The Sixth Conversation Thread

What can I say? It doesn't fit above, put it here. Also the location of board rules/info.
Khemehekis
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2312
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: The Sixth Conversation Thread

Post by Khemehekis »

Salmoneus wrote:
27 Apr 2020 01:30
For those who aren't classical fans: can you name works by Loewe, Lloyd Webber, Sondheim, Rodgers, Bock, Herman, Wildhorn, Leigh, Kander and Styne?
Spoiler:
Loewe: My Fair Lady, Camelot
Lloyd Webber: Cats, The Phantom of the Opera, Sunset Boulevard
Sondheim: West Side Story, Into the Woods
Rodgers: South Pacific, The Sound of Music, Oklahoma!, The King and I
Styne: Fiddler on the Roof, The Rothschilds, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 66,000 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!

User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2690
Joined: 22 Nov 2014 04:48

Re: The Sixth Conversation Thread

Post by elemtilas »

Salmoneus wrote:
27 Apr 2020 01:30
Growing out of the listening/watching thread, but I didn't want to take it TOO far off-topic...

...here's a quick trivia question for you: who are the most succesful 20th and 21st century opera composers?
To be honest: I thought opera was dead. I had no idea operas were still being written! I just figured (wrongly) that it evolved into the musical. I'm no fan of either and whenever the local classical music stations threaten to broadcast opera (Saturday afternoons), I switch to something else. Reruns of political talk are preferable to opera.

But on to the interesting bits!

I got bored after the first 75. But please, have a guess... I've divided it into three groups - composers most known for work between 1900 and the war; composers most known for work between the war and 2000; and composers most known for work between 2000 and now.

Here's 35 composers from the first period. Can you a) guess them in advance, and b) recognise their names or think of any opera they wrote?
Spoiler:
Giacomo Puccini – 30,844 +
(Wagner)
Richard Strauss – 6,944 +
Franz Lehár – 5,847
Emmerich Kálmán – 4,229
Leoš Janáček – 3,326 +
(Gluck)
Kurt Weill – 1,943
(Monteverdi)
(Purcell)
Ralph Benatzky
Sergei Prokofiev +
Cole Porter +
Igor Stravinsky +
Dmitri Shostakovich +
Alban Berg
George Gershwin – 914 +
Claude Debussy +
Maurice Ravel +
Paul Abraham
(Rameau)
Béla Bartók +
Erich Korngold +
Paul Lincke - 442
Alexander von Zemlinsky
Francesco Cilea – 400
Paul Hindemith +
Leo Fall
Arnold Schoenberg +
Ermanno Wolf-Ferrari
Oscar Straus
Viktor Ulmann – 275
Jenő Huszka
(Meyerbeer)
Karol Szymanowski
Amadeu Vives
(Salieri)
Ruperto Chapí
Franz Schreker – 199
Jerome Kern
Hans Krása
Ernst Krenek – 185
There's a couple of names there that even people who don't listen to classical music should recognise!
Put a mark by the one's I'd heard of. Although I couldn't name any of their operas off hand, I at least recognised many of their operas when seen on a list. 14/35 isn't bad. Especially given that the last five rank after Salieri.


And here's 30 from the second half of the century:
Spoiler:
Benjamin Britten – 4,123 +
Leonard Bernstein – 2,905 +
Frederick Loewe +
(Gluck)
(Monteverdi)
(Purcell)
Poulenc – 1,377 +
Andrew Lloyd Webber +
Stephen Sondheim – 992 +
Richard Rodgers +
Jerry Bock
Philip Glass +
Gian Carlo Menotti
(Rameau)
Jerry Herman
Bohuslav Martinů – 496
Hans Werner Henze
Frank Wildhorn
John Adams – 361
Astor Piazzola
Giovanni Rota – 289
Mitch Leigh
John Kander
Peter Maxwell Davies
Jule Styne
(Meyerbeer)
Paul Burkhard
Grigory Frid
Miecyslaw Weinberg
(Salieri)
Pablo Sorozábel
Wolfgang Rihm
Francis Lopez
Salvatorre Sciarrino – 201
Eberhard Streul
Carlisle Floyd
Aribert Reimann – 175
For those who aren't classical fans: can you name works by Loewe, Lloyd Webber, Sondheim, Rodgers, Bock, Herman, Wildhorn, Leigh, Kander and Styne?
8/30 here.

Did Andrew Lloyd Webber actually even write an opera? Rodgers, too? Musicals, certainly; and Webber wrote at least one "rock opera" (which as I understand it, isn't actually an opera). Sondheim didn't seem to care much for opera, preferred the musical, and characterised both in terms of audience expectation, rather than any real difference in style or form (opera happens before an opera audience; musicals happen before a musical audience).

I guess main question for these two sections at least is: are you deliberately merging opera & musical into one thing?
And finally, nine from the last twenty years:
Spoiler:
Jake Heggie – 441
Jonathan Dove – 346
Péter Eötvös – 292
(Meyerbeer)
Thomas Adès
Leonard Evers
Detlev Glanert
(Salieri)
Peter Lund – 202
Kaija Saariaho
Elisabeth Naske – 177
0/9 here.
- nobody likes modern opera. In particular, I was shocked by the low placement of Saariaho, whose L'amour de loin is constantly touted as one of the defining works of the genre - and yet she's performed less often than Salieri, a man virtually synonymous with being forgotten!
I don't even really like old opera. I did listen to some parts of L'amour. Two hours of noise. But at least they've maintained the screechy sopranos that opera is so well known for! I suppose I'd characterise "modern opera" as the worst of both worlds: "modern music" plus "horrible singing".

I will give the set designer for the version I watched credit, though. So dark and watery. Grim.

User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 544
Joined: 15 Feb 2016 06:10
Location: Northern California

Re: The Sixth Conversation Thread

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien »

John Adams is the name comes to mind first when I think of modern opera. Also Philip Glass, Adès, Saariaho.

I don't, admittedly, listen to much modern opera. I don't listen to much classical music written after the mid-20th century or so. But I'm always willing to try something new.

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1959
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: The Sixth Conversation Thread

Post by Salmoneus »

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
28 Apr 2020 17:54
John Adams is the name comes to mind first when I think of modern opera. Also Philip Glass, Adès, Saariaho.
I mentioned Saariaho, but I forgot to mention that one of the things that surprised me most was how low down that list Adams was!

He's in a bit of a weird place, I think - popular enough that there's a lot of snobbishness against him (a lot of people basically define 'good' music as 'music that is liked by as few people as possible'), but not popular enough that they're forced to perform him anyway (like the operetta writers)?
I don't, admittedly, listen to much modern opera. I don't listen to much classical music written after the mid-20th century or so. But I'm always willing to try something new.
The Met's broadcasting an opera by Nico Muhly later this week. I've never heard her, other than a little snippet she wrote for Mozart in the Jungle, but I've heard she's meant to be listenable-to? [that might be why she doesn't make the top 200 list...]

-------------

elemtilas: yes, I'm including musicals as a type of opera, because I can't think of - and have never been given - any definition of "musical" that wouldn't also include a lot of classic operas, nor any definition of "opera" that would exclude musicals. I think the pragmatic definition is something like "very popular, but written after 1920 and in English"... but then, some musicals aren't popular.

[The definition "operas are all sung, musicals have spoken bits between the songs" is attractively simple, but completely false. Mozart's The Magic Flute, for example, has spoken dialogue, while many of the most famous musicals (Hamilton, most things by Lloyd Webber, Les Miserables, Miss Saigon, Rent, etc) are sung through without dialogue.

Similarly, some people like to claim that in opera, the words are just there to serve the music, while in musicals, the music is there to serve the words; but that doesn't really make sense. It belies the enormous effort many opera composers put into finding (or if necessary writing) appropriate lyrics - and contrariwise, I know Sondheim (who's written both lyrics and music) has commented that he considers lyric-writing an unpleasant necessity, rather than the core of his work. I can't see how the words are 'primary' in something like "Wicked" in a way that they aren't in "The Mikado" (with its brilliant poetry) or Weinberg's "The Passenger" (an opera by a Jewish composer in which a death camp guard believes she sees a dead inmate alive on a cruise, and flashes back to the atrocities she committed). With opera, both the common practice of original-language performance and the older practice (still the norm with some prominent opera companies) of translation have been cited as evidence of the supposed un-importance of the lyrics; but both practices also occur with English-language musicals performed in other countries.

And again, there are claims like "musicals are made out of self-contained 'numbers', whereas the music in opera forms a coherent whole", but that's just nonsense. That's just writing off everything prior to Wagner (and a lot of things since Wagner) as 'not opera' for not obeying Wagner's preferences. There's a reason for the term "numbers opera". The Beggers' Opera is a numbers opera in the most literal sense - it was a compilation of contemporary pop songs, given new words where necessary and strung into a vaguely coherent plot!

Even Sondheim's quip about different locations doesn't really work. As this list shows, a lot of musicals are performed by opera companies - indeed, after their early runs, probably MOST musicals are performed by opera companies. And not just by minor companies. There's a bunch of musicals that have received showings by the most esteemed opera companies. Contrariwise, operas are sometimes performed on Broadway. Baz Lurhmann did a Broadway production of La Boheme, for instance. Indeed, any reasonably popular modern opera in English, or with an approved English translation, is likely to be found performed as a 'musical' eventually - Candide was shown on Broadway in 1997, The Threepenny Opera (which was originally shown on Broadway!) was revived on broadway in '06, and Porgy and Bess won a Tony for its 2012 revival]


I do think a principled distinction could be drawn between musical and opera as methods of performance - that is, as synonyms for "miked" and "unmiked". Some works can thus be said to sometimes be performed 'as a musical' (i.e. with microphones and heavy artificial amplification) and sometimes 'as an opera' (i.e. with real singing). But even that is probably not as clear-cut as it seems - some opera performances do use amplification, particularly for the purposes of recording.



So yeah, I don't think the concept of the "musical" is particularly useful. And as 'musicals' branch out from the mega-musical format, becoming more musically inventive and eclectic, and increasingly eschewing spoken dialogue, it's probably becoming less and less important over time.

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1959
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: The Sixth Conversation Thread

Post by Salmoneus »

Khemehekis wrote:
27 Apr 2020 02:33
Salmoneus wrote:
27 Apr 2020 01:30
For those who aren't classical fans: can you name works by Loewe, Lloyd Webber, Sondheim, Rodgers, Bock, Herman, Wildhorn, Leigh, Kander and Styne?
Spoiler:
Loewe: My Fair Lady, Camelot
Correct
Lloyd Webber: Cats, The Phantom of the Opera, Sunset Boulevard
Correct - although I'd never even heard of the third of those! (the musical - obviously I know the film)
Sondheim: West Side Story, Into the Woods
The latter, yes; the former, not really. Sondheim wrote the lyrics to WWS, but the music is by Bernstein.
Rodgers: South Pacific, The Sound of Music, Oklahoma!, The King and I
Indeed
Styne: Fiddler on the Roof, The Rothschilds, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes
Yes to the third; also Gypsy and Funny Girl. But no to the first two. Those are both by Bock.

Jerry Herman, meanwhile, wrote La cage aux folles, Wildhorn wrote Jekyll and Hyde, Mitch Leigh wrote Man of La Mancha, and John Kander wrote Cabaret and Chicago (and the song, 'New York, New York').

User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2690
Joined: 22 Nov 2014 04:48

Re: The Sixth Conversation Thread

Post by elemtilas »

Salmoneus wrote:
28 Apr 2020 20:04
elemtilas: yes, I'm including musicals as a type of opera, because I can't think of - and have never been given - any definition of "musical" that wouldn't also include a lot of classic operas, nor any definition of "opera" that would exclude musicals. I think the pragmatic definition is something like "very popular, but written after 1920 and in English"... but then, some musicals aren't popular.

(...)

So yeah, I don't think the concept of the "musical" is particularly useful. And as 'musicals' branch out from the mega-musical format, becoming more musically inventive and eclectic, and increasingly eschewing spoken dialogue, it's probably becoming less and less important over time.
Thanks! Makes sense to me! If I read you right, there's just not much of a difference. Nothing seems to stick out to differentiate one from the other.

Though you didn't agree with Sondheim's quip, I think there is something to it, if only a perception of a distinction where no actual distinction may exist. I've worked with colleagues who are huge "musical" fans. To the point where they'll sing bits of this and that. They don't sing opera. They might be the kind of folk who think "opera" is stodgy old fashioned classical music with screechy women singing in Italian, while musicals are fun modern theatre and are in English!

The way you describe it to me, I just don't see a substantial difference anymore. Not to the point where I could say "this group of works is clearly Opera" while over there, "that group of works is clearly Musical". The only thing I can think of might be vocal technique. But I somehow doubt that would be sufficient to distinguish between genres!

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1959
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: The Sixth Conversation Thread

Post by Salmoneus »

Well, vocal technique is almost entirely a matter of miking - if you try singing to a reasonably large theatre without a microphone, and be heard over an orchestra, you can't mumble or rasp or whatever, you have to sing clearly (i.e. operatically).

Although having said that, a lot of musicals are sung in a fairly operatic style even with miking - certainly what I've seen of Lloyd Webber megamusicals, the vocal style is much closer to a light opera than it is to most pop music.

User avatar
kiwikami
roman
roman
Posts: 1126
Joined: 26 May 2012 17:24
Location: Oh, I don't know, I'm probably around here somewhere.

Re: The Sixth Conversation Thread

Post by kiwikami »

Salmoneus wrote:
27 Apr 2020 01:30
For those who aren't classical fans: can you name works by Loewe, Lloyd Webber, Sondheim, Rodgers, Bock, Herman, Wildhorn, Leigh, Kander and Styne?
Ah, Wildhorn. So much melodrama. So many power ballads. I'm a sucker for power ballads.

Jekyll & Hyde has a personal space set aside for it in my heart. It's a wee bit of a mess, but it's one of my favorite musicals, and I can't entirely articulate why; I am critical to no end of various performances (cough David Hasselhoff cough the entire revival cough) and I have -feelings- about changes that were made when it went to Broadway, and yet... well, Strange Case is a hyperfixation of mine (I've memorized a decent chunk of the original novella), so I suppose I simply cannot find it in my soul not to enjoy the musical.

A fun useless fact: In Wildhorn's Dracula, the Musical there is a song "Nosferatu" that bears... more than a passing resemblance to "His Work and Nothing More" from J&H. Good thing it's a catchy tune - just means there are more lyrics to sing while doing dishes.
Edit: Substituted a string instrument for a French interjection.

:eng: :mrgreen: | :fra: [:)] | ASL [:S] | :deu: [:|] | :tan: [:(] | :nav: [:'(]

User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 544
Joined: 15 Feb 2016 06:10
Location: Northern California

Re: The Sixth Conversation Thread

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien »

Salmoneus wrote:
28 Apr 2020 20:04
The Met's broadcasting an opera by Nico Muhly later this week. I've never heard her, other than a little snippet she wrote for Mozart in the Jungle, but I've heard she's meant to be listenable-to? [that might be why she doesn't make the top 200 list...]
I keep forgetting about these broadcasts; I'll have to check it out. I don't think I remember that from Mozart in the Jungle, but it's been a while since I've seen it. I'm disappointed that it was canceled, but I guess I should be grateful it even lasted 4 seasons.

And I think a lot of people define "good music" as music that is maximally dissonant and/or minimalist. [xD]

I think "The Phantom of the Opera" is a very "operatic" musical and perhaps part of why it appealed to me so much as a kid (because I grew up listening to classical and it was all I listened to for a while).

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1959
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: The Sixth Conversation Thread

Post by Salmoneus »

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
01 May 2020 21:50
Salmoneus wrote:
28 Apr 2020 20:04
The Met's broadcasting an opera by Nico Muhly later this week. I've never heard her, other than a little snippet she wrote for Mozart in the Jungle, but I've heard she's meant to be listenable-to? [that might be why she doesn't make the top 200 list...]
I keep forgetting about these broadcasts; I'll have to check it out.
I started this week thinking that, for once, every night looked interesting... and I haven't watched any (watching some of the Muhly now).
I don't think I remember that from Mozart in the Jungle, but it's been a while since I've seen it.
Iirc she wrote the bits of new opera that feature in the Venice episodes
I'm disappointed that it was canceled, but I guess I should be grateful it even lasted 4 seasons.
Yes; it was an odd series, with some defects, but generally a lot of fun. That might be the oddest thing about it - the almost complete lack of drama, and everybody being sort of likeable, and it just being enjoyable to watch. It is indeed strange it was ever created - an artifact, I think, of a peculiar moment in the history of the industry (c.f. Sense8...)
And I think a lot of people define "good music" as music that is maximally dissonant and/or minimalist. [xD]
Ugh.
I don't mind dissonance now and then - Elektra isn't exactly Sammartini.
But it really does feel as though a lot of modern 'music' is actively dedicating most of its efforts to being unlikeable. No shred of melody or harmony or rhythm is permitted. I saw I quote from Saariaho, about her musical education: "You were not allowed to have pulse, or tonally oriented harmonies, or melodies. I don't want to write music through negations." [and Saariaho is hardly Mozart herself]

I saw as well a good explanation (from one of the Minimalists) of why this genre appeared: in the wake of WWII, Europe felt broken and confused and meaningless, and tried to put those feelings into music, and thus was created the avant garde: the music of holocaust.

The trouble is, music appears to have become stuck - or at least, the culture of music has become stuck. There may have been some softening - elements of minimalism, less discordancy, even brief conciliatory moments of tonality now and then - but fundamentally it feels like they're going around in circles. And the galling thing is that it's all justified by being 'modern' and 'relevant' and 'innovative' - even though it's just repeating the same things. Whereas an actually innovative tonal language that brought in elements of what has been learned in the last century would be dismissed as irrelevant and passé - even if it were popular and well-crafted.

Fundamentally, if Mozart, or Verdi, or even probably Wagner or Puccini, were to write one of their operas today, it would be panned by the critics - and that seems profoundly wrong to me.

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1959
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: The Sixth Conversation Thread

Post by Salmoneus »

My cat died last night. Or early this morning, I guess.

The fact that it suddenly happened was a bit of a shock; but I knew it was coming. We think she probably had cancer, and the symptoms were getting steadily less controllable. In the last few weeks she kind of crashed; she was in for IV fluids last week, but it only seemed to make things worse. She's actually seemed a bit better yesterday... and I think, in hindsight, that I probably had several chances to prolong her life; perhaps, if I'd called the emergency vet last night, she'd still be alive now.

But I don't really feel bad about my decisions; even if we could have saved her from the immediate emergency, she'd still have been extremely weak and poorly (she'd lost a lot of weight recently), and more likely to have another emergency in a few days than to recover. And even if she somehow managed to recover from the medium-term emergency (which would have taken either a miracle or a very expensive medical intervention - like several days on a drip and probably with a feeding tube) she'd still have had what was most likely underlyingly a terminal and progressing cancer, so she'd just have been back to the same place in the near future (another factor is that in the current pandemic, if she'd gone into the vet for several days - and she HATED going to the vet - she wouldn't have been allowed visitors, and would have been distressed).

And, underlyingly, she was about 18 - very healthy and active for her age, until near the end (the vets said she looked half her age). So we didn't think that really aggresive treatment that might have saved her - exploratory surgery, maybe chemotherapy - was really worth it, either in terms of risk and quality of life, or frankly money. On the one hand, the fact that, other than this one thing, she was fit and healthy, is galling: perhaps if we'd dealt with it better, she could have lived much longer. On the other hand: she lived a long life as it was, and better that she be fit and active until (near) the end than that she be an invalid. I think she mostly had a good life. And, I suppose, a good death - I stayed up with her when it became clear she was dying, and from how she was, and from what little I've read about it, she probably didn't suffer. Likewise, in the late stages of her illness, it was clear she had some discomfort, but I don't think she was really suffering, and even then still seemed capable of pleasure, even if only of the passive, stretch-out-in-the-warmth kind. I suppose I do worry that, in hindsight, I arguably made a whole series of mistakes. But I think I'm comfortable with the thought that my decisions at the time were reasonable, and I'm not even convinced that better decisions would have greatly altered the outcome. [I'm glad that I took the decision to have her stay in for a fluid drip last week; it didn't help, and may actually have triggered her final cash, but I think I'm more comfortable having done it and it not worked, than me having not done it, and wondering now if it might have saved her]. Conversely, the fact that she died raises the possibility that I should have had her put down earlier - but I don't think she was suffering too much, and until quite near the end I reasonably believed she might pull through, at least in the short term. So I guess I'm OK with that too.


Strangely untraumatic for me. I'd been worrying about her dying for a while - at a low level for a couple of years now, and intensively in the last week or two. And, you know, all the questions around that - what should I do, when should I call an emergency vet, when should I have her put down (this is the first pet I've had who's died 'naturally'), and so on. Once it actually started happening, though, it was rather calming - I was pretty sure there was nothing I could do at that point (even if I had called the emergency vet, in the middle of the night, at a weekend, during lockdown, chances are they'd have arrived too late to save her - and as I say above, even if they'd managed to 'save' her last night, it would probably just have been saving her to be put down in the near future anyway...), and I wanted to stay right by her so I couldn't even pace around or anything. And now? Oddly, I'm in a pretty good mood, actually (certainly compared to previous pet deaths). I obviously have some unprocessed grief and guilt - and I'm feeling pretty sad writing this post (though weirdly pleased that in this posting window, I've accidentally started four consecutive lines with the word 'pretty'... shame that probably isn't true of the published post)). I'm going to feel weird for a while, but right now, the grief is actually less prominent than the relief - not a conscious relief of the at-least-she's-not-suffering-anymore kind (because, as I say, I wasn't THAT worried about her quality of life), but just the sudden absence of a big set of worries. Don't have to worry about all that anymore, because it's already happened...

[good thing there's nothing else to worry about in the world today!]


Well, anyway, sorry for the maudlin ramble. Just needed to talk out loud, I guess.

User avatar
Aszev
admin
admin
Posts: 1385
Joined: 11 May 2010 05:46
Location: ꜱᴇ

Re: The Sixth Conversation Thread

Post by Aszev »

I'm genuinely sorry for your loss, Salmoneus. I hardly want to imagine how it feels to lose your cat after so many years together. Of course you are sad about it. I'm glad to hear that she went peacefully after a long and (I assume) comfortable life.

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2731
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: The Sixth Conversation Thread

Post by sangi39 »

Sorry to hear that, Sal. It's never easy losing a pet, especially when you've been so close to them for so many years. It sounds like she had a good life, with plenty of care and attention sent her way, and from the sound of it, it was probably about the time where any choices you made (the guilt/worry being perfectly understandable) might not have made too much of a difference in the end, but at least she went peacefully.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

Khemehekis
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2312
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: The Sixth Conversation Thread

Post by Khemehekis »

I'm also sorry to hear that, Salmoneus. This is the kind of stuff that's worth being maudlin about.

Do you feel better about it that your cat passed naturally instead of being euthanized? I know I would.
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 66,000 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!

User avatar
Aszev
admin
admin
Posts: 1385
Joined: 11 May 2010 05:46
Location: ꜱᴇ

Re: The Sixth Conversation Thread

Post by Aszev »

Khemehekis wrote:
05 May 2020 07:06
Do you feel better about it that your cat passed naturally instead of being euthanized? I know I would.
That's easy to say until your pet is terminally ill and suffering horribly.

User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2690
Joined: 22 Nov 2014 04:48

Re: The Sixth Conversation Thread

Post by elemtilas »

Aszev wrote:
06 May 2020 16:52
Khemehekis wrote:
05 May 2020 07:06
Do you feel better about it that your cat passed naturally instead of being euthanized? I know I would.
That's easy to say until your pet is terminally ill and suffering horribly.
I wouldn't presume one way or the other, but perhaps he hás been through it?

User avatar
Aszev
admin
admin
Posts: 1385
Joined: 11 May 2010 05:46
Location: ꜱᴇ

Re: The Sixth Conversation Thread

Post by Aszev »

elemtilas wrote:
07 May 2020 05:56
Aszev wrote:
06 May 2020 16:52
Khemehekis wrote:
05 May 2020 07:06
Do you feel better about it that your cat passed naturally instead of being euthanized? I know I would.
That's easy to say until your pet is terminally ill and suffering horribly.
I wouldn't presume one way or the other, but perhaps he hás been through it?
His post in reply to sangi having to put his pet down suggests that this is not the case.

User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2690
Joined: 22 Nov 2014 04:48

Re: The Sixth Conversation Thread

Post by elemtilas »

Aszev wrote:
07 May 2020 10:04
elemtilas wrote:
07 May 2020 05:56
Aszev wrote:
06 May 2020 16:52
Khemehekis wrote:
05 May 2020 07:06
Do you feel better about it that your cat passed naturally instead of being euthanized? I know I would.
That's easy to say until your pet is terminally ill and suffering horribly.
I wouldn't presume one way or the other, but perhaps he hás been through it?
His post in reply to sangi having to put his pet down suggests that this is not the case.
Possibly! Possibly not. The reading is somewhat ambiguous. I'd leave the clarification for Khemehekis!

Coo. Wasn't even aware HH had died!

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2731
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: The Sixth Conversation Thread

Post by sangi39 »

elemtilas wrote:
07 May 2020 10:16
Aszev wrote:
07 May 2020 10:04
elemtilas wrote:
07 May 2020 05:56
Aszev wrote:
06 May 2020 16:52
Khemehekis wrote:
05 May 2020 07:06
Do you feel better about it that your cat passed naturally instead of being euthanized? I know I would.
That's easy to say until your pet is terminally ill and suffering horribly.
I wouldn't presume one way or the other, but perhaps he hás been through it?
His post in reply to sangi having to put his pet down suggests that this is not the case.
Possibly! Possibly not. The reading is somewhat ambiguous. I'd leave the clarification for Khemehekis!

Coo. Wasn't even aware HH had died!
It was a less than fun time. His tank is still empty in my room, and every so often something will move out of the corner of my eye and I'll think it was him.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2690
Joined: 22 Nov 2014 04:48

Re: The Sixth Conversation Thread

Post by elemtilas »

sangi39 wrote:
07 May 2020 10:35
It was a less than fun time. His tank is still empty in my room, and every so often something will move out of the corner of my eye and I'll think it was him.
[:'(]

Post Reply