The Folk Prophet

I've seen that clip. I don't fully agree with Ashman on the point though. Even more-so with modern CGI capabilities. It does take a different approach to pull it off in live action though (see the live action Lion King as a primary example how to not pull it off...though I'm not sure the singing was the problem there...). And it is, perhaps, more challenging -- maybe... I think probably just "different" challenging. But really the part I disagree with is that suspension of disbelief that a fish can talk is the same suspension of disbelief that's required to accept people bursting into song or that the one correlates to the other (though I grant that the expectation of music in an animated film might be higher). Moreover, live action movie musicals were highly successful and there are many examples of them working very well before The Little Mermaid came along. I'm not saying I don't understand his preference to sign on to animation. And credit due. Ashman was the genius behind the Disney Renaissance. But really the problem of suspension of disbelief in a musical is a cultural thing. No one had a problem with it in the 40s, 50s, or 60s. By the 80s it was passé and kids weren't buying into it. That's a cultural result derived from various things. But it's not indicative of the medium itself being a problem as to suspension of disbelief. Ashman may or may not have been plugged into that idea. Really though (and this is my actual disagreement), accepting a musical as a form of entertainment is not about suspension of disbelief. That's a bit of a semantic argument because, of course, by literal definition one could make the argument it is. But it's different. It's not the same as, "You'll believe a man can fly!" No on believes someone would burst into song. It's not belief they're suspending, even in the moment, in the same way it is buying into a fish talking. Music is expressionistic. It's representative. It's not a cold, hard thing happening in the same way a fish talking is. You aren't buying into a reality that people sing to each other in this world. You're letting the singing represent something else. (I know...semantics. Argumentative. But I think there's a reality to what I'm saying.......I think....that would serve those who create musical movies if they understood it. Ashman, for example, was adamant that the music started underneath the dialogue so the talking flowed into the song naturally. And that's fine as one approach. And it works well. But there are many fine examples of people breaking into song otherwise in movie musicals that have worked. And I don't think that's key to Under the Sea having worked. If Sebastian had said, "Ariel, listen to me. The human world is a mess. Life under the sea is better than anything they got up there..." and then the orchestra had kicked into the Caribbean rhythms as he took his place in front of a band and started singing would it REALLY have hurt the show much? I'm not saying it isn't better as is...but I'm contending maybe it's not as key to the song working as he implied....) That being said....I do get his point as a box one could work in to make life easier. I just think there's some definite outside the box thinking that is fully legitimate as well. Maybe. In other words, people whose primary critique of musicals is, "This is stupid. People would never break into singing and choreographed dance in real life" are missing the point by a long shot. If the musical creator is trying to sell that angle, they already failed. Thoughts?

I think that it depends on a multitude of factors and that there is no yes/no answer. I believe some are better as movies. West Side Story and Fiddler on the Roof are two examples. The stage versions lose something, in my opinion. Man of La Mancha is an interesting example that loses something in both forms. The stage loses the realism of the real inn and the gritty reality of real life. The film loses the creativity of the play within a play. The movie does that too...sort of. It's a play within a movie....but the play then is shown as reality....but it doesn't have the same, "that's clever" sort of feel, etc... Really though, it depends on so many factors. Some things work better as a stage play. Dance numbers are one example of that (usually). Dance numbers on stage usually work. Those same numbers in a movie can sometimes kill the show. But even when they don't, they still don't work as well as live. Live orchestra also has something about it that just can't really be recreated with a recording. You feel the timpani hits and the loud brass melts your face. Live orchestra is something to hear! Recordings don't translate -- ever. Even a small orchestra playing live can punch in ways that movie music can't. Alternatively, small orchestras can also stink, and a movie allows for a bigger orchestra and perfected takes. So...... It really just depends. Mostly though, I think skill is skill. The right director/producer/talent/etc. will sell a movie. The same is true of a stage play. People who understand the property and build it right for the medium in which it's being presented will create art. Most musical movie failures are failures of the creators, not the property.

So, I've been kind of wondering how Steven Spielberg planned on improving West Side Story. In some ways, the original movie is put together very well. There's some obvious flaws, and I think fixing those is likely...but in some ways I wondered if it would just be "different" instead of better. But one way this trailer indicates he may have improved on it is in the "movie score" part of the movie. Like backing the dialogue scenes with big orchestral emotional stuff like in the trailer. That could really up the ante with the emotional punch. I also think the original missed the boat on the ending with the acting (or director's direction on acting) choices, and that will probably be more punchy too. And I expect the rumble to be more intense. And I know that Steven Spielberg will improve the overall cinematography and lighting and what have you, which in the original was hit and miss...sometimes great, and sometimes terrible (like the monochromatic lighting during the song Maria which just looks terrible.) Either way, I expect this to be a shining example of how to do musical films now-a-days correctly. I hope that's true, that it's a hit making tons of money, and it inspires other great musical movies to be made.

I watched the trailer for Diana: The Musical coming to Netflix. I hate it already.

I'm not familiar with it. I'm not a fan of Green Day. In that grunge rock world I'd go with The Offspring instead.

I'm not sure what tastes might overlap but just for fun here are some of my other favorites in the rock and or roll world. Metallica Queen White Zombie Rob Zombie Children of Bodom Meshuggah I like lots of styles of music here and there.

I've always secretly kind of wanted to write a heavy metal opera. But....I won't ever.

I think you'd be surprised. Don't get me wrong. The problem with rock in musicals to me is like pineapple on pizza. It just doesn't belong. Give me rock when I want rock. Give me musicals when I want musicals. That being said, it can work. I secretly really like Jesus Christ Superstar. I dislike the concept. I very much like the music.

Well good golly if I didn't enjoy that a lot! I have some critiques. And it's not like...super high art...but... Okay...here's my detailed review. Music-wise it's up there pretty high for Andrew Lloyd Webber. I don't know that I'd put any one song in his top 10. But there were several solid good songs. And that's not typically typical. In fact, Phantom is unique in that regard, in that it has several great songs. But Cinderalla did too, darn it all. In fact, I'd handily and readily put this in his top 5. Out of 20, that's not bad. Now for the critiques: Well, for one, I dislike rock songs in musicals. I don't mind back beats entirely. They can work. But just straight up rock orchestrations....no. (One of my reasons for not loving The Greatest Showman, I'm sure.) Now, to be fair, I happen to know that some of the songs there were studio recordings and I don't know for sure if the orchestrations match. I suspect they do. But I don't know for sure. But, for example, the song Bad Cinderella would have been better with more of an orchestra-y orchestration instead of the rock one, in my opinion. It could have had some elements of that...sure. But...well...there it is. Secondly, the song The Vanquishing of the Three Headed Sea Witch was terrible. I mean talk about killing the show. It should have been a short snippet, nothing more. Even better, do a flash back in the start of the show where the prince sings a short snippet about going off to fight the sea witch, and then reprise it here. Keep them both short and recitative in style instead of the mind-numbingly long straight up rock and or roll style song -- which was.....okay. I mean it sounded like a Tenacious D song (meaning a parody of DIO or something...). I dunno. It'll probably be @LDSGator's favorite song in the show. Sung by Adam Lambert for the recording (though played by another in the show, apparently). But whether one likes the song or not...plot wise it killed the momentum badly. There were a few other songs that did that a bit too...but not too badly. Forgivably. Not that one though. Putting that aside, the ending was...quick. And simple. But it worked. I found myself satisfied. Very much so. So that works. Finally...and here's the kicker for me... I found myself emotional a few times in the show. It was moving in parts. That's a good, good thing in my book. I felt for the characters. It worked. Simple. But it worked. Now I do place it high for an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical, relatively. But that doesn't mean I place it that high overall. It's mediocre. It's fun. It works pretty well. I'll take it. But, I dunno. 3 out of 5 stars. Maybe.

Andrew Lloyd's Webbers musical Cinderella, apparently, has the soundtrack available on Youtube (I assume elsewhere too). Act I: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqtDYZpzYwR_vIQlpo-ZcIsxLy5F0mCWw Act II: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqtDYZpzYwR9fAEzoYmG-7OfzOehd0_eu I'm not hopeful this musical will be one I love, but the prospect of a new musical from Andrew Lloyd Webber to check out is exciting. Listening......now.

I agree. It wasn't terrible. But nothing super inspiring. I've only seen it once. I felt the This is Me song was a bit too on the nose progressive-leftist-gay-trans-whatever in intent. In a different culture maybe it wouldn't have come across that way. But.... There were a few musical moments and scenes I liked. I didn't hate the movie. But didn't love it. That's about all I can say, really.

So I specifically searched for the term "Mozart" to find this post, and you edited it (clearly to be more concise) and removed that side comment, but since I remember you saying you thought Mozart was the top in your view. though even before you removed it I wasn't entirely sure if you meant the top classical or the top period. Anyhow, I watched Amadeus again last night and had some Mozart thoughts that were new so I hunted down your now removed comment to comment upon. The first new thought: I noted that I didn't care for a lot of the Mozart music. I don't know for sure, but generally speaking, the music gets better and better through the movie, which I think (like I said, I'm not sure) corresponds to Mozart earlier works vs later works. Now I am not familiar with all Mozart. Even being a music major and having studied music, he was just too prolific, so unless one studies Mozart specifically in detail...or is some sort of really crazed fan, no one is. That is to say, he produced over 600 works. Ouch. But my sense is that his later works are what I really love. Some of his earlier works...not so much. (Thought maybe the earlier/later thing is irrelevant.) So the thought was this...maybe Mozart wasn't as genius as I used to think...he just wrote so much, and had enough genius that some of it rose to the top. Without checking out all 600 of his works I can't say for sure, but I can say that I just don't care for some of his pieces in the movie Amadeus. Alternatively, some of the music is just gold. The other thought I had: Mozart died at the ripe ol' age of 35. And had produced that gold by then. And when I say gold, I mean GOLD. You'd said, as I mentioned, that you viewed Mozart as the best in your view (or something like that), and there is no question anywhere, that I'm aware of, that he was the best classical period composer. But the best of all genres, baroque, classical, romantic, 20th Century...well there's going to be some debate there. Though I'd guess that in most debates Mozart would still rise, easily, to the top 3 or 4, and a great many would place him in the number 1 spot (as I would -- I mean you've got Bach, Mozart and Beethoven clearly up there, probably Wagner and Stravinsky... I mean there's your top 5, right? Some debate...but yeah....I think so*). Considering that, his early death, and 1 other point is of interest to me. Mozart died in 1791. Had he lived to (for math's sake) 100 he would have died in 1856. That crosses right into Beethoven territory. Beethoven's 1st was in 1800 --- only 9 years after Mozart died! So....what if? Double Mozart's musical maturity...he dies at 70 or 80, having written 1200 works instead of the scant 600. He competes directly against Beethoven as well. What might he have written? I think it safe to say these things would have influenced him greatly. I think he would have likely moved into the Romantic style. It was what became popular. And I expect he would have felt competitive with Beethoven. Anyhow, just some interesting thoughts I had. Not actually commentary on your now removed comment...just commentary that sprang from having watched Amadeus and then recalling you'd said something. *These would be my "top" based on knowledge, not taste. Taste-wise I'd take Bach and Wagner out and probably put in....um....John Williams? This list is interesting. Puts Stravinsky at #1. Has Stephen Sondheim at #43 though...and the fact that it has John Cage on the list at all.... To be fair, it was only 174 composers who where surveyed, which means it really likely only took one idiot mentioning anyone and they make the list.

I believe it is attributed to Albert Einstein. But I hate the saying: The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Clearly Einstein never learned to play the piano.

Just to be clear -- the exception that the Spirit legitimately reveals to someone always applies. I'm actually less stringent on things than I'm coming across I think. I think casual selfish abortion is an abomination. But I also understand that everyone will stand before God accountable for what they have done with their agency, and that abortion choices will play into that in a perfectly fair and just way. The church's official position is not a legal theory. I separate the two things in my mind.

So I'm familiar with some of the music but I haven't ever seen it. On your recommendation I'll look into doing so.

@Suzie, I am sorry. I think I have some historical hang-ups with you because of some of your progressive leaning views on things and, additionally, I think your communication style might not resonate with me or something. I mean, I don't even know...it's hard to put into words beyond the fact that if I'm legitimately honest with myself, I have to admit that I respond viscerally to your comments in a more defensive way than I would with others. That is not your fault, despite all my implications. I don't know that I shouldn't have explained that I felt your post was implying something unfair, but I absolutely, most certainly could have said it with a LOT more understanding, love, and forgiveness. Instead I was snarky and biting in my response. And then I doubled down on it with more snark and biting remarks, even though I said in my first post I wasn't going to say more. But I kept at it anyhow. I apologize, truly and deeply for all of that. Look, if you really don't want to interact with me moving forward that is fair. But I promise you that if you do in the future I will do better. I understand you might have blocked me already and may never see this. But I am really sorry. Please forgive me.

Edit: @Suzie, I have reconsidered my culpability in this. So I'm removing my post here and I'll say more below.

You cannot see that suggesting I'm saying rape victims are "just feeling bad" (you added the word just) would come across as passive aggressive and rude per the explanation I gave? Particularly when you literally ignored the next sentence where I explicitly clarified, "It would be a terrible thing to have to do. I'm not denying that"? You don't understand why I felt you were, perhaps, cherry picking when you entirely disregard that part of what I said, and several other similar statements? Maybe you just hadn't read everything I'd written. Fine. If you didn't read it all then that's the root of the problem here. But what you said was passive aggressive and rude, whether you meant it or not because it did, indeed, imply I was a terrible, callous pig who didn't see the trauma of rape as anything worse than having the blues, whether you explicitly called me that sort of thing or not. That's the passive part of passive aggressive. And so, by the way, is telling me to calm down. You're implying the problem's with me when you have clearly misrepresented what I have been discussing. If you misrepresented it accidentally own up to it. But you did misrepresent what I'm saying -- badly -- calling it oversimplified and treating me like I don't understand the trauma of rape. My views on this matter are hardly simple. Anyone should be able to easily recognize that reality. For the sake of fairness, I felt Just_a_Guy also misrepresented what I was saying in one instance too because of a similar misunderstanding (perhaps you saw the exchange over ibuprofen). When I called him on it we actually discussed the issue back and forth until we clarified what was being meant. So I'm certainly not singling you out. But he didn't tell me to calm down, tell me that he didn't appreciate it, or use other blatant passive aggressive phrasing when explaining himself. You may not be able to see that such things are passive aggressive Ad Hominem, but they are, nonetheless. Sure, we can't all be JaG with his suave and calm communication style. I'm passive aggressive all the time. I use Ad Hominem. I misspeak. I'm a mortal with mortal weaknesses. I accept that you didn't mean to be rude. Heck, I accidentally did the exact same thing to @estradling75 the other day. I didn't meant to say something rude to him, but he took it as rude. So I understand that this sort of thing can happen. What you suggested about my view, intentionally or not, is an offensive idea, but I'm not offended, and I certainly don't need to calm down. I am entirely calm. But when someone is using an offensive suggestion to push a point of argument that isn't actually related to what I'm trying to say (in other words, my sympathy or understanding of rape victims' trauma is irrelevant to the point being made), then I'm going to call them out on that. You're attacking a slightly misspoken phrase. I said, "feel bad". I should have said, "feel beyond tortured" or...I don't know for sure. Some word that encompasses the horror of rape better. Maybe it can't be encapsulated in a single word. In context, what I was saying should be pretty clear though. Should be. Unless someone didn't bother to read or even try to understand all I've written on it.

See my longer post. "Nullify" may not be the appropriate goalpost. And maybe "home-use" is too casual a response when considering taking an innocent person's life as the alternative.

Yes. It's practically impossible to make a comparison. The point I'm getting at is that people see the baby as they would a babe in arms instead of an out-of-sight out-of-compassion range point of view. I am not accusing you of no compassion, of course. But I do think it it somewhat easier to take a more clinical approach accordingly, that may or may not be fair. I'm not saying a clinical approach isn't correct (more on that later)... I am saying that the same clinical approach would need to be taken with born children (if somehow a perfect analogous situation could be invented), and I suspect that if such an analogy were possible, that many a people would change their tunes. Of course not all rape is equal. Why? All people are not equal. Some rape is the straight up demon jumping the innocent in an alleyway. Some rape is the promiscuous girl changing their mind at the last minute in a moment of passion. Both are rape and both are terrible. But it is reasonable that the resultant PTSD of different situations is not going to be like to like. But, really, that's not even the point. The point would be that even in the demon jumping the innocent cases, not all women are the same. Theoretically, some couldn't handle the reality of that situation, and some could. In point of fact, one person who is raped by the demon in the alleyway may handle it fairly well, and another who engages in consensual sex but then decides they made a mistake, felt pressured into it by this or that thing, etc., might psychologically fall apart. Is the psychologically falling apart really the standard by which we legalize something or not? Now I know you've said that you aren't going to get into the business of telling people how they should handle things psychologically, but I think there's a flawed premise there. Morality is exactly that. By carving out an legal exception in any given law, one is, in fact, doing just that. And I think in the case of the last example, we are absolutely justified in expecting someone to not kill their baby despite how traumatized they feel. But more on this later. Obviously this sort of thing is sensitive and difficult to talk about clinically (but for some reason the clinical side of destroying the baby isn't...there's a century of sociology and normalization and agenda behind that combined with the out-of-sight thing I mentioned before). But we absolutely must talk about it clinically, coldly, and statistically rather than having the discussion based on anecdotal reports of feelings, no matter how severe. Why? Because feelings aren't an accurate metric for anything, ever. Why? Because people don't speak the truth as it really is. Ever. They can't, even if they mean to. And they often don't mean to. Moreover, feelings can be changed, overcome, dealt with. etc. We, by the very nature of our agency, are not slaves to our feelings. If we were, then all sorts of murder becomes immediately justifiable. He just hated that guy SO badly that he couldn't control himself. Etc. It was either kill that guy or kill himself. He had no choice. But even if feelings can't be changed, we all know that no matter how psychologically driven Jeffrey Dahmer was, no matter how abused he was, no matter how much his daddy beat him and his mommy didn't love him, no matter what brain trauma he had from being dropped on his head, we don't justify his killing others because of that. (And, yes, I'm fully aware that the people Jeffrey Dahmer killed, even if reminding him of the terrible things that happened to him, wasn't a situation where he was forced, per se, to permanently interact with them. Though one could argue that psychologically maybe he was forced. But it's not perfect, of course. There are no perfect analogues. I hope you get my point nonetheless.) We demand the compulsory involuntary servitude of others so that we may save lives all the time. Indeed, we demand the compulsory giving of life to save lives all the time. Negative or positive rights trumping one another is really going to be relative to the nature of the severity of the right being breached, don't you think? In other words, to make this argument one has to prove (and anecdotal reporting is not proof) that the suffering caused by the negative right is severe enough to justify the removal of the positive right of living. Once again...more on this later. But this sort of sentiment is akin to my implying, "Clearly you don't love babies as much as I do." Let's say, just for the sake of argument, and putting offense aside (and I should clarify, I'm not offended. But that is a different issue than whether a statement is offensive or not), that that was true -- meaning you didn't love babies as much as I do -- just as an example. Does that have any bearing on the issue at all? Yes, it's an offensive idea to imply that someone doesn't love babies or doesn't care about women in such a discussion. But it's also argumentum ad misericordiam. Okay...here's the more later stuff: Let's say there are 100 women that have been raped and impregnated. 100 out of 100 express that they cannot handle it. If you force them to anyway, what percentage actually does handle it? And to be clear, when I say "handle it" I mean even barely. Maybe psychological scarring. A lot of struggle and crying and hurt and sleepless nights, night terrors, even suicidal thoughts (but not action) and etc., etc. But they handle it to the point where it's worth not taking the life of someone innocent. Yes...what counts as "handling it" is a hard call to make. I think it's incumbent upon us to try when the alternative means the death of an innocent. People are forced to go through terrible, terrible things all the time. And the idea of facing many of those terrible things is practically unthinkable. And a great many people feel that they could not handle many of these terrible things. But when things happen, war comes, the devil's at the door, etc., they do. Keep in mind, once again, I'm talking cold statistics. Because we must for this sort of thing. Most people handle trauma much better than they think they're going to be able to. So let's say, talking statistically, it's 99 of a 100 that "handle it". But 1 doesn't and takes her own life and the life of the baby. Was the 99 saved worth it then? Mathematically one might argue that 50% is the point where the cold statistic justifies it I suppose. Maybe not. These are difficult things. But they cannot be judged off expressions of emotion, no matter how extreme those expressions are. They have to be statistical and cold and calculated. If they aren't, they will be manipulated, both intentionally and unintentionally. But they will be. And this manipulation will lead to the unnecessary loss of innocent life. Add to the mix extreme medical and therapeutic intervention. Maybe, for example, let the raped pregnant women commit themselves, put her on suicide watch, give her appropriate medications as needed with careful monitoring. Give her all the resources she needs, daily therapy, constant companionship, etc., etc. Is that going to be sufficient for all women? No. Would it improve the statistical percentage of those who get through the matter? Perhaps. Does it move from the theoretically 50% to 30%? And is 30% worth saving the other 66 babies' lives? Those are difficult calls, of course...but they are calls that have to be made in the case of the sanctity of life. We make those calls in war. How many dead soldiers is this worth? It's cold and calculating. It has to be. But the judgment has to be made. Instead we're taking the destruction of life in the case of rape and abortion and throwing up our arms in surrender because of anecdotally reported feelings of suffering. It's understood that soldiers face both the trauma of war, death, and destruction and then the PTSD in order to save statistical life. And this is worth the cost because of what is saved by paying it. Perhaps a similar calculating view is in order in the case of abortion in these situations. But the cold, calculated, statistically driven model of handling these things is driven by the compassion we feel because it is such a terribly difficult thing on both sides. When we move the debate to, "Think of the children!" or "Think of the women!" then we're just caterwauling at one another. We have to put the compassion aside, nonetheless understanding that it is the driving motivator, and look at the strict cost/benefit nature of the matter.

I'll probably address your post point by point better tomorrow (Maybe. Part of me feel like we might be going in circles here to no avail.) But I thought I'd at least address this now. So of all the legitimate medications developed to help people through serious trauma, you went with ibuprofen and you're claiming that was what you really thought I meant? That being said, I have no real expertise to explain exactly what medication or therapy I have in mind other than a general theory. I am simply saying the exploration of said idea ought to be serious and thorough before one determines that killing a baby is justified. And I don't think blowing it off as, "so you're suggesting giving her an ibuprofen" is a fair or reasonable response to that. Not to mention the same sort of theoretical offensiveness that I jumped down Suzie's throat for. I am talking about sanctity for the life for the purely innocent and doing all that we can, even in our theoretical approach to discussion, to put that forward as an extremely high priority, and I'm being treated like I could care less about rape? "Well heck, just give 'em an ibuprofen then and they'll be fine!" I did not say that. I do not think that.

Questioning is a form of rejection I'd say. But that doesn't address the point. Why do you question some things that have been from the mouth of two or three or more witnesses and not others?

For anyone interested, just for clarities sake, Vort's talking about the patriarchal order of the priesthood. Though, per scripture, the Melchizedek is the highest and all else are appendages. But that's quibbling uselessly. The patriarchal order is the highest level of the Melchizedek (that we know of, though I would argue, also speculatively, that we know... it is the highest. It is, ultimately, what God is...as in a Father. A.k.a., a patriarch)...so... Yes, some semi-speculation, but on pretty solid footings.

Yes. I don't believe we've been speaking of contentment. That seems to be a goal post shifting.

I submit, for your consideration, that you are rejecting this very principle by disregarding some of the other principles and doctrines being discussed as eternal truths. All of the ideas you've been questioning as unknowns have been repeated by witness upon witness.