Re: Erasure

[nienart@TURING.ARC.NASA.GOV (john nienart)]

> From: LODEN@LL.ARPA

> [...]  Don't know their schedule (they are coming to Boston 7/13 or
> 7/14), but if are still anything like they were before, save your
> money. I saw them in Boston a few months after their 1st album was
> released.  The fact that the music was almost totally on a computer
> didn't bother me that much. When they only played for 45 minutes &
> their encore consisted of repeating a song they had already
> performed, I was pissed. Since they now have more than 1 album out,
> maybe they put on a better show. Good luck.

>	[ Traditionally, wasn't an "encore" supposed to be a
>	  re-performance of something already done?  Does anyone know?
>	  -- |>oug ]

I saw them about a year ago in San Francisco, and they were alot
better than that. They did about an hour and a half of show, plus two
or three encores, which were different from the tunes in the set.
Everybody danced; good time. They'll be playing here next month and
I'm planning to see them.

At least during the 19th century, an "encore" was a repeat of a
performed bit that the audience especially liked, typically given
right after the original rendition. The word is French (I think) for
"again." If you were really hot, you might have to do the number three
or four times, and the show (opera, recital, whatever) couldn't go on
until the audience had had enough. This meaning hung on long enough
that the scores for some Broadway shows and Gilbert & Sullivan works,
contain extra verses, explicitly to be sung as encores, to songs which
were expected to be "showstoppers."

--John

John Nienart
NASA Ames Research Center
Internet: nienart@pluto.arc.nasa.gov