The Folk Prophet

The "epic" musical (otherwise termed the "megamusical") ate itself...in the same way Hollywood ate itself with "blockbuster" superhero extended universe movies. Instead of writing great musicals with great music, plot, singing, etc.*, they felt like the reason Phantom, Les Miz, Miss Saigon, and so-forth were "epic" was because they were staged with huge budgets and had chandeliers come crashing down, barricades descend like magic from the ceilings, and helicopters landing on the stage. And so when they flopped, they flopped HARD, because they cost so much to make. A couple of moderately successful examples didn't make their budgets back because their budgets were ridiculous. Sound familiar (*cough* Disney)? And so instead of deciding to write great musicals with great music without all the money into it re staging and effects and the like, they decided to go with "known properties" (Sound familiar, (*cough* Hollywood)), and hence we get the "jukebox" musical and/or the Disney musicals based on the successful and already highly popular property. * To be fair...doing this is harder than it sounds. Even the greats of the "mega" musicals (Andrew Lloyd-Webber and Claude-Michel Schonberg/Alain Boublil) couldn't replicate it. After Cats (which sucks...but no question, was a huge hit) and Phantom, Lloyd-Webber had Aspects of Love, Sunset Boulevard (awesome, but not a hit), Whistle Down the Wind, The Beautiful Game, The Woman in White, Love Never Dies, Stephen Ward, and Cinderella (with an "additional music by", The Wizard of Oz in there too). Any of those sound like huge hits you've heard of? Maybe Sunset Boulevard. But it lost money ultimately, because of how much it cost to stage. Schoberg/Boublil followed up Les Miz with Miss Saigon. Maybe my favorite musical...but nowhere near as successful as Les Miz. Then they did Martin Guerre and finally The Pirate Queen. Both flops. And for good reason, particularly with The Pirate Queen. Martin Guerre has some great music, but then never could bring it all together to make a solid show. Then they, apparenly, gave up and faded into "resting-on-our-Les-Miz-laurels". Too bad. What could have been if they'd written as many as Rodgers and Hammerstein. But...too expensive. And Cameron Mackintosh, essentially, dropped them. The Pirate Queen was done off Broadway under a different producer. Their protectory reminded me a lot of Michael Jackson. He has his Les Miz with Thriller, then follows it up with his Miss Saigon, Bad, which is my favorite. Then Dangerous (worse than Bad), History (worse...), and Invincible (TERRIBLE!). But I digress. Really...the only thing even CLOSE to the heyday of "epic" shows is Wicked and then Hamilton. Unless you count Disney's stuff. (Incidentally, the stage version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame is PHENOMENAL! Check this out if you haven't heard it: ) at 3:51 of this recording....well....cool (this is the way it's typically done now)...but.... check out the original German version with Drew Sarich, who goes to the high C at the end. It sounds like he uses falsetto, but then he swells into full voice and...yeah. Moreover though....the orchestrations for this show!!! Good gravy. This is how musical theater should be! @LDSGator Okay...fine. I know a lot about musical theater. I concede. Edit: Except the last beat. It needs to be higher, bigger, include a cymbal crash, and just generally punch you in the face a bit more after that swelling vocal high note. But... you know... armchair quarterbacking here.

Oh...yeah. I understand the craft. Very much. I'm just not into all musicals, like some people I know. In my opinion, to be into all musicals, one has to have, essentially, no taste.

Well...I'm no expert...but.... it seems to me that if tariffs cause the Chinese knockoff to cost as much as the authentic device, that no one's going to buy the Chinese knockoff. To be fair...yeah...doesn't solve the world market, just the US one. Unless the other large states where the Chinese knockoffs sell also tariff China in the same way. But...still. If I had a product that I was trying to sell and everyone was buying a cheap Chinese stolen IP version of it instead of mine, I'd appreciate the tariff on it, even if it only helped American sales. Edit: moreover, it's one of the reasons stated by the Trump admin, etc. And so it should be included in a basic explanation of what's going on whether you think it'll work or not.

I didn't read everything in full detail here yet...but glancing over it...I think it's missing the problem of intellectual properties/patents/copyrights, etc. Free trade is a problem without some level of IP/patent/copyrights/TM protection. Tariffs are one means of dealing with that. Which is why, regardless of any other views of Tariffs on other countries, we (and the rest of the world) should be Tariffing the blinking stink out of China.

Because it's good. Simple enough. I let a lot of stuff slide, morally speaking, in my entertainment loves, because I enjoy the movies. Like how my favorite movies of all time (which are, generally, the classic 80s movies. Ghostbusters, Back to the Future, Karate Kid, etc...) are filled with 80s level cussing and I just ignore it. And I'm not sure how to feel about that. I'm hyper sensitive to gay/trans stuff though. And even more hyper sensitive when my children are potential consumers. All in all, it wasn't THAT on the nose in Wicked. When the handsome prince arrives several men are fawning over him (which could be taken as hero worship vs a desire to do gay stuff (though that is clearly not what was intended)), and the men in drag-related wear are background characters/dancers in a fantasy, otherworldy, quicky, everyone-dresses-a-bit-funny world. I can understand people looking past it. I'm overly sensitive, for sure.

Not really. My tastes in any given thing are generally narrow. I'm not the kind of person who likes/loves ANY musical theater. I like what I like. And if I don't care for certain things, I'm not very knowledgeable. There's a whole lot of musical theater works that, upon sampling, I didn't care for, and don't know much about, beyond that I didn't care for the sample.

A pretty low bar to contend for though.

Oh...and... The other one we saw. Moana 2. What a disappointment! What a garbage movie! Nothing woke-offensive*, per se, there. But just a bad movie. Bad story, bad writing, bad songs. Bad, bad, bad! *not really "woke", but the lyrics to the song Get Lost are pretty evil**, in the same way Let It Go's*** lyrics from Frozen are evil. And...surprise, surprise, when we finished I asked my daughter what her favorite sone was and.... yeah. Which...whatever on the "evil" lyrics. That's not why she liked it. But it bothers me a lot more because, lyrics aside, it was easily the worst song in the movie. It's like how my least favorite song in Encanto (What Else Can I Do?) is my daughter's favorite. Yeah... I know....just wait till she's a teenager. Dad not liking his daughter's music is a cliche. ** Get lost, cut loose, and lose your way There ain't no fun in holdin' back, babe You gotta enjoy the thrill of livin' dangerously You've got a long, long way to go Keep playin' safe, you'll never know The rules are ours to break Come on, babe It's time to get lost *** Let It Go's lyrics might be as evil, but quality and skill of lyric writing...heads and tails better than the garbage in Moana 2. SO......BAD!!!!

Is this title click bait? Depends on how you read it, I suppose. Am I saying I'm wicked and disappointed? Am I saying other others are wicked and it's disappointing? Or am I talking about the fact that I finally saw the movie musical Wicked and I was disappointed? Just up front...the movie is good. It's well made. It's well acted. The story is solid. It's a good movie. But.... I had to fight back tears in the end, not because it was an emotional movie. I suppose the emotion of the music (which is pretty solid in the end...more on that) primed me for being emotional, but I was not emotional about the movie or the plot. I was emotional at disappointment. Alright...getting into it: Wicked was a good move. Very good. But several things were disappointing, one being an absolute dealbreaker for me. First, Wicked as a "music"-al.... The music. It's...okay. I've never loved it. It has 2 or 3 okay-ish songs, several "meh" songs, a couple of garbage songs, and 1 or 2 great(ish) songs or musical moments. However... Second, the orchestration choices and style of Wicked STINKS! I've always hated it. I'd hoped they'd fix it for the movie. And...a little bit they did. But mostly, nah. Still stinks. I mean, If you were going to put a style of music to represent the Land of Oz, what style would you choose? Would it be pop/rock? Would it? NO! It's garbage. That's all I have to say on that. Third, the choreography was (along the same lines) TERRIBLE in the same way. It didn't, for the most part) feel in any way appropriate for Oz. It might have (sort of) fit the music style. It was very modern and...you know... pop/rock-y. But it was bad. Fourth, and this is the big one, it was...how do I put it delicately? Nah. Forget delicacy. It was GAY! And I've always hated that about Wicked. Now...just to be clear... I'm not using "gay" as a pejorative expletive here, like was done in the 80s. As in, "That's so gay, man!" I mean it simply as a stylistic thing. It's stylistically gay. And it's not to my taste. I do not like stylistically "gay" entertainment. It ain't my cup-o-joe. And I've always felt that way about Wicked. Certain musicals fall into that category. A lot of them are, indeed, filled with homosexual stuff. But that's not even what I mean by the "style". It's just a style of music and acting and presentation and etc., etc. that doesn't appeal to me. And I don't quite know how to describe it other than being "gay". It's like the put-on way "gay" men act that's supposedly "effeminate" but is nothing like females actually act. It's just a stylistic gay men thing. Like the gay lisp or limp wristed cliches. And, in music (musicals in particular), it's not a lisp or a limp wrist or something like that...but it still has a sense of that. There's a feel to certain shows that comes across, stylistically, as.... like I said...I don't have a better word....gay. Now...I realize...to some, ALL musicals are gay. Fair enough. Fine. I know there's subjectivity here. And it's hard to really put my thumb on what it is about certain musicals that stylistically does not appeal to me in that way. Wicked is not the most egregious here. I've never hated Wicked's music. I just haven't ever loved it. That being said, I understand why some do. The same way I understand why some love Hamilton. Rap's not my thing. But I see the art. I get it. But then -- and I don't know how this compares to the stage musical, having never seen it -- they added legit crossdressing and homosexual implications in the movie. Like I said...maybe that wasn't added. Maybe the stage musical has always had that too. But THAT's the big dealbreaker. Not buying. Not letting the kids watch. Nope. And that is extremely disappointing, because what is a, legitimately, GOOD movie -- and I'm always looking for new, good, movie musicals (they're rare nowadays) -- becomes a no go for me because of woke crap inserted. And...just like my annoyance with the pop/rock music style and how it doesn't work for Oz...it's the same thing here. Dudes in full make-up and dresses, and others flirting and infatuated with other men, and the like, feels SO out of place and wrong in what should be an innocent written-for-children world. And...yes...I get that Wicked is a grown-up deconstruction of Oz, but open drag and open homosexuality? Nope. Does not fit. It feels like nothing more than the injection of modern leftist politics into it, and it harms the show -- even if I put aside my moral objections. It doesn't work. But the deal-breaking part is the moral objection. So....I'm disappointed. Particularly because Wicked was, indeed, a good movie. Very good. Anyhow...the emotional reaction (having been primed by the legitimately good music moments at the end of part one), were tied into more than just my disappointment from Wicked. It was like all the disappointments I've had in entertainment over the past 30 years came crashing down on me and it was upsetting! Star Wars, Harry Potter, Indiana Jones, Lost, cancelled series after cancelled series, Michael Jacksons last few albums, Andrew Lloyd Webbers musicals after Phantom, everything Claude-Michel Shoenberg and Alain Boublil did after Les Miz and Miss Saigon (which is only 2 shows...but still....The Pirate Queen? Garbage! So bad! What the stink?!). And myriads of movies and shows and musicals that excited me in concept and then turned out to be garbage. Etc., etc., etc., etc. SO...MANY....DISAPPOINTMENTS! Sigh. I mean, I got over it quickly. But it was pretty emotionally upsetting for about 10 seconds. And then even though I got over it, still upsetting enough to complain to my wife for an hour and then write up this post.

Right. But the objective could be simply ....to go to war. (I mean trade war, not shooting war, to be clear.) Yes. And that's a current failing of Trump's plan for sure. Which is why he's dipping in approval, etc. Does he have a reason for keeping the complete vision reserved? Dunno. Trump doesn't think government. He thinks business. And business thinking is..."we're at war". Always. Business is war. You fight the war and you fight it well and consistently, or your go out of business. It's kind of a new frontier. But whether the country is on board with it or not now....give it a year and let's see what comes of it. If what Trump is prediction is even partially realized I think the county (other than the Nevers, who will never) will be pretty happy. I'm nervous. But if the stock market rebounds (it should), prices go down (they should), taxes go down (they should), and supply chain issues are resolved within a year or so, etc., etc....I'll call it well worth it. Probably. Alternatively... This seems to be the implication. Maybe. Hard to say. Wish I understood it all better. I hope those advising Trump know what they're doing. My impression is...Trump's doing this because he can. And a lot of it is very good...and some of it is low, dirty business practices, the kind that takes advantage of everything they can to maximize profit. I think Trump's putting the squeeze to other countries because he's bargaining for American growth and advantage inline with the America First ideal. And I think it well may work. And that will be good for the country and probably will make him quite popular again, and all of us better off in this country. But at the cost of hurting who? That being said, despite those fears, Trump has shows good-heartedness and forbearance in many thing, despite his bullish bargaining tactics and sometimes callous rhetoric. When push comes to shove, I don't think Trump is only power-hungry and greedy. I think he's legitimately trying to fix something that is severely broken. And if other countries capitulate and get on board with the vision, I think Trump will work deals for them that are extremely good too. If they fight him on it....well.... So is the cost that will be paid by all worth it? I don't know. My gut says yes. But my gut's also twisted into knots of nervousness over it all.

It's war. Tariffs are war. Trump is waging war. Does war make it worse? Depends, right? Will these tariffs make it worse in the long run? Kind of depends on if the war is won or not. I inadvertently made my commentary above look like some form of poetry. Cool.

I think this is a Marxist idea.

I don't think thinking he's going to be killed is necessary for the drive. He has to get things rolling because they take time to work. If he's successful, then by the time the next elections roll around, the momentum for improving things will be in place and power might be maintained. If he is still in the short term pain for long term gain stage of things, elections will be lost and all his efforts goes away and are reversed.

Without commenting on the tariffs, my impression (other than the tariffs) has been that the last 5 years have fixed something inside of Trump. Not saying I'm right. Just my impression.

I am correct. I know of what I speak in this regard. Digital recordings are objectively superior. Subjectively... well, that's subjective. Yes. Of course. There's also a difference between one live performance and another. And one recording and another.

This is like a 1990s understanding of digital music, and inaccurate. Digital music has come a long, long, LONG way, my friend, and by any objective measurement is better. To be fair...streaming sort of reintroduced a lot of the issues that early CDs and low quality mp3s had. But even that's not really an issue any more. Not with the speed of most connections now. You're living in the past buddy.

On some other stuff: I have too many hobbies. It's ridonkulous. I get into stuff. Here's some of the stuff I've gotten into over the past: Motorcycles Digital photography/videography and camera gear Making (braiding) bullwhips Model Trains Playing plectrum banjo Leather carving (belts, bags, holsters) Bicycling Making hats and western wear Guns And that doesn't include the primary hobby I have, which is writing musicals. I know...you can't buy happiness. But you can buy pleasant distraction. And goodness me...why are most of the hobbies I get into SO expensive! It's interesting to me how some of these that I've gotten into I never expected to. Like...I got into braiding bullwhips because I (delusionally) thought I could make myself a high quality, what would be $1000+ Indiana Jones bullwhip for the cost of materials (a few hundred). 15 years later and I've spend WAY more than the $1000+ and still don't make them as well as the pros. (Though a lay person wouldn't know they're not as good. Here's a pic of 2 of them I've made:) Anyhow...because they're "leather" people would often ask me back 15 years ago or so when I was getting into it if I did other "leather" work. And I'd say no way. No interest. Not my thing. I just wanted a bullwhip. It wasn't about the leather. But.... then a few years back I get it into my head that I can make myself a high quality gun holster on the cheap too! (Same delusion as before.) And...voila...into leather work. Now I'm really into leather work. Silly me. And bicycling. I have a bro-in-law who's always been into it and I'd always be like, "Bah...." about it. But then a few years back, the wife and I decided to get in shape and decided to get bikes...and then I got into it...like obsessively. I even got myself some of those biker shorts I swear I'd never be caught dead in! And...western wear and country music? That's just weird. Anyhow...mostly I'm just a big nerd and when I finally started making "grown-up" money, I realized, bit by bit, that I could....sort of...afford stuff. And so a lot of it is just child-hood fantasies being realized. Except I'm always trying to not just spend like crazy...so instead of buying the nice bullwhip or holster or cowboy hat or whatever...I decide I can be frugal and make my own. And then I get into the hobby because I'm a bit obsessive (the proper term, I believe, is hypo-mania ), and I end up enjoying the researching and crafting and hobby of it more than I enjoy the thing itself. Owning and cracking a bullwhip has brought much less pleasure and fun to me than making bullwhips has. Same with quick-drawing a six shooter (I wanted to get into cowboy quickdraw...they have real competitions and shoot wax bullets at metal plates and stuff....). I've much more fun getting into carving leather. Anyhow.... currently I'm into the hat making (as per the other thread I started on that), but I decided to sell a bunch of stuff I've gotten over the years on Ebay. Stuff that didn't quite work out. One of the cameras I have. One of the very expensive model trains I had. Etc. One of the excuses I always make myself is that I can always sell things to get out from under it if I get into financial trouble. Which ends up being true with a lot of hobby stuff. Model trains...expensive ones...are limited runs often. And that means they hold value pretty well, especially buying popular ones. I got the VisionLine Big Boy back in 2014. Spend $2200 on it (on a sale). Should be able to sell it for $2000 on Ebay pretty easily over a decade later. The problem was (if anyone cares) is the thing is too big and I had delusions (a common theme here) of having a cool train layout. But, I don't have the space! It's too big. The minimum curve of the thing is 6 feet. And that's for a simple circle, which isn't all that fun. I just don't have room to build a layout. Here's a pic, btw. So selling it....which is good because it's ended up being nothing but a decorative item for ten years (I've literally only run it once), has gotten me into the idea of moving to HO scale (which is half the size of the larger 0 gauge that this one is). And HO is less expensive. The size is cool on the 0 gauge. I'm kind of a go-big-or-go-home thinker on these things. But, in practice, that doesn't work out a lot of times. So HO might be just the ticket. So now I'm back into researching model trains again! Dang it! Haha. Except not dang it. I love the research almost more than the thing. If only I could stick to just researching and not actually buying I could have all the research fun without the money spent. But...it's the fantasizing about buying and building and all that that's half the fun, and so if it was just research..... Well, you get my point I suppose. C'est la vie. I've rambled on here a bit too much. But, you know... I did say the thread wasn't really meant to be about just soundbars and subwoofers.

Maybe this has been said (I didn't read all the responses), but me, for example, being an Elder...am STILL a Deacon. The age thing (unlike baptism), clearly isn't a hard rule, since we get 11 year old deacons now. But we are, undoubtedly, training young men. Ideally, yeah, 11-year-olds would be teaching... but...really? I'm a Teacher's quorum advisor...and some of those kids... like, you know... I don't want to use the word "retarded" or....anything...and not because it's politically incorrect to do so (which I shouldn't use it for that reason either)... but it's just a maturity thing. They're children still. And they act like it. The ages of 12 to 18 are HUGELY transitional years on maturing. We are training them. They get the priesthood young because they're old enough to start really learning and developing maturity and responsibility and all that...but they are NOT mature enough to just do it. So we train, and we train by assigning, and expecting, and giving responsibility to, and etc. And this is seen through more than just passing the sacrament and so forth. Almost every Young Man at some point will end up in a presidency, unless they're just not willing or active. And the way classes run now...the Young Men teach. And, boy howdy, we struggle with that. But they're learning. They improve, sometimes, in some ways, bit by bit. They're learning and preparing for missions. They're developing the things they need to become what being a Deacon mean by being Deacons, Teachers, etc. So, no, I don't agree they're treated as solely a sacrament passer...not in the least. But that is one way where they do learn, if nowhere else, responsibility, dignity, reverence, and so-forth. They are also all assigned as ministers. Which...once again... teaching, watching over the church, etc., But as Young Men...they're in training.

^This. Nice that we have a living prophet and revelation guiding the church, eh? Isn't "at-large" a bit confusing and subjective here? I mean you mention the 70s and high councilors. Surely the 70s and high councilors don't "govern" the church "at-large" (quote marks implying subjective words).

Maybe they'll add Michael Row the Boat Ashore.

And strumming it too!

I guess that depends on what you consider contention. Do we all have to agree?

Welcome to mortality.

Yeah, it's led you to philosophically misunderstand the nature of what a right is or should be.

The concept that culture defines my rights is baffling. Take that to the extreme. If culture dictates that it's legal or otherwise acceptable to rape and murder, you'd argue that those being raped and murdered should just accept that because of the so-called "rights" set forth by said culture or legality? Or do those being murdered and raped have the God-given right to rise up in rebellion against that abuse? I'm not even arguing for or against free Healthcare. But it's not a cultural question. Abusive is abusive. By the way... there's no such thing as "free". Someone is paying. It's only a question of who. Obviously higher taxes because of so- called "free" Healthcare isn't in the same class as rape and murder. But the logic applies, generally. That's not even my problem with a welfare state though. I'd be fine with higher taxes and free Healthcare IF... government didn't suck at everything! There may be exceptions... but they're few and far between. By and large, if you want to make something worse...put it into the government's hands. Socialist government's aren't compassion. They're beauracratic, wasteful, self-serving, corrupt machines of destruction. By human nature and the fact that they have their priorities wrong. ALL governments are beauracratic, wasteful, self- serving, corrupt machines of destruction. The best have checks and balances against such, and prioritize freedom above ALL else, including Healthcare or other welfare issues. Governments that prioritize welfare over freedom and/or have no checks and balances allow for unrestrained evil, pure and simple. No one is against welfare. But at the cost of freedom? Nope. Because welfare without freedom is for no one's welfare at all. Moreover... government can't and won't understand what's actually beneficial when it comes to things they can't and won't understand, because they're politicians and driven by politics. Capitalists have to understand or they don't make money. It's not a complicated idea, actually.