authentic Chinese restaurants on the North American
continent.
And Seattle has wonderful oysters! ;)
>
>
>
Rita
>Ben <member4540@british_expats.com> wrote:
>> There are many parks scattered round NYC but Central Park is the biggest
>> and most impressive of them all. There isn't another city in the world
>> that has a park like Central Park, that is so huge, so many different
>> things going on at the same time, right slap bang in the middle of a
>> bustling city.
>
>Chapultepec in Mexico City definitely gives it a run for its money. Larger,
>more magnificent structures, more different things going on, more vibrant.
>Really I think the only way Central Park scores on it is the skyline view.
>
>miguel
I can't compare Central Park to other parks, but it is a jewel. It is
so beautifully designed that from any angle one sees a pleasing vista.
I walk in the park often and never take the same route twice -- there is
infinite variety. The city fades away along with its noise and congestion.
I never tire of it.
Brian K
declared:
>Hi all
>
>Thank you very much for your postings in this thread
>
>My interests are art-museums, good zoo´s, it would be great if there are
>some great naturespots nearby.
>I don´t have any drivers license as a drivers license costs about 1500 US$
>so I have to use public transportation to get arround.
>
>I am thinking of visiting Seattle. Do you recomend that?. I can see that it
>is close to Vancouver Canada. I have heard that this is a vey beautiful
>city. It is worth a visit?.
>
>Thank you again
>
>Mads Vestergaard
>
>
>
>
Mads,
I have been to both Seattle and Vancouver and I live in the New York
City Metro Area. I've also been to San Francisco. For the arts, I
think that New York has the most museums, and art galleries. It also
has a good public transportation system. On the downside, it's a very
dirty city. After walking about for a few hours, I need to use one of
those moist cloths that come in packets to clean my face. I haven't
experienced this in the other cities I mentioned.
The other cities I mention also have fairly large art museums, theater
and good public transportation. They are also a lot cleaner than New
York. It doesn't matter which one you make as your base, you can take
day ferries to the other cities. You can take a ferry from Seattle to
Vancouver, also you can go to Victoria BC the provincial capital of
British Columbia home of the famous Butchart Gardens. Additionally, you
can do Afternoon Tea at the Empress Hotel, a tradition in Victoria since
the 1800's. The Royal BC Art museum is just a few steps away from the
Empress and has some beautiful exhibits, some on load from the Royal Art
Museum in London, UK. Additionally, you can take a ferry south to
Astoria, OR and nearby Canon Beach. From Canon Beach OR, Seaside OR,
or Victoria's inner harbor you can go on a whale watch ride. The best
time to spot Orca "Killer Whales", is mid to late September when they
begin their migration to Hawaii.
San Francisco also has it's charms with it's cable cars, Beaux Arts
Pavilion, and art museums with a prodigious collection rivaling the
Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City.
--
________
To email me, Edit "xt" from my email address.
Brian M. Kochera
"Some mistakes are too much fun to only make once!"
View My Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~brian1951
Brian K
declared:
>One thing more
>
>I am planning of visiting the US in April or May 2005
>
>
>
>
>
April or May? See Washington DC. Cherry Blossoms happen during one of
those months. You certainly have more than enough art museums,
historical places, the Smithsonian. Good inner city transport and I
think that there are tour buses that can take you out to Mount Vernon -
1st President George Washington's residence.
If you have a driver's license from your home country, many major auto
rental companies will accept that and rent a car to you. Outside of
metropolitan areas, many zoos are incorporated in theme parks often
under the Six Flags brand. In these "zoos" the animals roam free and
you are in a "cage" as you drive through a safari park. I enjoy these,
the animals are free to approach your car and even stare at you. It's
sort of fun having the tables turned this way. But you do need an car
to go through these safari parks.
B Vaughan
wrote:
>April or May? See Washington DC. Cherry Blossoms happen during one of
>those months.
Usually early April.
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my last name at libero dot it.
Pan
<member4540@british_expats.com> wrote:
>And don't forget Central Park Zoo and all there is to see in
>Central Park.
[snip]
I've never had the urge to visit the Central Park Zoo since it
reopened after the renovation. It's a very small zoo. The Bronx Zoo is
very big.
Central Park is a lot of fun to walk through, as is Prospect Park in
Brooklyn.
Pan
wrote:
[snip]
>San Francisco also has it's charms with it's cable cars, Beaux Arts
>Pavilion, and art museums with a prodigious collection rivaling the
>Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City.
What art museum in SF has a collection rivalling that of the Met?
Really?
Rita
>On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 07:37:30 GMT, Brian K <brian...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>[snip]
>>San Francisco also has it's charms with it's cable cars, Beaux Arts
>>Pavilion, and art museums with a prodigious collection rivaling the
>>Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City.
>
>What art museum in SF has a collection rivalling that of the Met?
>Really?
There is no art museum in the U.S.
that begins to rival the Met's
collection. D.C. has a number of good art museums, but the Met
is inclusive and can't be beat as a single destination that has
it all.
Here is the Met menu:
Old Masters and other European Art
European Sculpture and Decorative Arts
Fine Impressionist collection
American Art
Ancient Near EAstern aart
Arms and Armor
Arts of Africa, Oceania, and the Americas
Asian Art
Costume Institute
Drawings and Prints
Egyptian Art
Greek and Roman Art
Islamic Art
Medieval Art -- both in the Met itself and the satellite, the Cloisters
Modern Art
Contemporary Art
How can you top this?
Photographs
Pan
wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 06:30:31 GMT, Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 07:37:30 GMT, Brian K <brian...@earthlink.net>
>>wrote:
>>[snip]
>>>San Francisco also has it's charms with it's cable cars, Beaux Arts
>>>Pavilion, and art museums with a prodigious collection rivaling the
>>>Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City.
>>
>>What art museum in SF has a collection rivalling that of the Met?
>>Really?
>
>
>There is no art museum in the U.S.
>that begins to rival the Met's
>collection. D.C. has a number of good art museums, but the Met
>is inclusive and can't be beat as a single destination that has
>it all.
[snip]
I think the National Gallery and LACMA are comparable, though. I take
it you disagree. Feel free to compare them in more detail, and I might
be persuaded that they aren't.
Rita
>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 12:47:35 GMT, Rita <rknyd...@myrealbox.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 06:30:31 GMT, Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 07:37:30 GMT, Brian K <brian...@earthlink.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>[snip]
>>>>San Francisco also has it's charms with it's cable cars, Beaux Arts
>>>>Pavilion, and art museums with a prodigious collection rivaling the
>>>>Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City.
>>>
>>>What art museum in SF has a collection rivalling that of the Met?
>>>Really?
>>
>>
>>There is no art museum in the U.S.
>>that begins to rival the Met's
>>collection. D.C. has a number of good art museums, but the Met
>>is inclusive and can't be beat as a single destination that has
>>it all.
>[snip]
>
>I think the National Gallery and LACMA are comparable, though. I take
>it you disagree. Feel free to compare them in more detail, and I might
>be persuaded that they aren't.
>
Perhaps it is because I am so familiar with the Met. Living in
NYC, it is a place I drop into often, and do a tiny portion of the
whole. I've visited the National Gallery several times, but never
got the same feeling about it as the Met.
In the Met, I find some new nook or
cranny to surprise me every time I visit.
For a first time visitor, the place is overwhelming. While the Met
offers enough to explore over and over again, it may be wiser for
a first time visitor to limit the experience to one or two areas.
However, a walk through the entire building is recommended.
In my summary of the Met's wonders, I forgot Greek and Roman art, an
area which is being transformed due to moving the cafeteria to the
basement. There are such lovely halls in some parts, flooded with
light streaming in from Central Park. There are spots to sit down and
just contemplate the total effect. I suggest every visitor take the
elevator up to the roof garden to view Central Park from above.
I have visited most major art museums in Europe. But I never have
found one that overall compares to the Met in its depth and breadth
of diverse collections. The Louvre, of course, is magnificent but
contains a lot of rather mediocre French painting. Too much, in
my view.
I am a fan of contemporary art. The Met's collection is relatively tiny in
comparison to the whole, but I read they plan to add to it.
The Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) is reopening, but I almost dropped
in a faint when I learned the admission fee has been boosted to
$20. At the Met, one pays what one wishes, although of course there
is a suggested admission fee -- $12 for non-seniors, non-students.
The Met has an Impressionist collection that put the old MOMA to
shame. MOMA did not have enough space to display much of its
collection and it became tired and worn. I guess I'll have to put
out the bucks at least once to see what the renovation brings. And
MOMA has never done much at all with contemporary art.
I did not mean to be an exclusionist of other art musems in the U.S.
I love them all. My first exposure to "art" was the Chicago Art
Institute at age 15. I came in from small town Wisconsin, saw some
Picassos and Grant Woods "American Gothic" and became hooked. I
cultivated a girl friend met at a fishing resort because she lived in
Evanston and wangled an invite to her home over holidays so I could
take the El and wander the streets of the Chicago loop and visit the
Art Institute.
Much of my joy in European travel has been built around visiting the
great art museums. I found the Ludwig in Cologne a marvel for
contemporary art. We all have our tastes and preferences but there is
little I would rule out. I am still capable of looking afresh and
discovering new favorites.
eric h
Rita <rknyd...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>Much of my joy in European travel has been built around visiting the
>great art museums. I found the Ludwig in Cologne a marvel for
>contemporary art.
You obviously have excellent taste. The Museum Ludwig knocked my socks off
on my first visit in 1981, and the only time it failed to do so was on a
visit a few years ago when most of the 20th Century stuff was closed off
for some renovation or somesuch.
--
---
"Wake up, everybody."--McFadden/Whitehead/Carstarphen
Pan
wrote:
[snip]
>I have visited most major art museums in Europe. But I never have
>found one that overall compares to the Met in its depth and breadth
>of diverse collections. The Louvre, of course, is magnificent but
>contains a lot of rather mediocre French painting. Too much, in
>my view.
This is where I say "Whoa!" The Met also has plenty of mediocre
paintings. The Met is a great museum and the closest we have to a
museum on the level of the Louvre, but no way is it better. The
Louvre's Egyptian collection, for example, is magnificent and
beautifully documented! Also, what French Romantic paintings does the
Met have that rival the monumental works of David and Gericault in the
Louvre? And does the Met have a Leonardo to rival the Mona Lisa? You
also might want to take into account the fact that the Louvre is a
gorgeous palace and that natural light is used much more there than in
the Met and most other American museums.
It's true that the Louvre has so much work that they spun off much of
their Barbizon school and Impressionist (etc.) work to the Orsay, a
quite sizable museum in its own right that has a bunch of great
paintings and some mediocre ones in it. Is that a bad thing?
(For more information about the provenance of the Orsay's collection,
look here:
>I am a fan of contemporary art. The Met's collection is relatively tiny in
>comparison to the whole, but I read they plan to add to it.
>The Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) is reopening, but I almost dropped
>in a faint when I learned the admission fee has been boosted to
>$20.
[snip]
Wow! They're deliberately pricing out New Yorkers, it would seem.
One further question: Have you been to LACMA? They have great stuff of
all sorts, but their East Asian collections are magnificent. Have a
look here:
Rita
>On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 12:09:44 GMT, Rita <rknyd...@myrealbox.com>
>wrote:
>
>One further question: Have you been to LACMA? They have great stuff of
>all sorts, but their East Asian collections are magnificent. Have a
>look here:
>
>http://www.lacma.org/
>
No, I have not spent time in LA in all my travels about the
country. One visit for a couple of days and stayed in Santa
Monica and missed the art museum. Other than that I've just
driven through. But should I be within a reasonable distance
in the future, I'll keep this in mind.
Pan
Michael Graham
> Pan wrote:...
> Oh, and one thing I've heard from visitors (including those from New York)
> is how clean a city Chicago is...
I have to agree on how clean Chicago seems to be or least it was just
a few weeks back.
Michael
Icono Clast
> Rita <rknyd...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>I almost dropped in a faint when I learned the admission fee has been
>>boosted to $20.
>
Next time I'm there, you can both join me for a visit. Last time I
visited the museum, they accepted my local membership.
> One further question: Have you been to LACMA? They have great stuff of
> all sorts, but their East Asian collections are magnificent. Have a
> look here:
What I liked most at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art was the
building housing the Asian collection. It's a very tricky design that
I caught on to about half way through it. I retraced my steps to
figure out what had been done. Very subtle, and clever.
> http://www.lacma.org/
____________________________________________________________
Southern California's Four Seasons:
Earthquake, Mudslide, Brushfire, and Riot
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net
Pan
wrote:
>Pan wrote:
>> Rita <rknyd...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>I almost dropped in a faint when I learned the admission fee has been
>>>boosted to $20.
>>
>> Wow! They're deliberately pricing out New Yorkers, it would seem.
>
>Next time I'm there, you can both join me for a visit. Last time I
>visited the museum, they accepted my local membership.
[snip]
How's that? What's a local membership? MOCA?
Sarah Banick
>>>I almost dropped in a faint when I learned the admission fee has been
>>>boosted to $20.
>>
>> Wow! They're deliberately pricing out New Yorkers, it would seem.
>
has a free day once a week (okay, so that's an stupid statement, but The
Prado, the Art Institute of Chicago, the High in Atlanta, etc. have free
days)
Rita
wrote:
I believe they had free entry on Friday evenings for 3 or 4
hours -- I haven't heard if this will hold true for the refurbished
museum.
I like the system used by the Met and other museums that receive some
support from the city -- a reasonable set entry fee, senior and student
discounts but overall a pay what you wish policy. Most, I do believe,
pay the requested amount.
>
Icono Clast
> Icono Clast said:
>> Next time I'm there, you can both join me for a visit. Last time
>> I visited the museum, they accepted my local membership.
>
The card says "Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco". It's been honored
at many museums in several countries. Of course there has to be a
reciprocal agreement.
Sarah Banick referenced:
> the High in Atlanta
A total waste of time. Well, almost. There's a statue named "Lot's
Wife" who's wearing a veil. First time I've ever seen a veil in marble.
_____________________________________________________________
A San Franciscan in 47.335 mile² San Francisco
B Vaughan
wrote:
>I like the system used by the Met and other museums that receive some
>support from the city -- a reasonable set entry fee, senior and student
>discounts but overall a pay what you wish policy. Most, I do believe,
>pay the requested amount.
It must be because of the hawk-eyed person who is handing out the
little lapel pins and counting how much money you "donate".
I prefer the system at the British Museum, which is truly voluntary.
Rita
>On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:35:46 GMT, Rita <rknyd...@myrealbox.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I like the system used by the Met and other museums that receive some
>>support from the city -- a reasonable set entry fee, senior and student
>>discounts but overall a pay what you wish policy. Most, I do believe,
>>pay the requested amount.
>
>It must be because of the hawk-eyed person who is handing out the
>little lapel pins and counting how much money you "donate".
I have never noticed that, Barbara. My contribution is always
accepted with a smile.
>
>I prefer the system at the British Museum, which is truly voluntary.
Well, yes, that is very nice indeed, but the Met attracts so many tourists
and I see no problem with those who can well afford to pay the suggested
admission fee, which is not unreasonable, to do so. Bottom line is that
museums need financial support to carry out their mission, to acquire new
works, sponsor special exhibits and to now and then renovate their facilities
to better serve the public. Our government never has supported the arts in
the way they are supported in some other countries. Nor would shortfalls in
funding due to lower or no admission force our Congress to make up the
difference.
B Vaughan
wrote:
I don't object to paying the full price, but it does irritate that
they call it a donation. When I'm in London, I usually stay near the
British museum and go there several times during my stay. I make a
donation each time I go, but I make an especially large one to cover
all my visits once during the trip. I don't mind popping in for half
an hour, and when I do, I make a small contribution.
Pan
<sba...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
>>> Rita <rknyd...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>>I almost dropped in a faint when I learned the admission fee has been
>>>>boosted to $20.
>>>
>>> Wow! They're deliberately pricing out New Yorkers, it would seem.
>>
>Don't they have a free day?
[snip]
Yeah, Thursday evenings or something, but with the crush of visitors
on that day, it's not worth it. I think it'll be a really long time
before I go back to the Modern. If I'm spending that much money, I'm
going to the opera!