Original arrangements, style, and authenticism are surely important. But would you truly prefer that newcomers to operatic music not be inculcated through whatever means happen to hit the mark?

Although I played juvenile piano and was thereby given exposure to many classical pieces, I realize that from popular movies (I'm thinking "Moonlighting" and "The Hunger", among others) I was exposed to operatic and classical melodies (yes, Melodies) and musical strategems that amazed and delighted me to the point that I sought out original and other arrangements to get a broader exposure to the 'perfect' version (in my own terms).

One oddity seems to surface - in a large percentage of instances, what I hear originally (I'm talking orchestra and conductor) often becomes my favorite, the one by which I judged all the others. "La Valse" (Ravel), or "Lakme" (Delibes) -- perhaps my most favored -- when played with orchestrations other than my initial hearing, become excruciating to experience. I frown and groan and hit hand to forehead, realizing that they 'got it wrong'.

Which is a long-way-round to saying... a beautiful voice, arrangement, and orchestration can inform someone of something transcending. Maybe they get it low, or they get it high, but hey, they're getting it!

Chreesta

10% of the content is worth your while... but then there are those pesky hours spent reading the rest and meticulously responding to THOSE articles... to what end? With what hopes?

And get a clue - if no one cared about an earlier huff for an unrelated article, then cutting and pasting it here, annotating it with your self-applause, ain't gonna turn the world around for ya.

Chief among my concerns is whether Oprah's new school campus can be wholly accommodated by the local community/municipality as far as fresh water, electrical, sewage, and any other power and/or sanitation needs are concerned.

I bring this up because of a comment of Oprah's, stating that the community locals brought her a plan that she likened to the building of chicken coops... but perhaps their concerns dealt with the local area's ability to deal with such a campus (when one considers heating/cooling, drainage, sewage, and similar factors.)

I don't know if her new campus is on an urban-like grid, or further from certain facilities that could readily accommodate her structures.

Oprah may be African-American, but somewhere she must recognize that her big dream and passion is being realized IN AFRICA... and it is NOT a suburb of Chicago.

I would have asked her, (had I had her ear), to respect the land, people, and community upon which she built 'her' life's dream... and also, perhaps, to realize that she herself, as a little girl, is not the exact duplicate of the girls she hopes to inspire.

S.J.Smith - tho no longer labeled, the Money Quote is in a little blue box toward the bottom, eh?

Today's was Peter O'Toole's take on Hollywood actresses.

I get the impression that many readers here, with lots to do and so on, read a leading paragraph or two; they may well call it a day and assume they've percieved the jist of an article.

If they did, in this instance, they would have missed out on an otherwise well-done piece o' work.

Your mission was to praise the worker-bees that make life smooth for, well, let's just call them award-winners, in this context. But the first two paragraphs may have led one to believe that your thrust was pure snark.

A couple of intro phrases may have prevented that from happening. And I'm assuming that you may be quoted from a partiality of the article, so perhaps you should keep that in mind?

All that said, I appreciated what you had to say.

You may be watching the Planet Earth miniseries, and maybe you've read books describing the tribal existence of humanity (either as early man or more recent native American, African, and other tribal groups). If so, you’ll know that we all lived just like our fellow animals once upon a time. We had small groups of people to feed, clothe and shelter. Killing an animal provided us with protein to eat; fat used in foodstuffs and for making candles, leather dressing, soap, and lubricants; material for clothing and rugs, blankets, tents, etc.; bones for use as implements and weapons. We used every bit of the animal when needed, even developing means of drying and curing the meat so that it could sustain us in the future.

We were truly omnivores, and our dependence on the killing, and later, the domestication of animals, sustained us so that we could thrive. After all, polyester and naugahyde and paraffin and soy-based chemistry had all yet to be invented.

There are much fewer humans living the classic tribal existence today. And granted, while we can manufacture many things today that aren’t as completely based on animals, I do NOT think that eating animal meat is something we should have grown out of, or sought to replace with alternatives. It is nature’s plan that predators and prey exist. Human beings are both. It IS shitty that with modernity comes a greater cruelty in the so-called harvesting of animals. But there are now billions of us, most with the same nutritional needs of our ancestors.

Maybe the above is my way of “justifying” why I eat meat, why humans eat meat. If I were suddenly dropped in the middle of a jungle or plains – assuming I lasted more than ten minutes – I have to assume I’d eventually be sharpening rocks and trying to attach them to long sticks. To thrive.