whether it's Gaga or Andrews, meh.

I thought her performance was one of the brighter, or at least endurable, parts of a rather dreary show. I happened to be watching it with family who still have some connection to that industry. (I was a Hollywood kid of sorts. Two of my siblings tried to survive as actors for a time, taking small rolls in television and film.)

Gaga's tattoos didn't bother me. There are many sorts of art I can appreciate, even when they are "not my cup of tea," and I do confess, some sorts of tattoos I find attractive.

All my siblings have various tattoos, but I do not, and I suspect my needle phobia is the only reason.

One of my grandfathers was a shipyard welder in World War II and had the usual sorts of tattoos for that sort of work, which he kept under his shirt in "respectable" company.

* "can appreciate... even when not my cup of tea"

* "some sort of tattoos I find attractive"

* "needle phobia"

* "usual sorts of tattoos"

Julie was happy then I'm happy and I bet Gaga is ecstatic.

did was pleasing then Julie then -I- know (if I were Gaga) I would be totally and completely happy and not at all upset with Sondheim's comments, after all he called her versatile and I would think that HIGH PRAISE coming from Sondheim.

Honestly, it all sounds like a left-handed compliment to me and what got the worse for wear was The Academy the way I read it.

After all, it was a Rodgers and Hammerstein collaboration, iirc.

First, I knew that!1 (that it's R&H, not SONDHEIM), but the inestimable T-A's implication is that SONDHEIM's opinion (should?) be more pertinent if regarding his own work, not that of others. But I prostrate myself in submitting that Senor SONDHEIM has sufficient credits notched on his belt at least with regard the "H" half in the R&H as a peer, plus working with the "R" kind of practitioners *and* with execution in rehearsing (what works, what doesn't work), therefore at fairly much the highest qualification in judging these matters.

If T-A's implication (above) makes a distinction of opinionating, then might I say that this further implies that opinions belong within like-categories (lyricists only judge lyrics, singers only judge singing, composers only judge material)?

Yes, SONDHEIM said she was versatile, but he also said her performance was a TRAVESTY!!!1 I take this as my self-justification for my own puny opinion.

Yes, Dame Julie was graciously pleased, which is fine. But at the most surface plane, being grateful and flattered at being honored starts with common courtesy and intensifies on up from there, the more effusive the more prominent the bestower.

*****************************This has been a beauteous product of a years' long collaboration between T-A and UT-sie.

what I am eluding to is I don't think Gaga should feel all that insulted or even damned with faint praise.

so it was a travesty ... who then, Sondheim would do Dame Julie justice?

That is MY question for Stephen.

back over to U-Tbone.

"Music is a part of us and either enables or degrades our behaviour" - Boethius (470 - 524 AD)

Isn't Ga Ga the involuntary sound one makes before you up-chuck your stomach contents?

But re: your last sentence::

A word from many hard knocks,

it reminds me of wine experts that complain about things that no one else would ever notice.

THE SOUND OF MUSIC ............ it might be utubeable .

I rarely care for Sondheim!

I'm not a fan of his work at all.

after all, he's a big guy in the business, but we surely don't have to give his opinions much weight!

etc etc etc?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category aul_McCartney_songs