The very many questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread XXV

[hobbsyoyo]

Is it true they passed a law in Illinois with some really draconian punishments for throwing out a cigarette butt from your car?

 

[bhsup]

Seems so, and good on them, I say. It's littering with the added bonus of potentially starting devastating fires.

HI! Click me, I am a link!

A first time conviction is a class B misdemeanor with a fine not exceeding $1,500. A second conviction is a class A misdemeanor with a fine not exceeding $1,500.

Third or subsequent convictions will be a class 4 felony, punishable by a fine of $25,000 and imprisonment not less than one year and not more than three years.

 

[Farm Boy]

I hate my state government. And I'm looking really funny at somebody supporting it. GTFO tyranny-loving southern boy!

 

[bhsup]

I hate my state government. And I'm looking really funny at somebody supporting it. GTFO tyranny-loving southern boy!

Hey man, I'm a smoker who can't stand socially rude smokers. I should be feeling the love!

That said, I did a bit of digging and found out that law has some unintended consequences...

Also, two things. 1) I'm midwestern, not southern! 2) States' Rights FTW baby!

 

[Farm Boy]

Hey man, I'm a smoker who can't stand socially rude smokers. I should be feeling the love!

That said, I did a bit of digging and found out that law has some unintended consequences...

Also, two things. 1) I'm midwestern, not southern! 2) States' Rights FTW baby!

More seriously than "GTFO" my good Southern man, the law wasn't passed based on litter control or the starting of accidental fires, because oddly enough the facts and risks of those things didn't warrant the heavy penalties prescribed. It was passed after the sob story of a motorcyclist that got caught getting burned by one in a freak accident. And this in a state that has held the line on helmet laws(unlike a tyrannical neighboring southern state, I might add).

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

All of America is a tyranny.

Inb4 all the usual insults, flak, and ignore lists get hurled at me.

And inb4 everything else, too.

 

[bhsup]

No, you're right. The federal government has become a tyranny over the States!

 

[Flying Pig]

What is the difference, on a technical level, between an opera and a musical? Is there really a clear divide?

 

[Borachio]

As I understand it, it comes down to the technique of singing. In musicals, there's an almost straight translation from speech into the musical "speech" of the songs.

In opera this is less obvious. You do have recitatives between arias to advance the plot, but the arias are standalone. Yet I suppose musical songs also standalone.

I don't really know tbh. It's an interesting question.

Opera singers are extremely highly trained, of course. And sing from the diaphragm, whereas musical singers sing from the throat.

I can't say I'm very fond of either.

 

[metatron]

I wouldn't really know either.
Though i doubt there's an ironclad definitional difference.
I suppose the main differences are in conventions that all have a significant number of exceptions.

- Musicals are pretty damn likely to involve a great deal of dancing. This is less true for opera to say the least.
- Musicals often have some portion of spoken dialogue. This, again, is somewhat unusual in opera.
- Musicals are usually performed in the contemporary language of the audience, are even translated to that end and often feature rather informal style if this fits the characters.
Opera on the other hand is typically performed in the original language and often even the lowest uneducated, drunk brute among the characters speaks (or rather sings) in a style rather unbefiting of low uneducated, drunk brutes.

 

[Farm Boy]

I could see Sir B rocking some Music Man.

 

[Flying Pig]

I wouldn't really know either.
Though i doubt there's an ironclad definitional difference.
I suppose the main differences are in conventions that all have a significant number of exceptions.

- Musicals are pretty damn likely to involve a great deal of dancing. This is less true for opera to say the least.
- Musicals often have some portion of spoken dialogue. This, again, is somewhat unusual in opera.
- Musicals are usually performed in the contemporary language of the audience, are even translated to that end and often feature rather informal style if this fits the characters.
Opera on the other hand is typically performed in the original language and often even the lowest uneducated, drunk brute among the characters speaks (or rather sings) in a style rather befitting of low uneducated, drunk brutes.

This is true, but then I tried to work out the difference between The Pirates of Penzance and Jesus Christ Superstar, and I fell a bit flat.

 

[metatron]

This is true, but then I tried to work out the difference between The Pirates of Penzance and Jesus Christ Superstar, and I fell a bit flat.

I am unfamiliar with both, except having a vague idea on what they're about.*
But i am rather confident that the third criterion applies.

*Actually it's possible that i have been exposed to a recoding of the latter at some point and have merely forgotten. I don't really know.

 

[Flying Pig]

Well, no, they're both in English, both use roughly the same register; neither involves spoken dialogue or anything that could really be called dancing.

EDIT: ah, I see what you mean. Operas are also regularly translated, which was especially common before digital subtitling.

 

[metatron]

Well, no, they're both in English,

Which isn't everybody's native language.

Translated Jesus Christ Superstar? Rather common.*
Translated... anything Gilbert and Sullivan really? Possibly non-existant, but certainly a lot less common.

*More so at the time than today, possibly, but anyway.

 

[Borachio]

Well, the Pirates of Penzance (the opera) is a comic opera. A different genre again.

The Pirates of Penzance (the film) is a musical film.

A musical is a play where both spoken dialogue and singing/songs are used to further the story along. Traditionally, most musicals are comical, though there are many that have serious themes. Musicals are a much newer idea than opera, and are generally much more light-hearted and humorous

Opera, however, uses nothing but singing to convey the story. The script is flowing and poetic, just as lyrics to a song. When listening to opera, there will be full company songs, but any dialogue that would normally be spoken by one character at a time is sung. Today there are many operas written in English and many great operas have been translated to English to widen the prospective audiences. However, the beginnings of opera date back to the ancient Greeks, and the beginnings of modern opera happened in Europe before English was prominent, so most great operas are traditionally in foreign languages. Operas are usually very dramatic and, while offering bits of comic relief, have rather serious story lines.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081017101606AASh9YV

Hmm. I seem to dimly recall a television programme which explained the difference between opera and musical. But now I can't, quite uselessly, remember either what the programme was called, or what it concluded.

 

[bhsup]

Let's ask the NY Times!

Here’s the difference: Both genres seek to combine words and music in dynamic, felicitous and, to invoke that all-purpose term, artistic ways. But in opera, music is the driving force; in musical theater, words come first.

He naturally writes a lot more, both before and after, leaving you to read through a bunch of unnecessary crap to get to the answer.

 

[Borachio]

By that definition, comic opera (specifically G&S) isn't opera?

 

[bhsup]

I have no idea. I'm not artsy fartsy educated, that's why I went to the NYT.

 

[Borachio]

Well, compared to me you are. I went to yahoo answers. (Though not deliberately.)