@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:Las Vegas just seems too declasse. It is like a living, breathing essay
of not just what is wrong with America but, by extension,
what is wrong with the human race.
Las Vegas is an exercise in
libertarianism, Individualism and
hedonism. I wish that I coud bring
ALL
of America into alignment with its principles.
What 's with the Isosceles triangles, Professor PLain ?
plainoldme wrote:And, no, the question is not who is the finest singer as the program is a variety show,
in the manner of the old Ed Sullivan Show.
I don t remember judges nor voting, on that show.
plainoldme wrote:The semi-finalists included magicians; aerialists; dancers who ranged from
hip-hop to Indian classical dance with Bollywood touches
to acrobatic dance to ballroom; a harmonica player and more.
Furthermore, the emphasis is on what the PUBLIC considers entertaining.
Now, whatever you heard on the television was incorrect.
THE JUDGES DID NOT CAST THE FINAL VOTE.
THE PUBLIC VOTED VIA PHONE OR TEXT.
The judges did not vote down Jackie Evancho.
[On Firefly's video, I saw that thay gave her a standing ovation & effusive praise. David]
However, the public preferred Michael Grimm.
Guess what? While he technically was not a better singer than she is, he is a better entertainer.
Thank u for that information, Plain.
I feel better knowing that.
In contemplation of this information, now I see that no injustice was done.
The voters have an infinite right to choose
what entertainment thay prefer.
Again: thank u for that knowledge; very good of u.
plainoldme wrote:∆ I would guess from your lack of knowledge about singing in general
(that you did not know the human voice can be easily damaged . . . which, to me,
is in the realm of general knowledge for which to know one does
not have to taken voice lessons)
True; I vaguely remember some of the wanna-be opera singers with whom I used to fraternize
mentioning something about that occasionally, but I did not
pay much attention.
When I was on-the-job, I did not find it necessary
to yell at the jury.
plainoldme wrote: and about entertainers with headlining careers that have spanned decades,
that you do not seek out entertainment of any kind.
I have
DONE it, but not much, e.g., in Las Vegas for conventions,
I went with friends to shows of old songs from the 1950s and 60s
performed by some of the original artists, at the MGM GRAND,
if I remember accurately. It was a lot of fun.
I attended several of those shows and I met some of the singers
that I had seen on American Bandstand back then.
I had bought 100s of their records; still have them.
Some of those girls have good singing voices.
plainoldme wrote:∆ You wrote that you have no opinion on
Sarah Brightman and that makes her irrelevant . . . or,
perhaps, any discussion of her is irrelevant. Who knows? You aren't clear.
U brought her up, Plain, not me.
I have no interest in her pro nor con.
plainoldme wrote:The problem is that your lack of sophistication makes the
discussion irrelevant and, from my perspective, boring.
And, that, david, is another reason you may have had problems
with women and not your looks.
How oddly
INSIGHTFUL, of u Plain!
I am convinced that my first love, Joyce, whom I loved most avidly,
and who knew how bad my looks were when she made social overtures to me, rejected me on grounds of boredom.
I committed boredom on her; O, well.
She indicated that she was underwhelmed by my references
to the realm of abstract ideas; she preferred to focus on more tangible reality
(which is not to imply that she was materialistic; she was not).
Money does not mean much to her.
plainoldme wrote:While there are women who don't care, there are also women who like sophistication.
A man who enjoys Early Music as much as he enjoys blue grass;
a play by Shakespeare or an up and coming experimental playwrite;
a great meal that is composed like a symphony.
