sex!

Hello everyone- i just thought i would call it that so then i could get some interest:0)

I am interested i doing a musical next year and the must i would like to use is popular music of all time- i am asking if anyone can message me back with their most popular music. any kind of music, rock, pop jazz and also musical theatre

thanks heaps
love richard

Favourite...? hmm....

...reggae, blues, a capella, ambient, grunge, operatic, ska, country, metal, classical, jazz, techno, top 40, punk, rockabilly, folk, marching band, rock, waltz, gregorian chant, techno, funk, disco, irish, aboriginal, gamelan, motown, barbershop, jugband, showtunes, do-wop, glam, danceband, film soundtrack, orchestral, childrens', thrash, house, dixieland, 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's, '10's....


....sorry, not much help, I know. I only really responded because I liked the subject heading.


Cheers,

Craig

~<8>-/====/--------

Go for show tunes.
Better still, chose a specific musical (whatever seems relevant)
and concentrate on that. It should be popular and will also
give you continuity in music, script, and acting roles.

Sex got my attention. ;o)
Australian music is good to go with... we have some great well known hits eg. Great Southern Land, Land Down Under etc. as well as the newer stuff eg. Killing Heidi, Silverchair, Human Nature... the list is endless. But you still have to find a theme and plot.

Cheers
Alan

Leighton is definately wrong...do not listen to that response if u want to appeal to ne1 under 85. Use rock, rap, soul, bit of pop, occaisional heavy metal. Also use this in ur advertising, U will get attention from all age groups, most importantly the younger ones.

Jason Gamble wrote:
-------------------------------
>>"Leighton is definately wrong...do not listen to that response if u want to appeal to ne1 under 85. Use rock, rap, soul, bit of pop, occaisional heavy metal. Also use this in ur advertising, U will get attention from all age groups, most importantly the younger ones."




'n if u uze lotz o' u's in ur wurdz u'll suun no that no1'll no what u r sayin 2 'm.

("definitely" seems a bit pointless correcting "occasional" spelling errors....)




Anyway - back to Richard - I'm not entirely sure what you are asking for?
I take it you're not just looking to do an established musical, but to create something new? Then why not new music as well? My first suggestion would be to find a good band or songwriter and put something original together that suits your story.

But it sounds like you want to create a new story using songs that are already popular and established?
If that is the case then I think I'd agree to avoid using material that is already associated with other musicals, they will probably suffer out of context.

Finding some sort of unifying theme, like Alan's suggestion of all Australian material, could possibly be a good idea. Are you hoping to somehow link your favourite songs together by creating a script afterwards? My fear is that it will become little more than a concert, not really what I would consider a musical...but this might be what you really mean and it could be successful as just that.

Better would be to try and nut out what you want it to be about - a plot outline, characters, what mood, issues, etc... and then go about finding appropriate songs to support your script.
There is probably an element of attacking the process from both ends - both finding songs to fit characters & ideas you have written; and creating characters & scenes to fit songs you want to include.

"most popular music of all time"....you're never going to be able to please everyone with this kind of ambition, and it may be your downfall. Make your own decisions about what you think would be appropriate. At least then you can justify the songs you include and hopefully incorporate them into some kind of unified structure and style.

If you choose songs only because they're someone's favourite, you are going to lay yourself open to performance criticism, much like many cover bands have to deal with. They are going to be compared to the original, and unless you have an interesting interpretation or arrangement, all the audience will notice is how well (or not) the singer scrubs up.
If the songs are cleverly incorporated into a meaningful script, it could introduce many other elements, like irony, social comment, character development, humorous juxtaposition...all things that an audience wants to be entertained by in a musical...not just their favourite songs that they probably hear on the radio.



Of course, I don't know what kind of problems you are going to encounter getting copywrite permission, and that's an entirely new issue by itself.



Cheers,
Craig

<8>-/====/-----------

The u's etc (excetera) are part of the whole system called "nettiquette". I learned this in uni (university) , such a shame i made some mistakes huh? I'll bet u (you) double checked ur (your) spelling b4 (before) u submitted ur post huh? now if u can't (cannot) make sense of this then u need to spend more time thinking about what things might mean or just dont read it. Just don't point out faults in my crap and i'll have the same kertesy (I know this one's wrong).

Well thankyou so much for your interest and help. We are looking at hits from the past and precent. The story is bassed on teen energy and the feeling and emmotions from time. The cast is of 30 and the Bridge theatre is the theare we will be performing on.

We choose songs from Queen, Kylie minogue, Batchelor Girl, Human Nature, Invertigo, Mike and the machanics, Dirty Dancing, just to name a few. What do you feel we should look at in the story- we would like it look contemporary and modern

seeyah richard

Jason Gamble wrote:
-------------------------------
The u's etc (excetera) are part of the whole system called "nettiquette". I learned this in uni (university) , such a shame i made some mistakes huh? I'll bet u (you) double checked ur (your) spelling b4 (before) u submitted ur post huh? now if u can't (cannot) make sense of this then u need to spend more time thinking about what things might mean or just dont read it. Just don't point out faults in my crap and i'll have the same kertesy (I know this one's wrong).


G'day Jason.

Sorry, I didn't ever graduate from university, so I guess that's why I can't keep up with the way words are spelt these days. Therefore, please feel free to criticise any spelling, grammar or syntax errors you ever find in anything I've written, if you think I've made an unintentional mistake.

I take the piss out of stuff like that just to show how witty and funny I am. No need to defend yourself; I'm not attacking you. You merely set yourself up to be the perfect straight-man for me to get some cheap humour from. Nothing's sacred if I can use it to score some easy "wit" points. And I don't mind anyone scoring a laugh at my expense - for this reason I've included a tautology in the previous paragraph so that someone can point it out and take full advantage of the humorous irony. (Eliot?)

Cheers,
Craig

PS: Tell ur university that "netiquette" has only one "t" at the start.

~<8>-/====/--------------



What folly I commit, I dedicate to you!

Sure made me laugh!!!!! "unintentional mistake" indeed!

But seriously though folks, for fear of being shot down in flames for daring to discuss things not related to theatre..... I find this whole idea of "netiquette" spelling a cop-out. Why do things have to be spelt differently (wrongly?) because it is one the internet?
I have a sneaking suspicion it is merely to cover up dropping standards of literacy. Flog the teachers I say (especially the Drama teachers)!!!!!

I shall now take my cup of cocoa and return to the corner marked "Old Farts" and mumble under my breath about how Gough should never have been sacked.

Thou puny weather-bitten joithead! (should that last word have an "n" in it?)

Hi Dean

Dean Schulze wrote:
-------------------------------
> Thou puny weather-bitten joithead! (should that last word
> have an "n" in it?)

Who knows? Shakespeare had enough trouble spelling his own name.

Cheers
Grant

Thou fobbing milk-livered wagtail!

I think you are absolutely correct especially about Gough.

I was under the impression that the shortened netspeak came into practise in chat rooms, so that you can type faster. When people use it in Message Forums and other media where they actually have time to proof read what they are writing, it seems a bit redundant.

And a little bit slack...



Thou venomed milk-livered death-token!
(I've been wanting to give that one a try!)

My memory of the Whitlam years (hey, I was in kindergarten at the time) is that Gough was removed from office because his name wasn't spelt the way it sounds!




About these essays...

Theatre, Arts, Literature, English, Spelling...aren't these rather closely related? I expect actors and arts practitioners to have a better-than average grasp of the language, and if they don't they ought to brush up. Poor spelling or vocabulary in a letter or on a CV influences peoples' opinion about your ability a lot more than some would like to realise.

The English language is convoluted and contradictory anyway, and constantly evolving, especially with new computer terminology and particularly Americanisms. (ie much of their spelling is creeping in everywhere and I often think American spelling makes more sense than British anyway...eg 'realize' rather than 'realise')

So by all means, feel free to break rules whenever it is appropriate to create new meaning, be poetic, or make some point.

But of course, to be allowed to break the rules, it helps to KNOW the rules...

Craig

<8>-/=====/--------------



PS: For instance, why is 'essays' the plural, and not 'essaies' ?


Why should thou live to fill the world with words?!

Dean Schulze wrote:
-------------------------------
>>Thou puny weather-bitten joithead! (should that last word have an "n" in it?)


Only if you use it in high-ambic pentameter....




~<8>-/====/----------

As someone who loves the theatre, I love the English language (and Latin and French but that's another story). And I love both the spoken and written forms of that language.

And I loathe and detest so-called 'netiquette' short hand. Dean wrote: "I find this whole idea of "netiquette" spelling a cop-out. Why do things have to be spelt differently (wrongly?) because it is one the internet?
I have a sneaking suspicion it is merely to cover up dropping standards of literacy. Flog the teachers I say (especially the Drama teachers)!!!!!"

I have to agree. I'm sorry if this offends you Jason and makes me sound like a pedant and a prig but I simply can't read anything that looks like it was spat out by an Enigma coding machine.

Pamela.

Thou warped plume-plucked pigeon-egg!

Pamela wrote:
-------------------------------
As someone who loves the theatre, I love the English language (and Latin and French but that's another story). And I love both the spoken and written forms of that language.

And I loathe and detest so-called 'netiquette' short hand.

In all seriousness, perhaps you should stick with Latin, it being a dead language and all. Languages evolve. Netiquette shorthand is just another adaptation. If you don't like it don't use it.

Auctor wrote:
-------------------------------
>>Languages evolve. Netiquette shorthand is just another adaptation. If you don't like it don't use it.


Hi Auctor

The early pioneer of motivational speakers, Earl Nightingale, wrote that "The One Thing You Can't Hide" is your use of vocabulary. The minute you open your mouth (or type) you reveal to the world your level of competance with language. Regardless of education or social standing, his studies showed that knowing the proper usage of a large number of words, correlated to an amazing degree with success in any field of endeavor.

For a language (the ability to communicate and express thoughts and feelings by vocal sounds, written symbols, or other gestures) to exist, there needs to be a common understanding between the sender of the message and the receiver.

If the rules aren't shared, the communication breaks down and doesn't properly achieve it's aim of conveying meaning. In fact it subverts it, because it introduces misunderstandings.

I have no problem with netiquette, Auctor. It is merely a new form of shorthand and abbreviation. And I certainly do use it when I am chatting online, because it keeps the conversation in real time rather than the lag introduced by clumsy fingers on a keyboard.

My problem is not with its use, but with people who don't seem to know how or where to use it.

ok ne1 can c its ez 2 rite w abbrvs lik this & f u go 2 uni u wd hav no probs w wot it ses but f it gos 4 2 long u cn c y sm ppl thnk it cn b 2 hd 2 c.

Are you sure you wouldn't prefer I made that easier for you rather than just short?

Language isn't just the words or symbols we speak or write, but the art of communicating. I think that's where some of you have got it wrong. There are plenty of different languages I use every single day - colloquial everyday speech, proper written english, technical jargon at work, body language, sign language (I'm a scuba diver), email shorthand, chatroom netiquette, and the way I communicate with infants or even my dog! ...but I'm well aware that if I tried to use the wrong language in the wrong context, I would alienate and annoy the people I was sending signals to, and it would hinder our communication.
If you find that people aren't liking or understanding the way you speak, it's not necessarily their understanding that's at fault, but your inappropriate choice of language you are trying to send to them.

You can vigorously defend the words you write and how you choose to spell them, but your energy is being wasted, because I don't have an issue with that - I'm attacking the lack of thought process behind their use.


Cheers
Craig

<8>-/====/------------




There will little learning die then that day thou art hang'd!

Language most certainly does evolve, but grammar doesn't.

Bravo, Craig!

Compelling arguments, especially from a man who signs his name as though he's been disemvowelled.

:-)

Correct and efficient communication of information is the most important factor in a message. Eliot is fluent in music, I am fluent in chemical formulae, Schulze is an expert in Braille (or so he tells whoever he gets his hands on) and Jason is pretty good at netiquette.

Doesn't mean a damn thing if we're typing to a general audience and no one understands what the hell we're trying to say....

JB

Thou droning plume-plucked horn-beast!


Does this thing KNOW whenever I'm talking about Dean????

Jason Gamble wrote:
-------------------------------
>>"The u's etc (excetera) are part of the whole system called "nettiquette". I learned this in uni (university) , such a shame i made some mistakes huh? I'll bet u (you) double checked ur (your) spelling b4 (before) u submitted ur post huh? now if u can't (cannot) make sense of this then u need to spend more time thinking about what things might mean or just dont read it. Just don't point out faults in my crap and i'll have the same kertesy (I know this one's wrong)."




Sorry - just one more 'fault to point out in your crap', and then I'll allow that you've suffered enough.

The system of abbreviations, numerals, sideways smiley faces, etc (et cetera !), and shorthand slang that has largely developed in chatrooms and for informal emails is sometimes known as "netspeak", but it is NOT "netiquette". (...I'd be asking that uni of yours to return ur fees...)

"Netiquette" is derived from 'net etiquette', and it is exactly that - a polite protocol that recognises the difficulty of conducting a live conversation via a keyboard, and seeks to avoid the harshness and misunderstanding that these curt abbreviations can create, in the absence of vocal inflection or properly constructed sentences.
It includes things like: not typing in all-capitals so as to avoid appearing to shout; refraining from "spamming" your readers with constant repetition; those smiley "emoticons" to show that what might be read as inflammatory is really spoken tongue-in-cheek; and keeping profanity to a minimum.

In short, it can simply be summed up as common "kertesy".

If there had been a little bit more true 'netiquette' shown by its users, the 'netspeak' would have probably been more tolerated here.

Your essay results have been posted.

Craig


<8>-/=====/--------------


I have an humour to knock you indifferently well!

Grammar does evolve!
I work as a text editor for a Government Department, it's changed since I started working here... We can now "officially" split the infinitive!
I was SO excited when I found that out! I decide to boldy go where no-one else had gone...
There have been other changes to grammar, grammar is a part of language.

Cheers
Nath


Thou saucy common-kissing pigeon-egg!
Aren't you lucky!

How wonderful u are, sunshine beams into the great canyon of your arse. Oh and the use of 'gambled and lost' very clever, did u come up with that all by yourself? Once was enough, but u took it too far methinks. or maybe it was too hard for you to remove yourself from your sad computer world where the cd rom drive makes a good coffee mug holder. I'll bet you read article upon article on nettiqutte or whatever just so u could outsmart me. Well I'm going to get back to my life, don't get jealous, but i will leave you with one piece of advice......

"Never Gamble With A Gamble!"

Now stop this stupid debate about grammer/ spelling and lets talk about theatre because blow me down if that aint the whole point to this site.

Well sunshine, I seriously doubt Craig, or many other adults for that matter, would have to read "article upon article on nettiqutte (sic - it's n.e.t.i.q.u.e.t.t.e Jase) or whatever".
When you're all grown up, these things become a matter of commom sense and common courtesy - just one of the privileges of increasing years.

I personally think Craig's reply to Auctor, "Language is a Virus", is a beautifully articulated piece on the use of language; perhaps reading it again (if, indeed, you bothered to read it a first time) would help _you_ to express yourself in a more reasoned and mature manner.

Do-do-do take me on in an argument! Having retired from 23 years of teaching, including tutoring many trainee teachers on prac (and god knows Teacher's College English/Spelling/Grammar standards have slipped appallingly), I rather miss the cut and thrust of the classroom - although I must say year threes and fours tend to be somewhat more polite/better spoken around their elders and betters!

BarbZ

Let's see what the oracle has to say about you ...
Thou goatish full-gorged ratsbane!

Luverly!!

Jason Gamble wrote:
-------------------------------
>>"How wonderful u are, sunshine beams into the great canyon of your arse."

...Well, yes, I thought that was the reason why you guys started these threads by saying "Hi Sexy" to me.



>>"the use of 'gambled and lost' very clever, did u come up with that all by yourself?"

No, it took me and a roomful of chimpanzees with typewriters ten years of meaningless rambling before we came up with that coherent sentence...good thing you came along, or it would have been wasted.



>>"maybe it was too hard for you to remove yourself from your sad computer world"

Yes, sometimes it seems that way. But I notice you're still here too. Welcome to my world.



>>"I'll bet you read article upon article on nettiqutte or whatever just so u could outsmart me."

Sorry to inform you, Jason, but I'm afraid it wasn't necessary to read anything...



>>"i will leave you with one piece of advice....."Never Gamble With A Gamble!"

It seems to me that, when we entered into this particular contest of wit, I wasn't the one gambling.



>>"Now stop this stupid debate about grammer/ spelling .."

Er, Jason, "grammar" is spelt....oh, never mind!



>>"lets talk about theatre because blow me down if that aint the whole point to this site."

Thankyou, then, for the many opportunities here you've given this performer to entertain his audience.


Cheers,
Craig

<8>-/====/-------------


Thou sodden-witted lord, thou hast no more brain than I have in my elbows: an asinico may tutor thee!

:) Touche, I think! :)

BZ

(Yes, I know it should have an acute over the 'e', but I've no idea how to put one there ..)

>(Yes, I know it should have an acute over the 'e', but I've no idea how to put one there ..)
Reply To This Message>

Hi Barbara
It's months since I've been here......lots of drama going on I see....
To put the thingameejig over the E......type 'option+E' + E....on a Mac that is.....not sure about the dark side computers:)
Have fun.....

Thanks Yvonne ..
have sticky noted for future reference!

>"lots of drama going on I see...."
(snicker!)
What else on a theatre board?
(Sorry .. toooo obvious!)

BarbZ

Testing to see what a PC user can do ...I typed "touche" into my Word programme, and it automatically corrected it with the accent. touché.

Cut & paste to here, and then see if it printed as it should...


olé !

crgwllms

<8>-/====----------

You do not want to argue with me because i argue very dirty. I'm not afraid to say stuff that will get u to hate me (Like Eminem) . You are obviously quite old due to your information you provide:-

BarbZ wrote:
-------------------------------
"Well sunshine, I seriously doubt Craig, or many other adults for that matter, would have to read "article upon article on nettiqutte (sic - it's n.e.t.i.q.u.e.t.t.e Jase) or whatever".
When you're all grown up, these things become a matter of commom sense and common courtesy - just one of the privileges of increasing years.
Having retired from 23 years of teaching, including tutoring many trainee teachers on prac (and god knows Teacher's College English/Spelling/Grammar standards have slipped appallingly), I rather miss the cut and thrust of the classroom - although I must say year threes and fours tend to be somewhat more polite/better spoken around their elders and bet...."

Due to your age and my new age rebellious don't give a f*** attitude, i won't be too harsh in this reply to an obvious bait for an arguement. Oh, the reason i'm not 'better spoken' (Don't get me started) towards my elders and most certainly not betters (Someone has a superiority complex...not me) is because I firmly believe that just because u r older u r not right in any case. Don't Don't Don't take ME on in an arguement because u wont like what i say. Now lets talk about THEATRE for smegs sake! GET OVER IT!!!

Gosh! Is that right Barbara? Are you really quite old? And here you are masquerading as a computer-literate youngster. Shame....

JB

Jason Gamble wrote:
-------------------------------
>>"Don't Don't Don't take ME on in an arguement (sic) because u wont like what i say."

Jason, it was because people didn't didn't didn't like what you said that the criticism started in the first place. That it has devolved into this argument is unfortunate, but directly related to your inflammatory reaction to the criticism.

>>"You do not want to argue with me because i argue very dirty."

I do not want to argue with you because you argue very badly.


>>"(Someone has a superiority complex...not me)"

No, I would've guessed the opposite in your case.



>>"Okay i dont know if youre trying to make yourself look big or just make me look stupid"

You've got me there. My initial parody of your words (to which I've previously admitted), and in fact all subsequent conversation with you, has been purely and unashamedly to make myself look big and clever. But yes, my prime motivation is to jest, not to attack you personally.
If you feel that I'M the one responsible for making you look stupid, then I do apologise for any part I contributed to.

It's not personal. I don't know you. It's public. And on a public forum, anyone who posts here does so with the implicit knowledge that strong opinions may be heavily debated, countered, disagreed with, and perhaps ridiculed (or occasionally, agreed with and supported!). I am often trying to stir up such a reaction, partly for my own & others' entertainment, and partly to encourage frank and honest discussions, opinions, criticism and debate.
Like you, I am opposed to censorship of ideas. However, I do always try to maintain a logical, considered argument, without resorting to name calling, poor manners, or profanity. All my attacks are direct responses to words previously written, which I consider fair game.
My words, too, are on display to receive their due criticism, which is why I carefully consider my choice of words BEFORE I post.


>>"now lets talk about THEATRE for smegs sake! GET OVER IT!!!"

Fair comment. I agree. I can sense that others are probably tired of all this nonsense too, so I will put this issue to rest. Hopefully, that will give us both a chance to reflect on how better to communicate in future.


Cheers

Craig

<8>-/====/------------




Be better employed, and be naught awhile!

Jason, I'd have thought you of all people would be aware of these lyrics by Kenny Rogers:


..."know when to walk away, know when to run."...




Please, if you're going to insist on talking about theatre, can you try to do so; and refrain from rudely dismissing those who actually have some authority to speak here.

Craig

<8>-/====/-------------





Thou disputes like an infant: go, whip thy gig!

... cover blown!

I must say, Jason's reply has quite made my day - there's nothing like a good belly laugh before brunch (my day started somewhat late) - although I remain intrigued by Miss "Wire", can't place a reference here; must be my quite old & feeble brain not making the right connections!

BarbZ

Dude somewhere down the line i probably took some (a lot) of stuff you said the wrong way, for that i apologise. That suff i said to barb(ed) wire (I thought it was clever, seen as she was guilty of belitttling me) was intended to tell her and her alone that i do not wish to argue with her because i don't use clever little jokes using words i'd need a dictionary to understand. I know i don't have as large a vocabulary as most people older than myself. But using bigger words doesn't make one right in an arguement. For this reason i tend to be very blunt, barb says she was a teacher, she would therefore use big words against me and i was merely saying that i don't argue like that, the way i do argue would (and frequently does) upset a lot of people. But if you read her first post "To Master Gamble" a lot of the stuff i said "Don't Don't Don't take ME on in an arguement (sic) because u wont like what i say.". She wrote "do do do start an arguement with me" or something like that. In the end she provoked me so i thought i'd tell her not to argue with me. The superiority complex thing was due to mainly two things
1: the heading of her post "To Master Gamble" suggesting i am just a child and therefore belttling me.
2: there was a line in there that said "...elders and betters". That was wrong.

anyway, lets u and me and anyone else reading this, forget the past week or whatever of petty arguements and come up with some interesting theatre talk. Thanks

Sounds good to me, Jason.


...And we've already moved on. I just posted an answer to your question about schools. There's a market out there; if you prepare well, you can crack it.


And BTW, I thought 'Miss Wire' was an appropriately witty "jab" at the lady with the razor sharp 'Barbz' of debate!

More conversations like these, plese!


Cheers
Craig


<8>-/=====/-------------

A suggestion for a theme to fit the loose threads, or in this case different songs without a common theme, is to use the title Looking For A Sign as a joiner. As a boy or girl goes through life, their parents are listening to sixties songs and each song is a reminder of an event such as thier parent getting a job or travelling or getting divorced. Then as the girl or boy growws up and has events occuring in their life the songs become more modern. You could have the same event occuring for parent and child with different songs for comparison. Even walking through the city looking for a toilet sign could bring on a cue for a sign. The set could be simple and use scene projection as you have a wide timeframe to show. Ever heard the song "Signs".
Regards Don