OpernKatz

I recently had to change my road bike tires both front and back. They're now Continental Gator Skins 700x25, supposedly super tough and pretty puncture-resistant stuff. I've had 3 flats on them in the past 3 weeks, though, and I haven't been riding thru goat-head cities or broken glass pasture or anything like that. Just normal city streets (with the usual ration of roadside debris). Everybody says that's extremely unusual for Gator Skins. Some insist they've gone months if not years without a flat since they changed to that tire.

One thing I wonder about is... the shop that sold me the tires (and does repair works for me since it sold me the bike) somehow doesn't carry 700x25 inner tubes that has 48mm valve stem or longer. The only 700x25 tubes they have have shorter stem. The mechanic insists that I can use 700x23 tubes with 48mm stem without any problem (I can't use tires with shorter valve stem since it would disappear into the rim when the tube isn't inflated, as in when changing tube after a flat).

So the question is... is the mechanic right (that using slightly undersized inner tube doesn't make my tires more prone to flatting)?

If you can ask any opera singer anything you would like to, what would your questions be? Please limit to 5 questions.

'Die tote Stadt', Erich Wolfgang Korngold's operatic version of Rodenbach's 'Bruges la morte', is a fascinating work. Per the novel, Paul, who had spent much of the story hallucinating of his beloved dead wife (and confusing that with a real life dancer who resembles her) ends the surreal book by really killing the dancer (Marietta) and then probably himself.

Korngold's father, in his adaptation of the text into libretto for his son, though, changed the ending so that Paul is so jolted by Marietta's attack on his wife (Marie)'s relic that he wakes up from his morbid obsession and resolves to start life anew (you can read Julius Korngold's ending at http://books.google.com/books?id=8RU6AAAAIAAJ&pg=P... ). So while the novel ends in the morbid abyss, the opera's libretto goes:

"Friends, I know I won't see her again.

One dream has destroyed the other;

the cruel dream of reality has vanquished my dear illusion.

The dead send dreams like that to haunt us

when we don't let them rest in peace.

How long shall we mourn for them?

How long must we grief before we are ruined?

What a bitter dilemma!

Joy, descended from above,

fare you well, my faithful love.

Life and death don't merge;

the two hearts must part.

Wait for me in heavenly plain,

on earth, life has no second chance."

Though, the two best stagings of the opera I've seen (by Götz Friedrich and by Inga Levant) don't seem to share Julius K's vision. Would like you to 1st just listen to this clip ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtCJcjAJZRg ) without watching. Then have another go both watching and listening.

>>>Does the music say that Paul walks away to live elsewhere far from the past (contradicted by this staging) or does it say that Paul escapes from living altogether (this staging presents a valid interpretation)?<<<

And, if the latter, which ending do you think the music prefers/go with better (did Erich Wolfgang dissent from his dad)?

The great Wagnerian soprano, Astrid Varnay ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rdne3kdSVZI ), makes many intriguing observations in her memoir (55 Years in 5 Acts). One of them was sparked by a review she read;

"Critic X paid lavish compliments to the musical and dramatic interpretation, taking issue with one small detail. In his words, "What is the point of Herod's asking Salome to bite on some fruits with her white little teeth and then offering her grapes?" The difference between cultures is sometimes overwhelming: while a German reviewer would be holding forth over the philosophical significance of this or that symbolic element, an American discusses the prop fruit!" (P. 296)

It seems we're still seeing the same trend today. The European opera theaters are more keen on presenting conceptualized staging of operas while the American houses mostly want to stick to the traditional one... probably because that's what the audience of both places want or expect.

My question is: when you attend or watch an opera (live or on DVD or at the cinema), do you just want to be entertained with a familiar story/setting or do you like to think along - of what is being presented or pondered - as the show goes on? (there is no right or wrong answer. People pick up a book or listen to music for different personal reasons).

Rule: If you answer, please do so BEFORE reading the other answers. Thanks!

Question 1: For performance art (opera, Broadway show, symphonic concert, song recital, etc) reviews that appear online. If there is no 'disclosure' in the review about how the reviewer paid (or did not pay) for the ticket to the performance, what is YOUR assumption?

A) All reviewers (both printed press and independent bloggers) were given free ticket

B) Only the reviewers for printed press were given free ticket. The blogger reviewers weren't

C) Printed press pay for the ticket for their reviewers. The blogger reviewers paid for their own ticket.

D) All reviewers paid for their own ticket.

Question 2: Do you automatically discount the credibility of a review if the reviewer discloses that he had been comped to the show in return for an honest review of it?

Survey rule: If you want to answer, please do so without reading the other answers beforehand. Thanks!

Question: For performance art (opera, Broadway show, symphonic concert, song recital, etc) reviews that appear online. If there is no 'disclosure' in the review about how the reviewer paid (or did not pay) for the ticket to the performance, what is YOUR assumption?

A) All reviewers (both printed press and independent bloggers) were given free ticket

B) Only the reviewers for printed press were given free ticket. The blogger reviewers weren't

C) Printed press pay for the ticket for their reviewers. The blogger reviewers paid for their own ticket.

D) All reviewers paid for their own ticket.

I would especially like to hear from the casual fans of classical and opera music what they expect to read in a review of a symphonic concert or an opera performance.

I'm asking because I'm already familiar with what the die-hard fans want... but somehow I don't think that the casual fans (who most likely far outnumber the die-hard fans) want the same things, namely: analysis of each singer's voice and singing along with conducting and other really music-oriented stuff only people who sit at performances with a score on their lap would care about. So... for those who most likely aren't themselves musicians and are keen on attending performances to be entertained rather than to analyze how it is done, what sort of information would you like to see (that you'd find helpful in helping you decide if you would like to attend the next show) in a review?

So, I was loitering around a beach when a group of nice Christians asked if they could pray for me. They kept asking if I was hurting or aching anywhere, and then said a nice prayer asking god to heal my aches and pain. Then they kept asking if I felt better or different or what (it was getting rather awkward by now.... as if they had expected me suddenly throw my cane into the ocean and start running laps up and down the beach like in a Hollywood miracle movie or something).

Well... nothing happened. My usual arthritis kicked up on schedule after a while of walking. Worse... not 2 hrs later I crashed down this little bluff and hurt my back and wrists (yes, plural).

So I was just wondering about it all. I don't believe in a god, so I'm not cussing at one since I didn't expect anything. What bugs me, though, is that had I happened to have a pain-free rest of the evening (it wouldn't have been all that unusual) they would have immediately chalk that up as a 'confirmed miracle' and 'proof of god', wouldn't they?

But how come when I get the opposite of the prayer said by a bunch of well meaning and religious Christians, the opposite of a 'confirmed miracle' or 'proof of god' wouldn't be even a possibility to them? Why is this double standard where only the positive outcome is seized upon as 'Aha! We told you so!' and all negative or unfavorable outcomes are simply ignored as if they don't exist (or worse yet, simply brushed aside as 'god don't always give you what you wanted')?

So, I suppose the question is; why is it that when a prayer is coincided with what happens next, it is taken as 'proof of god's power', but when the 'what happens next' doesn't jive with the prayer, it isn't taken as 'disproof of god's power/mercy/etc'? With that sort of thinking, it is impossible to ever rule 'god' out of anything since one simply refuses to treat evidence as such without manipulating it to match one's philosophy (instead of the other way around, letting the evidence dictates what to believe).

Hey Tolkien fans! It's been a long while since I read the Silmarillion and the other 'background' books. I don't have any of them handy anymore to look this up... But anyhow, I was re-reading Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring again and wonder if anyone can tell me of whom Tom Bombadil may be thinking of as he picked out a brooch from the Barrow Wights' treasure before sending the hobbits off to Bree? The passage reads:

"He chose for himself from the pile a brooch set with blue stones, many-shaded like flax-flowers or the wings of blue butterflies. He looked long at it, as if stirred by some memory, shaking his head, and saying at last:

'Here is a pretty toy for Tom and for his lady! Fair was she who long ago wore this on her shoulder. Goldberry shall wear it now, and we will not forget her!'"

I'm generally against booing at the performers when I don't think the performance (classical recital, symphony, opera, play) is good. I think most of the performers give the best of what they have at the show, and if I don't like what they are able to offer, I'd just refrain from clapping.

Tho... There are times when not-clapping is just too mild a reaction to what I had just witness also, especially when it comes to some really bad staging of a play or an opera where no trace of the original story is left while the audience is subjected to endless stream of the director's most twisted sexual and violence fantasies. That's when I really have no objection to booing at all.

So... what would make you boo a performance? Do you think it is always good to boo a sub-par performance (I don't usually boo these unless I feel that the performer behaved badly or indifferently during it)? Or do you never boo at all? Do you think that booing is occasionally counterproductive even when justified (like when the target seems to seek attention even if it comes in the form of disapproval)?

What is the most traumatic experience in an opera performance for you (just to do with the story itself or the way the story is performed vocally or theatrically or both.... A tenor cracking his high C or a soprano having a wardrobe malfunction doesn't count.. Nor do stage or auditorium accidents!)? If you've had many (bless you, poor soul!), then just the top 3 on your list will do. :o)

Mine... The ending of Poulenc's 'Les dialogue des Carmelites' in the DVD from Strasbourg. Having resolved to submit to execution rather than renouncing their religion, the Carmelite nuns submit themselves to the guillotine one-by-one (SPOILER! If you haven't seen this production, you might rather experience this first with the whole show rather than just the end http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P85S_70oSOk ).