The framework is simple:
1.You propose the best name for my opera*
2. You win the prize.
Guidelines:
1. All of the words/phrases listed in yesterdays post are ineligible for submission.
2. Submissions must be made by Feb.20.
3. Submissions will be accepted only in the form of comments posted to this blog, or comments posted to our myspace spot.
Last time the prize was a delicious cheesecake from Eileen's in Soho....which nobody won. This time the prize will be a 20oz. (yes, well over a pound) tray of...
BBQ Baked Beans w/ Beef Brisket
(or 10 servings of Potatoes au gratin - for the vegetarians. Before awarding a prize to a vegan/raw foody/macrobiotic, special arrangements may be made.)And again, if you're looking for clues to what the opera is about, read the blog or send an email (operacabal@gmail.com).
Good luck. Do it for the beans and brisket.
(n.)
*"Best" to be determined entirely subjectively by me, perhaps in consultation with my usual consultants (Lisa, Majel, Mark...y'know...). Opera Cabal reserves the right to determine that no submissions qualify as "best," but we'd really rather that it didn't come to that.
11 comments:
Do you know her?
In a certain sense, which would be the so-called "biblical" sense, nobody knows her. However, having created her (or at least having pieced her together Frankensteinienly from a handful of anonymous personality donors (anonymous even to themselves), I'd like to think I have a certain passing familiarity.
Thanks for the suggestion. So now who's going to kick it up a notch? (c'monn....do it for the beans!)
(n.)
Nick, it's Majel. I really don't understand why we can't name it URSULARIUM. It's PERFECT. Plurality, the name of the central character...reminds me of when we used to make terariums in school. C'mon!
m - I hope you don't think you're going to win the baked beans and beef brisket for that suggestion. I'm sure there must be something in the bylaws about awarding prizes to directors of the company. I mean, I admit that it was a pretty stunning piece of wordplay on your part (...and who doesn't love the planetarium?), but still, we can't just flagrantly trample all over our imaginary bylaws. Show some retraint. It's not like we're giving away a giant brownie sunday.
(n.)
11011 vigins in your dreams
No no no....not MY dreams: URSULA'S dreams.
And if people keep posting anonymous entries, how am I going to know where to send the delectable prize?
(n.)
The Ordination of Ursula
failursing
fail - failure
urs - is part of failure but transformed its part of ursula too
sing - conveniently creates itself, obvious relation to the work as an opera
the title from your list (written snippets of conversation, ramblings on subjects close at hand, and tour of the phobia dictionary) of rejects that stood out
(r[f]ails)
actually - the list itself would be an interesting title. perhaps too long winded to say or write everywheres . . .
but:
why are you asking other people to name your opera? do you feel no attachment to the work? (i find that hard to believe)
...because (in a world i once lived in) titles were something of a description of the relationship between composer and work...
failursing
Not bad. Definitely in the running.
Why am I having other people name my opera? Shameless publicity stunt. Appeal to the creative ego of the consumer. Considering the amount of attention the stunt has generated, it would seem, however, that this move has itself failed.
"titles were something of a description of the relationship between composer and work..."
That's an interesting take...I'd never thought of it quite exactly like that. I'd always been of the "crystalize the essence (or SOME essence) of the work in a text idea" school of thought / lay the groundwork upon which the next period of time will stand in the mind of the auditor. (Like it or not, the title is the starting point for the listener's entry into your world.) In that respect, I'm not sure how relevant I would find "the relationship between composer and work" to be. How can one understand your relationship to a thing that they don't yet know themselves?
Also, once the work is made, the work is. It lives independently of the composer (hopefully), and one of the interesting things about really great works (to me) is that you know they could not have come from anybody except that composer, and yet they simultaneously seem to exist completely independently from ANY person. And while I'm listening, I couldn't care less about the composer, only about the work, despite the composer reasserting her or himself with every compositional decision. Seems like the egotistical icing on the self-indulgent cake to try to force the listener to ALSO consider YOUR RELATIONSHIP to the thing you made, in addition to just considering the thing.
Thanks for the suggestion and the lively questions.
(n.)
(n.)
that was fun to read.
i agree with your "crystalize the essence (or SOME essence) of the work in a text idea" school of thought".
but ... sometimes its entertaining to argue (hence the comment about composer work title relationship)
(i also secretly like performance - secretly don't tell anyone.)
e
dimensional chaos?
Post a Comment