not logged in
| re: What's 'that'? | |
Posted by:  |
Smeghead 05:00 pm UTC 02/08/08 |
| In reply to: | re: What's 'that'? - EvilNickname 03:29 pm UTC 02/08/08 |
| To be serious... make a big list of all the things that the guy won't do for love: "I'll never stop dreaming of you every night of my life", "I'll never forget the way you feel right now", "I'll never do it better than I do it with you" "Sooner or later... I WON'T be screwing around!" etc. > Right now, I've almost made my mind up in favour of doing > it. > > What might not have been clear from my post, is that it's > for some monthly cultural/artsy event. From the > announcement on their website: "With a reenacted interview > of Nobuyoshi Araki with Kohei Yoshiyuki, a freezed car > accident, an old advice of Peter R. de Vries, a love > confession to a panda bear and more stray images and > sound. The editors compile the programme from received and > selected material." It sounds wacky enough to be > interesting, and the cross-media angle is something I > should be specialised in. From what I gather from the > website, I guess you might expect that medium sized words > shouldn't be a problem and that it isn't meant to be a > lecture or a straight forward explanation of what 'that' > is. They asked for a presentation on the 'myth of what > "that" is', so I would guess that some creativity would be > appreciated. > > Anyway, I've send a mail to the contact, asking about the > context and what they (approximately) look for in a > presentation. > > > As for the "can't understand why people still don't get > it": remember in this case that for us Dutchies English is > a second language at best. > > > > > > I think you should do it. Set as many people straight as > > possible. Remember to use small words to avoid > > confusion. > > > > Play the verse once. Explain what won't be done. Play > > the verse again. If those in the audience still don't > > understand, repeat the previous steps. Then move onto the > > next verse. > > > > It still is comical how, I'd venture to say, the majority > > of the public still doesn't understand the song. > > > > I've known a few people over the years that think Anything > > For Love is a stupid song, and it's always because they > > don't get it. Although it really isn't that hard. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: What's 'that'? - Vin 06:14 pm UTC 02/08/08 |
| Next: | re: What's 'that'? - Smeghead 12:20 pm UTC 02/08/08 |
| Thread: | |