Confessions 2: Electric Boogaloo.

[Aedilred]

When I hear the old punk rock ballads of my youth that have been imprinted on my mind for decades (such as Sham 69 - If The Kids Are United

Stiff Little Fingers - Alternative Ulster), then I have an almost instant emotional response of joy or melancholy. But hearing new punk rock just makes me annoyed or bored.

I know the music is largely the same, the only difference is me which I find worrisome.

I seem to remember there's some kind of psychological response which causes you to find enjoyment when you recognise familiar music even if you didn't/don't actually like it that much. I've noticed this myself where songs I actively despised when they were current come on the radio and I perk up for a moment before remembering that I never actually liked that song. Presumably the same phenomenon that caused a friend of mine to unthinkingly and unironically declare "CHOOOOON!" on hearing the opening bars of My Heart Will Go On a while back, and thus expose himself to mockery forever.

It might just be that you no longer really like punk rock that much at all, but your brain gives you the endorphin rush resulting from recognition of the songs of your youth; the security of familiarity (and nostalgia?) overriding taste. Newer music doesn't have that recognition factor, so you just go "ugh, I don't like this".

[Bartmanhomer]

Really, Phantom is a musical, rather than an opera, but the distinction is often a fine one. I haven't seen the film; I saw the stage production years ago, though. I tend to find Lloyd-Webber a bit corny, and I have a grudge against Phantom in particular after I realised the main theme was ripped off Echoes. But whatever floats your boat.

It's really a musical? I always thought it was an opera because of the name.

[Aedilred]

It's really a musical? I always thought it was an opera because of the name.

It's a musical. A musical about an opera, hence the name. Musicals about musicals or operas ("backstage musicals") are pretty common, especially in film, because it provides a readymade excuse for the inclusion of large amounts of musical content while remaining in character.

The difference between operas and musicals is hard to pin down, but musicals tend to include a higher proportion of spoken-word dialogue (and consequently more discrete "songs" which begin and end neatly), more of an emphasis on dancing from the main performers (opera singers generally don't dance) and feature a more popular style of music, as well as more technical aids like artificial amplification (opera singers aren't usually miked up). It's a sliding scale, though, and there is a fairly large grey area, where definition as musical or as opera largely comes down to self-definition, or sometimes even just the nature of performance. See for instance most of the work of Gilbert and Sullivan, or indeed as a contemporary example, Jerry Springer: the Opera.

That said, Phantom, like most of the work of Lloyd-Webber, is a pretty "musical" musical as these things go. Not quite so much as the jukebox musical (like Mamma Mia or We Will Rock You, where the musical is plotted and written entirely around existing songs) but probably just this side of it.

[Bartmanhomer]

It's a musical. A musical about an opera, hence the name. Musicals about musicals or operas ("backstage musicals") are pretty common, especially in film, because it provides a readymade excuse for the inclusion of large amounts of musical content while remaining in character.

The difference between operas and musicals is hard to pin down, but musicals tend to include a higher proportion of spoken-word dialogue (and consequently more discrete "songs" which begin and end neatly), more of an emphasis on dancing from the main performers (opera singers generally don't dance) and feature a more popular style of music, as well as more technical aids like artificial amplification (opera singers aren't usually miked up). It's a sliding scale, though, and there is a fairly large grey area, though, where definition as musical or as opera largely comes down to self-definition, or sometimes even just the nature of performance. See for instance most of the work of Gilbert and Sullivan, or indeed as a contemporary example, Jerry Springer: the Opera.

That said, Phantom, like most of the work of Lloyd-Webber, is a pretty "musical" musical as these things go. Not quite so much as the jukebox musical (like Mamma Mia or We Will Rock You, where the musical is plotted and written entirely around existing songs) but probably just this side of it.

Thank you for verifying the difference between opera and a musical. Confession: I troll so many forums and I got banned by so many forums. True story.

[Aedilred]

Thank you for verifying the difference between opera and a musical. Confession: I troll so many forums and I got banned by so many forums. True story.

I hate to say it, but I'm not that surprised.

[2D8HP]

...Could you give some examples?

Not really. I either don't bother to try to remember band names that I don't enjoy, or in a few cases the bands members are from my long ago social circle and I don't want to rag on their new songs.

In any case "pop" punk pre-existed most of the "real" "hardcore" "underground" punk of the '80's (I was "in the scene" from '83 till nineteen-ninety-whatever), so I'm doubtful that there's been any actual dilution, I'm sure someone is in a garage somewhere is "keeping it real".

.....Newer music doesn't have that recognition factor, so you just go "ugh, I don't like this".

That makes a lot of sense, thanks.


Confession: Except for old tapes, I largely listen to the Classical and Jazz stations on the radio while I drive now (I find commercials extremely annoying, and those stations only have "pledge drives" a few times a year).

My younger self would be appalled, I should go kick that snot nosed punk, who does he think he is!

(Oh right....)

[Bartmanhomer]

I used to be a bottom tier chess player but now I'm a middle tier chess player.

[2D8HP]

....See for instance most of the work of Gilbert and Sullivan....

I thought that the works of Gilbert and Sullivan were called "Light Opera"?

[Red Fel]

I thought that the works of Gilbert and Sullivan were called "Light Opera"?

As did I; I think they're generally recognized as opera, as opposed to musicals. They are, however, somewhat lighter and more accessible than, say, Wagner or Verdi, which puts them closer to "musicals" than some other operas.

And on the other side of the spectrum, you have musicals like Les Miserables, which carry many of the hallmarks of opera (long performance, few if any spoken words, little if any dancing), but still a few tokens of musicals (more discrete songs, probability of being miked); if Gilbert and Sullivan made the "musicals" of "opera," than something like Les Mis is the "opera" of "musicals."

Phantom, however, is a straight-up musical, notwithstanding its setting in the backstage of an opera. Michael Crawford is a treat, but he's no opera singer.

[8BitNinja]

I used to be a bottom tier chess player but now I'm a middle tier chess player.

I'm terrible at chess.

[Bartmanhomer]

I'm terrible at chess.

Practice.

[Perch]

The day I heard this part of Carmen by Bizet in a kids show, I got obsessed with opera. I couldn’t rest until I had found the song's name and until today I love opera thanks to this one song.

Spoiler: Carmen

Show

Also a opera is as similar to a musical as RPG is to monopoly. They both use dice just as they both sing and act but that is how superficial the similarities are.

Besides, operas are usually a lot more serious, darker, full of death, violence and sex.

[Lemmy]

Practice.

Same goes for fighting games... Just saying...

[Bartmanhomer]

Same goes for fighting games... Just saying...

And you forget one thing, same thing applies to all types of games as well.

[Perch]

Same goes for fighting games... Just saying...

Lies, a dog smashing all the controller’s bottom would do as good as a guy who spent days practicing. : p

[Lemmy]

And you forget one thing, same thing applies to all types of games as well.

Except for games of chance, like slot machines. Practice doesn't really help with those...

Lies, a dog smashing all the controller’s bottom would do as good as a guy who spent days practicing. : p

Nah... That dog needs to at least know how to consistently perform a shoryuken and when to hold the block button.

[Bartmanhomer]

Except for games of chance, like slot machines. Practice doesn't really help with those...

Nah... That dog needs to at least know how to consistently perform a shoryuken and when to hold the block button.

Oh yeah. I forgot that chance games doesn't work.

[8BitNinja]

Oh yeah. I forgot that chance games doesn't work.

I don't consider chance games, well, games. I think a game's outcome needs to be determined by a measure of the player(s)'s skill(s)

[Bartmanhomer]

I don't consider chance games, well, games. I think a game's outcome needs to be determined by a measure of the player(s)'s skill(s)

There are some games that doesn't need skill.

[Lemmy]

I confess that I'm willing to take a lot less **** from my siblings (all older than me) ever since I outgrew all of them by at least 8 inches...

[Bicorn]

Except for games of chance, like slot machines. Practice doesn't really help with those...

Practice makes you able to realise when to stop... Or not to start at all, really the only way to win with those kinds of games.

[Strigon]

I don't consider chance games, well, games. I think a game's outcome needs to be determined by a measure of the player(s)'s skill(s)

Where do you draw the line?
Poker, for example, has a great deal of skill involved, yet is primarily based on luck. Is that a game? What about Blackjack, Monopoly, D&D, Go Fish, Candyland, The Game of Life?

[Red Fel]

Besides, operas are usually a lot more serious, darker, full of death, violence and sex.

Do you consider Miss Saigon a musical or an opera? Because it contains:

• War
• Prostitution
• Death, and plenty of it
• Shattered dreams
• Dark humor
• Emotional trauma
• Orphans
• Nightmare sequences
• Seduction/sex scene

It's also considered a Broadway classic.

[Aedilred]

Where do you draw the line?
Poker, for example, has a great deal of skill involved, yet is primarily based on luck. Is that a game? What about Blackjack, Monopoly, D&D, Go Fish, Candyland, The Game of Life?

A good poker player would say that there is much more skill in poker than luck. Although there is an element of chance in which cards you are dealt, the real object of the game is to deceive the other players as to the nature of your hand. In versions where additional cards are dealt after the initial hand there is also an element of skill in odds calculation: knowing which hands have a good chance of developing into better hands later in the round, and which are lost causes. But a great player can still play on an unsuited 2/7 if it turns out to be absolutely necessary.

Blackjack has a much lower proportion of skill to luck. Roulette is pretty much entirely a game of chance. But these are not really games in their own right. While they can be played without gambling, there is pretty much no point. The excitement and entertainment comes not from the play itself but the prospect of winning money. Playing with matchsticks or chips with no cash-out gets pretty dull pretty quickly.

Snakes and Ladders is entirely a game of chance, as are some other basic boardgames, and have no gambling element (although one could be added). But these tend to be very simple games for young children, really just introducing them to the concept of board games, and aren't going to be played by anyone voluntarily past a certain age.

So while I think 8bitninja's assertion is a little reductive ("game" is a very broad category and does, imo, and certainly in standard definition, encompass purely chance-based games) I do think the implication behind it - that no game worth playing (by anyone with discriminative faculties) is reliant entirely on chance, and if a game isn't worth playing then it barely deserves to be considered a game at all.

[Perch]

Do you consider Miss Saigon a musical or an opera? Because it contains:

• War
• Prostitution
• Death, and plenty of it
• Shattered dreams
• Dark humor
• Emotional trauma
• Orphans
• Nightmare sequences
• Seduction/sex scene

It's also considered a Broadway classic.

Did I said always? No I don't think so... I said usually. : )

[Bartmanhomer]

A good poker player would say that there is much more skill in poker than luck. Although there is an element of chance in which cards you are dealt, the real object of the game is to deceive the other players as to the nature of your hand. In versions where additional cards are dealt after the initial hand there is also an element of skill in odds calculation: knowing which hands have a good chance of developing into better hands later in the round, and which are lost causes. But a great player can still play on an unsuited 2/7 if it turns out to be absolutely necessary.

Blackjack has a much lower proportion of skill to luck. Roulette is pretty much entirely a game of chance. But these are not really games in their own right. While they can be played without gambling, there is pretty much no point. The excitement and entertainment comes not from the play itself but the prospect of winning money. Playing with matchsticks or chips with no cash-out gets pretty dull pretty quickly.

Snakes and Ladders is entirely a game of chance, as are some other basic boardgames, and have no gambling element (although one could be added). But these tend to be very simple games for young children, really just introducing them to the concept of board games, and aren't going to be played by anyone voluntarily past a certain age.

So while I think 8bitninja's assertion is a little reductive ("game" is a very broad category and does, imo, and certainly in standard definition, encompass purely chance-based games) I do think the implication behind it - that no game worth playing (by anyone with discriminative faculties) is reliant entirely on chance, and if a game isn't worth playing then it barely deserves to be considered a game at all.

And may I add that Poker involves real math: It's depend the number the pot that player either raise or call. Also it's depends on the poker player style. The Loose-Passive, Tight-Passive, Loose-Aggressive and Tight-Aggressive players. The Loose-Passive player will have a difficult time winning. The Tight-Aggressive will have a easy time winning.

[Aedilred]

Here's a confession for the thread:

I dislike the blue text common on this forum, and instinctively find myself thinking less of people who use it.

[8BitNinja]

Where do you draw the line?
Poker, for example, has a great deal of skill involved, yet is primarily based on luck. Is that a game? What about Blackjack, Monopoly, D&D, Go Fish, Candyland, The Game of Life?

I mean games like slots, where all there is, is luck. D&D, Go Fish, and Monopoly can all have outcomes determined by the player. Candyland on the other hand, is just picking up a card. The player cannot determine anything. Therefore, I do not consider it a game.

[Bartmanhomer]

I mean games like slots, where all there is, is luck. D&D, Go Fish, and Monopoly can all have outcomes determined by the player. Candyland on the other hand, is just picking up a card. The player cannot determine anything. Therefore, I do not consider it a game.

It's still a game regardless of its element. Even made up games have its element as well.

[8BitNinja]

It's still a game regardless of its element. Even made up games have its element as well.

I don't need you to agree with me, nor do I care if you don't. It's just my opinion