Podcasts about Waiting for Godot

Associate Professor Rick de Villiers from the University of the Free State speaks to Lester Kiewit about the first-ever sanctioned Afrikaans translation of Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot. They discuss why it has taken over 70 years for this iconic play to be translated into Afrikaans and reflect on the significance of this milestone during Afrikaans’ 100th anniversary as an official language of South Africa. Good Morning Cape Town with Lester Kiewit is a podcast of the CapeTalk breakfast show. This programme is your authentic Cape Town wake-up call. Good Morning Cape Town with Lester Kiewit is informative, enlightening and accessible. The team’s ability to spot & share relevant and unusual stories make the programme inclusive and thought-provoking. Don’t miss the popular World View feature at 7:45am daily. Listen out for #LesterInYourLounge which is an outside broadcast – from the home of a listener in a different part of Cape Town - on the first Wednesday of every month. This show introduces you to interesting Capetonians as well as their favourite communities, habits, local personalities and neighbourhood news. Thank you for listening to a podcast from Good Morning Cape Town with Lester Kiewit. Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays between 06:00 and 09:00 (SA Time) to Good Morning CapeTalk with Lester Kiewit broadcast on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/xGkqLbT or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/f9Eeb7i Subscribe to the CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/sbvVZD5 Follow us on social media CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Much has been made of the hallucinatory qualities of OpenAI's ChatGPT product. But as the Wall Street Journal's resident authority on OpenAI, Keach Hagey notes, perhaps the most hallucinatory feature the $300 billion start-up co-founded by the deadly duo of Sam Altman and Elon Musk is its attempt to be simultaneously a for-profit and non-profit company. As Hagey notes, the double life of this double company reached a surreal climax this week when Altman announced that OpenAI was abandoning its promised for-profit conversion. So what, I asked Hagey, are the implications of this corporate volte-face for investors who have poured billions of real dollars into the non-profit in order to make a profit? Will they be Waiting For Godot to get their returns?As Hagey - whose excellent biography of Altman, The Optimist, is out in a couple of weeks - explains, this might be the story of the hubristic 2020's. She speaks of Altman's astonishingly (even for Silicon Valley) hubris in believing that he can get away with the alchemic conceit of inventing a multi trillion dollar for-profit non-profit company. Yes, you can be half-pregnant, Sam is promising us. But, as she warns, at some point this will be exposed as fantasy. The consequences might not exactly be another Enron or FTX, but it will have ramifications way beyond beyond Silicon Valley. What will happen, for example, if future investors aren't convinced by Altman's fantasy and OpenAI runs out of cash? Hagey suggests that the OpenAI story may ultimately become a political drama in which a MAGA President will be forced to bail out America's leading AI company. It's TikTok in reverse (imagine if Chinese investors try to acquire OpenAI). Rather than the conveniently devilish Elon Musk, my sense is that Sam Altman is auditioning to become the real Jay Gatsby of our roaring twenties. Last month, Keach Hagey told me that Altman's superpower is as a salesman. He can sell anything to anyone, she says. But selling a non-profit to for-profit venture capitalists might even be a bridge too far for Silicon Valley's most hallucinatory optimist. Five Key Takeaways * OpenAI has abandoned plans to convert from a nonprofit to a for-profit structure, with pressure coming from multiple sources including attorneys general of California and Delaware, and possibly influenced by Elon Musk's opposition.* This decision will likely make it more difficult for OpenAI to raise money, as investors typically want control over their investments. Despite this, Sam Altman claims SoftBank will still provide the second $30 billion chunk of funding that was previously contingent on the for-profit conversion.* The nonprofit structure creates inherent tensions within OpenAI's business model. As Hagey notes, "those contradictions are still there" after nearly destroying the company once before during Altman's brief firing.* OpenAI's leadership is trying to position this as a positive change, with plans to capitalize the nonprofit and launch new programs and initiatives. However, Hagey notes this is similar to what Altman did at Y Combinator, which eventually led to tensions there.* The decision is beneficial for competitors like XAI, Anthropic, and others with normal for-profit structures. Hagey suggests the most optimistic outcome would be OpenAI finding a way to IPO before "completely imploding," though how a nonprofit-controlled entity would do this remains unclear.Keach Hagey is a reporter at The Wall Street Journal's Media and Marketing Bureau in New York, where she focuses on the intersection of media and technology. Her stories often explore the relationships between tech platforms like Facebook and Google and the media. She was part of the team that broke the Facebook Files, a series that won a George Polk Award for Business Reporting, a Gerald Loeb Award for Beat Reporting and a Deadline Award for public service. Her investigation into the inner workings of Google's advertising-technology business won recognition from the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing (Sabew). Previously, she covered the television industry for the Journal, reporting on large media companies such as 21st Century Fox, Time Warner and Viacom. She led a team that won a Sabew award for coverage of the power struggle inside Viacom. She is the author of “The King of Content: Sumner Redstone's Battle for Viacom, CBS and Everlasting Control of His Media Empire,” published by HarperCollins. Before joining the Journal, Keach covered media for Politico, the National in Abu Dhabi, CBS News and the Village Voice. She has a bachelor's and a master's in English literature from Stanford University. She lives in Irvington, N.Y., with her husband, three daughters and dog.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. It is May the 6th, a Tuesday, 2025. And the tech media is dominated today by OpenAI's plan to convert its for-profit business to a non-profit side. That's how the Financial Times is reporting it. New York Times says that OpenAI, and I'm quoting them, backtracks on plans to drop nonprofit control and the Wall Street Journal, always very authoritative on the tech front, leads with Open AI abandons planned for profit conversion. The Wall Street Journal piece is written by Keach Hagey, who is perhaps America's leading authority on OpenAI. She was on the show a couple of months ago talking about Sam Altman's superpower which is as a salesman. Keach is also the author of an upcoming book. It's out in a couple weeks, "The Optimist: Sam Altman, OpenAI and the Race to Invent the Future." And I'm thrilled that Keach has been remarkably busy today, as you can imagine, found a few minutes to come onto the show. So, Keach, what is Sam selling here? You say he's a salesman. He's always selling something or other. What's the sell here?Keach Hagey: Well, the sell here is that this is not a big deal, right? The sell is that, this thing they've been trying to do for about a year, which is to make their company less weird, it's not gonna work. And as he was talking to the press yesterday, he was trying to suggest that they're still gonna be able to fundraise, that these folks that they promised that if you give us money, we're gonna convert to a for-profit and it's gonna be much more normal investment for you, but they're gonna get that money, which is you know, a pretty tough thing. So that's really, that's what he's selling is that this is not disruptive to the future of OpenAI.Andrew Keen: For people who are just listening, I'm looking at Keach's face, and I'm sensing that she's doing everything she can not to burst out laughing. Is that fair, Keach?Keach Hagey: Well, it'll remain to be seen, but I do think it will make it a lot harder for them to raise money. I mean, even Sam himself said as much during the talk yesterday that, you know, investors would like to be able to have some say over what happens to their money. And if you're controlled by a nonprofit organization, that's really tough. And what they were trying to do was convert to a new world where investors would have a seat at the table, because as we all remember, when Sam got briefly fired almost two years ago. The investors just helplessly sat on the sidelines and didn't have any say in the matter. Microsoft had absolutely no role to play other than kind of cajoling and offering him a job on the sidelines. So if you're gonna try to raise money, you really need to be able to promise some kind of control and that's become a lot harder.Andrew Keen: And the ramifications more broadly on this announcement will extend to Microsoft and Microsoft stock. I think their stock is down today. We'll come to that in a few minutes. Keach, there was an interesting piece in the week, this week on AI hallucinations are getting worse. Of course, OpenAI is the dominant AI company with their ChatGPT. But is this also kind of hallucination? What exactly is going on here? I have to admit, and I always thought, you know, I certainly know more about tech than I do about other subjects, which isn't always saying very much. But I mean, either you're a nonprofit or you're a for-profit, is there some sort of hallucinogenic process going on where Sam is trying to sell us on the idea that OpenAI is simultaneously a for profit and a nonprofit company?Keach Hagey: Well, that's kind of what it is right now. That's what it had sort of been since 2019 or when it spun up this strange structure where it had a for-profit underneath a nonprofit. And what we saw in the firing is that that doesn't hold. There's gonna come a moment when those two worlds are going to collide and it nearly destroyed the company. To be challenging going forward is that that basic destabilization that like unstable structure remains even though now everything is so much bigger there's so much more money coursing through and it's so important for the economy. It's a dangerous position.Andrew Keen: It's not so dangerous, you seem still faintly amused. I have to admit, I'm more than faintly amused, it's not too bothersome for us because we don't have any money in OpenAI. But for SoftBank and the other participants in the recent $40 billion round of investment in OpenAI, this must be, to say the least, rather disconcerting.Keach Hagey: That was one of the biggest surprises from the press conference yesterday. Sam Altman was asked point blank, is SoftBank still going to give you this sort of second chunk, this $30 billion second chunk that was contingent upon being able to convert to a for-profit, and he said, quite simply, yes. Who knows what goes on in behind the scenes? I think we're gonna find out probably a lot more about that. There are many unanswered questions, but it's not great, right? It's definitely not great for investors.Andrew Keen: Well, you have to guess at the very minimum, SoftBank would be demanding better terms. They're not just going to do the same thing. I mean, it suddenly it suddenly gives them an additional ace in their hand in terms of negotiation. I mean this is not some sort of little startup. This is 30 or 40 billion dollars. I mean it's astonishing number. And presumably the non-public conversations are very interesting. I'm sure, Keach, you would like to know what's being said.Keach Hagey: Don't know yet, but I think your analysis is pretty smart on this matter.Andrew Keen: So if you had to guess, Sam is the consummate salesman. What did he tell SoftBank before April to close the round? And what is he telling them now? I mean, how has the message changed?Keach Hagey: One of the things that we see a little bit about this from the messaging that he gave to the world yesterday, which is this is going to be a simpler structure. It is going to be slightly more normal structure. They are changing the structure a little bit. So although the non-profit is going to remain in charge, the thing underneath it, the for-profit, is going change its structure a little bit and become kind of a little more normal. It's not going to have this capped profit thing where, you know, the investors are capped at 100 times what they put in. So parts of it are gonna become more normal. For employees, it's probably gonna be easier for them to get equity and things like that. So I'm sure that that's part of what he's selling, that this new structure is gonna be a little bit better, but it's not gonna be as good as what they were trying to do.Andrew Keen: Can Sam? I mean, clearly he has sold it. I mean as we joked earlier when we talked, Sam could sell ice to the Laplanders or sand to the Saudis. But these people know Sam. It's no secret that he's a remarkable salesman. That means that sometimes you have to think carefully about what he's saying. What's the impact on him? To what extent is this decision one more chip on the Altman brand?Keach Hagey: It's a setback for sure, and it's kind of a win for Elon Musk, his rival.Andrew Keen: Right.Keach Hagey: Elon has been suing him, Elon has been trying to block this very conversion. And in the end, it seems like it was actually the attorneys general of California and Delaware that really put the nail in the coffin here. So there's still a lot to find out about exactly how it all shook out. There were actually huge campaigns as well, like in the streets, billboards, posters. Polls saying, trying to put pressure on the attorney general to block this thing. So it was a broad coalition, I think, that opposed the conversion, and you can even see that a little bit in their speech. But you got to admit that Elon probably looked at this and was happy.Andrew Keen: And I'm sure Elon used his own X platform to promote his own agenda. Is this an example, Keach, in a weird kind of way of the plebiscitary politics now of Silicon Valley is that titans like Altman and Musk are fighting out complex corporate economic battles in the naked public of social media.Keach Hagey: Yes, in the naked public of social media, but what we're also seeing here is that it's sort of, it's become through the apparatus of government. So we're seeing, you know, Elon is in the Doge office and this conversion is really happening in the state AG's houses. So that's what's sort interesting to me is these like private fights have now expanded to fill both state and federal government.Andrew Keen: Last time we talked, I couldn't find the photo, but there was a wonderful photo of, I think it was Larry Ellison and Sam Altman in the Oval Office with Trump. And Ellison looked very excited. He looked extremely old as well. And Altman looked very awkward. And it's surprising to see Altman look awkward because generally he doesn't. Has Trump played a role in this or is he keeping out of it?Keach Hagey: As far as my current reporting right now, we have no reporting that Trump himself was directly involved. I can't go further than that right now.Andrew Keen: Meaning that you know something that you're not willing to ignore.Keach Hagey: Just I hope you keep your subscription to the Wall Street Journal on what role the White House played, I would say. But as far as that awkwardness, I don't know if you noticed that there was a box that day for Masa Yoshison to see.Andrew Keen: Oh yeah, and Son was in the office too, right, that was the third person.Keach Hagey: So it was a box in the podium, which I think contributed to the awkwardness of the day, because he's not a tall man.Andrew Keen: Right. To put it politely. The way that OpenAI spun it, in classic Sam Altman terms, is new funding to build towards AGI. So it's their Altman-esque use of the public to vindicate this new investment, is this just more quote unquote, and this is my word. You don't have to agree with it. Just sales pitch or might even be dishonesty here. I mean, the reality is, is new funding to build towards AGI, which is, artificial general intelligence. It's not new funding, to build toward AGI. It's new funding to build towards OpenAI, there's no public benefit of any of this, is there?Keach Hagey: Well, what they're saying is that the nonprofit will be capitalized and will sort of be hiring up and doing a bunch more things that it wasn't really doing. We'll have programs and initiatives and all of that. Which really, as someone who studied Sam's life, this sounds really a lot like what he did at Y Combinator. When he was head of Y Combinator, he also spun up a nonprofit arm, which is actually what OpenAI grew out of. So I think in Sam's mind, a nonprofit there's a place to go. Sort of hash out your ideas, it's a place to kind of have pet projects grow. That's where he did things like his UBI study. So I can sort of see that once the AGs are like, this is not gonna happen, he's like, great, we'll just make a big nonprofit and I'll get to do all these projects I've always wanted to do.Andrew Keen: Didn't he get thrown out of Y Combinator by Paul Graham for that?Keach Hagey: Yes, a little bit. You know, I would say there's a general mutiny for too much of that kind of stuff. Yeah, it's true. People didn't love it, and they thought that he took his eye off the ball. A little bit because one of those projects became OpenAI, and he became kind of obsessed with it and stopped paying attention. So look, maybe OpenAI will spawn the next thing, right? And he'll get distracted by that and move on.Andrew Keen: No coincidence, of course, that Sam went on to become a CEO of OpenAI. What does it mean for the broader AI ecosystem? I noted earlier you brought up Microsoft. I mean, I think you've already written on this and lots of other people have written about the fact that the relationship between OpenAI and Microsoft has cooled dramatically. As well as between Nadella and Altman. What does this mean for Microsoft? Is it a big deal?Keach Hagey: They have been hashing this out for months. So it is a big deal in that it will change the structure of their most important partner. But even before this, Microsoft and OpenAI were sort of locked in negotiations over how large and how Microsoft's stake in this new OpenAI will be valued. And that still has to be determined, regardless of whether it's a non-profit or a for-profit in charge. And their interests are diverging. So those negotiations are not as warm as they maybe would have been a few years ago.Andrew Keen: It's a form of polyamory, isn't it? Like we have in Silicon Valley, everyone has sex with everybody else, to put it politely.Keach Hagey: Well, OpenAI does have a new partner in Oracle. And I would expect them to have many more in terms of cloud computing partners going forward. It's just too much risk for any one company to build these huge and expensive data centers, not knowing that OpenAI is going to exist in a certain number of years. So they have to diversify.Andrew Keen: Keach, you know, this is amusing and entertaining and Altman is a remarkable individual, able to sell anything to anyone. But at what point are we really on the Titanic here? And there is such a thing as an iceberg, a real thing, whatever Donald Trump or other manufacturers of ontologies might suggest. At some point, this thing is going to end in a massive disaster.Keach Hagey: Are you talking about the Existence Force?Andrew Keen: I'm not talking about the Titanic, I'm talking about OpenAI. I mean, Parmi Olson, who's the other great authority on OpenAI, who won the FT Book of the Year last year, she's been on the show a couple of times, she wrote in Bloomberg that OpenAI can't have its money both ways, and that's what Sam is trying to do. My point is that we can all point out, excuse me, the contradictions and the hypocrisy and all the rest of it. But there are laws of gravity when it comes to economics. And at a certain point, this thing is going to crash, isn't it? I mean, what's the metaphor? Is it Enron? Is it Sam Bankman-Fried? What kind of examples in history do we need to look at to try and figure out what really is going on here?Keach Hagey: That's certainly one possibility, and there are a good number of people who believe that.Andrew Keen: Believe what, Enron or Sam Bankman-Fried?Keach Hagey: Oh, well, the internal tensions cannot hold, right? I don't know if fraud is even necessary so much as just, we've seen it, we've already seen it happen once, right, the company almost completely collapsed one time and those contradictions are still there.Andrew Keen: And when you say it happened, is that when Sam got pushed out or was that another or something else?Keach Hagey: No, no, that's it, because Sam almost got pushed out and then all of the funders would go away. So Sam needs to be there for them to continue raising money in the way that they have been raising money. And that's really going to be the question. How long can that go on? He's a young man, could go on a very long time. But yeah, I think that really will determine whether it's a disaster or not.Andrew Keen: But how long can it go on? I mean, how long could Sam have it both ways? Well, there's a dream. I mean maybe he can close this last round. I mean he's going to need to raise more than $40 billion. This is such a competitive space. Tens of billions of dollars are being invested almost on a monthly basis. So this is not the end of the road, this $40-billion investment.Keach Hagey: Oh, no. And you know, there's talk of IPO at some point, maybe not even that far away. I don't even let me wrap my mind around what it would be for like a nonprofit to have a controlling share at a public company.Andrew Keen: More hallucinations economically, Keach.Keach Hagey: But I mean, IPO is the exit for investors, right? That's the model, that is the Silicon Valley model. So it's going to have to come to that one way or another.Andrew Keen: But how does it work internally? I mean, for the guys, the sales guys, the people who are actually doing the business at OpenAI, they've been pretty successful this year. The numbers are astonishing. But how is this gonna impact if it's a nonprofit? How does this impact the process of selling, of building product, of all the other internal mechanics of this high-priced startup?Keach Hagey: I don't think it will affect it enormously in the short term. It's really just a question of can they continue to raise money for the enormous amount of compute that they need. So so far, he's been able to do that, right? And if that slows up in any way, they're going to be in trouble. Because as Sam has said many times, AI has to be cheap to be actually useful. So in order to, you know, for it to be widespread, for to flow like water, all of those things, it's got to be cheap and that's going to require massive investment in data centers.Andrew Keen: But how, I mean, ultimately people are putting money in so that they get the money back. This is not a nonprofit endeavor to put 40 billion from SoftBank. SoftBank is not in the nonprofit business. So they're gonna need their money back and the only way they generally, in my understanding, getting money back is by going public, especially with these numbers. How can a nonprofit go public?Keach Hagey: It's a great question. That's what I'm just phrasing. I mean, this is, you know, you talk to folks, this is what's like off in the misty distance for them. It's an, it's a fascinating question and one that we're gonna try to answer this week.Andrew Keen: But you look amused. I'm no financial genius. Everyone must be asking the same question.Keach Hagey: Well, the way that they've said it is that the for-profit will be, will have a, the non-profit will control the for profit and be the largest shareholder in it, but the rest of the shares could be held by public markets theoretically. That's a great question though.Andrew Keen: And lawyers all over the world must be wrapping their hands. I mean, in the very best case, it's gonna be lawsuits on this, people suing them up the wazoo.Keach Hagey: It's absolutely true. You should see my inbox right now. It's just like layers, layers, layer.Andrew Keen: Yeah, my wife. My wife is the head of litigation. I don't know if I should be saying this publicly anyway, I am. She's the head of Litigation at Google. And she lost some of her senior people and they all went over to AI. I'm big, I'm betting that they regret going over there can't be much fun being a lawyer at OpenAI.Keach Hagey: I don't know, I think it'd be great fun. I think you'd have like enormous challenges and have lots of billable hours.Andrew Keen: Unless, of course, they're personally being sued.Keach Hagey: Hopefully not. I mean, look, it is a strange and unprecedented situation.Andrew Keen: To what extent is this, if not Shakespearean, could have been written by some Greek dramatist? To what extend is this symbolic of all the hype and salesmanship and dishonesty of Silicon Valley? And in a sense, maybe this is a final scene or a penultimate scene in the Silicon Valley story of doing good for the world. And yet, of course, reaping obscene profit.Keach Hagey: I think it's a little bit about trying to have your cake and eat it too, right? Trying to have the aura of altruism, but also make something and make a lot of money. And what it seems like today is that if you started as a nonprofit, it's like a black hole. You can never get out. There's no way to get out, and that idea was just like maybe one step too clever when they set it up in the beginning, right. It seemed like too good to be true because it was. And it might end up really limiting the growth of the company.Andrew Keen: Is Sam completely in charge here? I mean, a number of the founders have left. Musk, of course, when you and I talked a couple of months ago, OpenAI came out of conversations between Musk and Sam. Is he doing this on his own? Does he have lieutenants, people who he can rely on?Keach Hagey: Yeah, I mean, he does. He has a number of folks that have been there, you know, a long time.Andrew Keen: Who are they? I mean, do we know their names?Keach Hagey: Oh, sure. Yeah. I mean, like Brad Lightcap and Jason Kwon and, you know, just they're they're Greg Brockman, of course, still there. So there are a core group of executives that have that have been there pretty much from the beginning, close to it, that he does trust. But if you're asking, like, is Sam really in control of this whole thing? I believe the answer is yes. Right. He is on the board of this nonprofit, and that nonprofit will choose the board of the for-profit. So as long as that's the case, he's in charge.Andrew Keen: How divided is OpenAI? I mean, one of the things that came out of the big crisis, what was it, 18 months ago when they tried to push him out, was it was clearly a profoundly divided company between those who believed in the nonprofit mission versus the for-profit mission. Are those divisions still as acute within the company itself? It must be growing. I don't know how many thousands of people work.Keach Hagey: It has grown very fast. It is not as acute in my experience. There was a time when it was really sort of a warring of tribes. And after the blip, as they call it, a lot of those more safety focused people, people that subscribe to effective altruism, left or were kind of pushed out. So Sam took over and kind of cleaned house.Andrew Keen: But then aren't those people also very concerned that it appears as if Sam's having his cake and eating it, having it both ways, talking about the company being a non-profit but behaving as if it is a for-profit?Keach Hagey: Oh, yeah, they're very concerned. In fact, a number of them have signed on to this open letter to the attorneys general that dropped, I don't know, a week and a half ago, something like that. You can see a number of former OpenAI employees, whistleblowers and others, saying this very thing, you know, that the AG should block this because it was supposed to be a charitable mission from the beginning. And no amount of fancy footwork is gonna make it okay to toss that overboard.Andrew Keen: And I mean, in the best possible case, can Sam, the one thing I think you and I talked about last time is Sam clearly does, he's not driven by money. There's something else. There's some other demonic force here. Could he theoretically reinvent the company so that it becomes a kind of AI overlord, a nonprofit AI overlord for our 21st century AI age?Keach Hagey: Wow, well I think he sometimes thinks of it as like an AI layer and you know, is this my overlord? Might be, you know.Andrew Keen: As long as it's not made in China, I hope it's made in India or maybe in Detroit or something.Keach Hagey: It's a very old one, so it's OK. But it's really my attention overlord, right? Yeah, so I don't know about the AI overlord part. Although it's interesting, Sam from the very beginning has wanted there to be a democratic process to control what decision, what kind of AI gets built and what are the guardrails for AGI. As long as he's there.Andrew Keen: As long as he's the one determining it, right?Keach Hagey: We talked about it a lot in the very beginning of the company when things were smaller and not so crazy. And what really strikes me is he doesn't really talk about that much anymore. But what we did just see is some advocacy organizations that kind of function in that exact way. They have voters all over the world and they all voted on, hey, we want you guys to go and try to that ended up having this like democratic structure for deciding the future of AI and used it to kind of block what he was trying to do.Andrew Keen: What are the implications for OpenAI's competitors? There's obviously Anthropic. Microsoft, we talked about a little bit, although it's a partner and a competitor simultaneously. And then of course there's Google. I assume this is all good news for the competition. And of course XAI.Keach Hagey: It is good news, especially for a company like XAI. I was just speaking to an XAI investor today who was crowing. Yeah, because those companies don't have this weird structure. Only OpenAI has this strange nonprofit structure. So if you are an investor who wants to have some exposure to AI, it might just not be worth the headache to deal with the uncertainty around the nonprofit, even though OpenAI is like the clear leader. It might be a better bet to invest in Anthropic or XAI or something else that has just a normal for-profit structure.Andrew Keen: Yeah. And it's hard to actually quote unquote out-Trump, Elon Musk on economic subterfuge. But Altman seems to have done that. I mean, Musk, what he folded X into XAI. It was a little bit of controversy, but he seems to got away with it. So there is a deep hostility between these two men, which I'm assuming is being compounded by this process.Keach Hagey: Absolutely. Again, this is a win for Elon. All these legal cases and Elon trying to buy OpenAI. I remember that bid a few months ago where he actually put a number on it. All that was about trying to block the for-profit conversion because he's trying to stop OpenAI and its tracks. He also claims they've abandoned their mission, but it's always important to note that it's coming from a competitor.Andrew Keen: Could that be a way out of this seeming box? Keach, a company like XAI or Microsoft or Google, or that probably wouldn't happen on the antitrust front, would buy OpenAI as maybe a nonprofit and then transform it into a for-profit company?Keach Hagey: Maybe you and Sam should get together and hash that out. That's the kind ofAndrew Keen: Well Sam, I'm available to be hired if you're watching. I'll probably charge less than your current consigliere. What's his name? Who's the consiglieri who's working with him on this?Keach Hagey: You mean Chris Lehane?Andrew Keen: Yes, Chris Lehane, the ego.Keach Hagey: Um,Andrew Keen: How's Lehane holding up in this? Do you think he's getting any sleep?Keach Hagey: Well, he's like a policy guy. I'm sure this has been challenging for everybody. But look, you are pointing to something that I think is real, which is there will probably be consolidation at some point down the line in AI.Andrew Keen: I mean, I know you're not an expert on the maybe sort of corporate legal stuff, but is it in theory possible to buy a nonprofit? I don't even know how you buy a non-profit and then turn it into a for-profit. I mean is that one way out of this, this cul-de-sac?Keach Hagey: I really don't know the answer to that question, to be honest with you. I can't think of another example of it happening. So I'm gonna go with no, but I don't now.Andrew Keen: There are no equivalents, sorry to interrupt, go on.Keach Hagey: No, so I was actually asking a little bit, are there precedents for this? And someone mentioned Blue Cross Blue Shield had gone from being a nonprofit to a for-profit successfully in the past.Andrew Keen: And we seem a little amused by that. I mean, anyone who uses US health care as a model, I think, might regret it. Your book, The Optimist, is out in a couple of weeks. When did you stop writing it?Keach Hagey: The end of December, end of last year, was pencils fully down.Andrew Keen: And I'm sure you told the publisher that that was far too long a window. Seven months on Silicon Valley is like seven centuries.Keach Hagey: It was actually a very, very tight timeline. They turned it around like incredibly fast. Usually it'sAndrew Keen: Remarkable, yeah, exactly. Publishing is such, such, they're such quick actors, aren't they?Keach Hagey: In this case, they actually were, so I'm grateful for that.Andrew Keen: Well, they always say that six months or seven months is fast, but it is actually possible to publish a book in probably a week or two, if you really choose to. But in all seriousness, back to this question, I mean, and I want everyone to read the book. It's a wonderful book and an important book. The best book on OpenAI out. What would you have written differently? Is there an extra chapter on this? I know you warned about a lot of this stuff in the book. So it must make you feel in some ways quite vindicated.Keach Hagey: I mean, you're asking if I'd had a longer deadline, what would I have liked to include? Well, if you're ready.Andrew Keen: Well, if you're writing it now with this news under your belt.Keach Hagey: Absolutely. So, I mean, the thing, two things, I guess, definitely this news about the for-profit conversion failing just shows the limits of Sam's power. So that's pretty interesting, because as the book was closing, we're not really sure what those limits are. And the other one is Trump. So Trump had happened, but we do not yet understand what Trump 2.0 really meant at the time that the book was closing. And at that point, it looked like Sam was in the cold, you know, he wasn't clear how he was going to get inside Trump's inner circle. And then lo and behold, he was there on day one of the Trump administration sharing a podium with him announcing that Stargate AI infrastructure investment. So I'm sad that that didn't make it into the book because it really just shows the kind of remarkable character he is.Andrew Keen: He's their Zelig, but then we all know what happened to Woody Allen in the end. In all seriousness, and it's hard to keep a straight face here, Keach, and you're trying although you're not doing a very good job, what's going to happen? I know it's an easy question to ask and a hard one to answer, but ultimately this thing has to end in catastrophe, doesn't it? I use the analogy of the Titanic. There are real icebergs out there.Keach Hagey: Look, there could be a data breach. I do think that.Andrew Keen: Well, there could be data breaches if it was a non-profit or for-profit, I mean, in terms of this whole issue of trying to have it both ways.Keach Hagey: Look, they might run out of money, right? I mean, that's one very real possibility. They might run outta money and have to be bought by someone, as you said. That is a totally real possibility right now.Andrew Keen: What would happen if they couldn't raise any more money. I mean, what was the last round, the $40 billion round? What was the overall valuation? About $350 billion.Keach Hagey: Yeah, mm-hmm.Andrew Keen: So let's say that they begin to, because they've got, what are their hard costs monthly burn rate? I mean, it's billions of just.Keach Hagey: Well, the issue is that they're spending more than they are making.Andrew Keen: Right, but you're right. So they, let's say in 18 months, they run out of runway. What would people be buying?Keach Hagey: Right, maybe some IP, some servers. And one of the big questions that is yet unanswered in AI is will it ever economically make sense, right? Right now we are all buying the possibility of in the future that the costs will eventually come down and it will kind of be useful, but that's still a promise. And it's possible that that won't ever happen. I mean, all these companies are this way, right. They are spending far, far more than they're making.Andrew Keen: And that's the best case scenario.Keach Hagey: Worst case scenario is the killer robots murder us all.Andrew Keen: No, what I meant in the best case scenario is that people are actually still without all the blow up. I mean, people are actual paying for AI. I mean on the one hand, the OpenAI product is, would you say it's successful, more or less successful than it was when you finished the book in December of last year?Keach Hagey: Oh, yes, much more successful. Vastly more users, and the product is vastly better. I mean, even in my experience, I don't know if you play with it every day.Andrew Keen: I use Anthropic.Keach Hagey: I use both Claude and ChatGPT, and I mean, they're both great. And I find them vastly more useful today than I did even when I was closing the book. So it's great. I don't know if it's really a great business that they're only charging me $20, right? That's great for me, but I don't think it's long term tenable.Andrew Keen: Well, Keach Hagey, your new book, The Optimist, your new old book, The Optimist: Sam Altman, Open AI and the Race to Invent the Future is out in a couple of weeks. I hope you're writing a sequel. Maybe you should make it The Pessimist.Keach Hagey: I think you might be the pessimist, Andrew.Andrew Keen: Well, you're just, you are as pessimistic as me. You just have a nice smile. I mean, in all reality, what's the most optimistic thing that can come out of this?Keach Hagey: The most optimistic is that this becomes a product that is actually useful, but doesn't vastly exacerbate inequality.Andrew Keen: No, I take the point on that, but in terms of this current story of this non-profit versus profit, what's the best case scenario?Keach Hagey: I guess the best case scenario is they find their way to an IPO before completely imploding.Andrew Keen: With the assumption that a non-profit can do an IPO.Keach Hagey: That they find the right lawyers from wherever they are and make it happen.Andrew Keen: Well, AI continues its hallucinations, and they're not in the product themselves. I think they're in their companies. One of the best, if not the best authority, our guide to all these hallucinations in a corporate level is Keach Hagey, her new book, The Optimist: Sam Altman, Open AI and the Race to Invent the Future is out in a couple of weeks. Essential reading for anyone who wants to understand Sam Altman as the consummate salesman. And I think one thing we can say for sure, Keach, is this is not the end of the story. Is that fair?Keach Hagey: Very fair. Not the end of the story. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

In 2021, the world went into lockdown. Some of us chose to work from home, some started making sourdough bread, and some decided to take the 1953 absurdist classic "Waiting For Godot" and turn it into a zoom production starting two of the greatest actors that have ever lived. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Mark interviews Tony Binns, an award-winning stand-up comedian and screenwriter whose feature #ROXY was nominated for 3 Canadian screen awards, 3 Canadian Comedy Awards, and took home Best Feature at the Ampia awards as well as Best Feature for Teens at the Kidscreen awards. Tony is also the man behind the parody profile on Facebook called Definitely The Real Alex Lifeson where he pretends to be a guy pretending to be the real guitarist from Rush. Prior to the interview, Mark reads comments from recent episodes, shares a personal update, which includes a few engagements he'll be speaking at in person and virtually: IN PERSON: (Brantford, ON) Brantford Public Library (April 2, 2025 from 6 PM to 7:30 PM) – Inside the Writer's Mind: Mark Leslie Lefebvre on Ghosts and Paranormal Storytelling VIRTUAL: (Online) The BookFest (April 6, 1:30 PM Eastern). Keynote: Writer, The World Needs You: Why Your Writing Is More Important Than Ever IN PERSON: (Los Angeles, CA) Writers of the Future. Week of mentoring winning writers and Gala Dinner/Evening celebrating this year's winners on April 10, 2025 Mark then shares a word about this episode's sponsor. This episode is sponsored by Toronto Indie Author Conference, taking place April 26 & 27, 2025 in Toronto, ON. The schedule appears below Learn more about Toronto Indie Author Conference 2025 here.   In their chat, Mark and Tony talk about: How Tony is a multi-faceted nerd who used to tape episodes of SCTV so he could play them back and memorize them Being big into Monty Python and, of course, Rush Always thinking that he was going to be an actor and his love of Shakespeare, but always getting the comedic parts Being a good actor but not being so good at auditioning because he freezes when put in a pressure situation Founding a comedy sketch troop called Obscene But Not Heard which was partially inspired by his love for Kids In The Hall Evolving into doing stand-up despite being a shy person Deciding to leave stand-up comedy around the time that Covid hit The movie XROXY (a modern tale based on Cyrano de Bergerac) that Tony wrote after he pitched it to some producers he had done some other work for Having a strength for dialogue but a weakness when it comes to plot Being brought in to help punch up an episodic YouTube series that was a campy horror flick and make it funnier (TRUCKSTOP BLOODSUCKERS) Tony's most recent script entitled SAVING MR. CHRISTMAS and how it evolved into a completely different movie than the one that he originally pitched The "we love this, change everything" thing that happens with movies Tony's WAITING FOR WAITING FOR GODOT which is a show about two women waiting for a production of the play Waiting For Godot which never happens, and how that play was inspired by the way that days could blur together for people, particularly as we get older and "become that guy" Being a Rush fan since he first heard "Spirit of Radio" How Tony was inspired to create a fake Alex Lifeson account on Facebook after he's seen a fake Geddy Lee account The relation between ADHD and being "all in" on something -- like Rush, Monty Python and Rush for Tony How, during Covid Tony did a one-man reading of Monty Python and the Holy Grail Doing a Canadian overdub of Dragonball Z Adapting a pilot from a Canadian novel called The Smeltdog Man by Frank Macdonald and leveraging the "Deadpool" style of breaking the fourth wall Advice that Tony would give to the young nerdy Mark and Tony How Tony used to write sketches even though he didn't have an outlet for them The Dungeons & Dragons podcast that Tony is a part of called The +2 Rodcast And more . . .    After the interview Mark reflects on a few things that came up in the discussion.   Links of Interest: Tony's Definitely The Real Alex Lifeson Facebook Profile Tony on Twitter/X Tony Binns on IMDB #ROXY Truckstop Bloodsuckers Fugget About It Buy Mark a Coffee Patreon for Stark Reflections EP 353 - Tao Wong on The Toronto Indie Author Conference Alex Lifeson's Speech on Behalf of Rush at Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Induction Mark's YouTube channel Mark's Stark Reflections on Writing & Publishing Newsletter (Signup) An Author's Guide to Working With Bookstores and Libraries The Relaxed Author Buy eBook Direct Buy Audiobook Direct Publishing Pitfalls for Authors An Author's Guide to Working with Libraries & Bookstores Wide for the Win Mark's Canadian Werewolf Books This Time Around (Short Story) A Canadian Werewolf in New York Stowe Away (Novella) Fear and Longing in Los Angeles Fright Nights, Big City Lover's Moon Hex and the City Only Monsters in the Building The Canadian Mounted: A Trivia Guide to Planes, Trains and Automobiles Yippee Ki-Yay Motherf*cker: A Trivia Guide to Die Hard Merry Christmas! Shitter Was Full!: A Trivia Guide to National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation   The introductory, end, and bumper music for this podcast (“Laser Groove”) was composed and produced by Kevin MacLeod of www.incompetech.com and is Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0  

Prescott Valley Performing Arts is proud to present Samuel Beckett's legendary play, "Waiting for Godot." As a hallmark of the Theater of the Absurd, this production promises to engage audiences with its thought-provoking themes of existentialism, the passage of time, and the search for meaning. Don't miss your chance to witness this unforgettable theatrical masterpiece! About 'Waiting for Godot' This seminal play follows two vagrant characters, Vladimir and Estragon, as they wait endlessly for the enigmatic Godot—who never arrives. Through sharp dialogue, dark humor, and deep philosophical undertones, Beckett's work challenges audiences to reflect on the nature of human existence... For the written story, read here >> https://www.signalsaz.com/articles/experience-the-timeless-brilliance-of-waiting-for-godot-at-prescott-valley-performing-arts/Check out the CAST11.com Website at: https://CAST11.com Follow the CAST11 Podcast Network on Facebook at: https://Facebook.com/CAST11AZFollow Cast11 Instagram at: https://www.instagram.com/cast11_podcast_network

Beckett originally wrote the play in French, despite being fluent in English, as he believed the language allowed for greater simplicity and precision. It has since became one of the most studied and performed plays of the 20th ...

Episode 089: Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett Host: Douglas Schatz Guest: Matthew McFrederick Welcome to The Play Podcast where we explore the greatest new and classic plays. Each episode we choose a single play to talk about in depth with our expert guest. We'll discuss the play's origins, its themes, characters, structure and impact. For us the play is the thing. Samuel Beckett's tragicomedy, Waiting for Godot, is a notoriously confounding work of theatre. The play is renowned for its lack of conventional plot or exposition, and for its existential predicament. Given its desolate philosophical landscape it is also surprisingly funny. Its theatrical imagery and intellectual provocation remain as potent as when it was first performed in Paris in 1953. As we record this episode an illustrious production is on stage at the Theatre Royal Haymarket in London starring Ben Whishaw and Lucian Msamati. I am delighted to be joined by Dr Matt McFrederick from the University of Reading to help survey this famously challenging landmark of modern drama.

The Franklin Fire erupted on Monday night, and thousands of residents are under mandatory evacuation orders. The flames jumped PCH near Malibu Canyon Rd., threatening Malibu Pier. The murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson has unleashed a nationwide fury against health insurance companies, with horror stories shared online of how companies have denied life-saving treatment or bankrupted families. Rainn Wilson says a central theme in “Waiting for Godot” is the danger of inaction. He explains the linguistic and physical challenges of his role, and the healing power of theater.  To the chagrin of parents with young children, the holiday season is another opportunity to accumulate more toys. They’re cheaper and easier to get, and American families are “drowning” in them. 

Listen to the Show Right Click to Save GuestsCity Theatre RecklessSalvage Vanguard Marie Antoinette Walks Down an Elegant Hallway Knowing Everyone Hates HerHyde Park Theatre Waiting For Godot  What We Talked About    

Waiting for Godot @ Geffen Playhouse - 8.2 out of 10! Good Show! LA Theatre Bites Recommended! www.latheatrebites.com

Big chores getting done on the farm and just "mildly" interrupted when Blind Hog had "an episode" that is still undiagnosed...  Was it an especially brutal round of A-Fib that he usually walks around with, or an inner ear thing???  Hopefully he will find out, however the whole thing kinda knocked the wind out of his sails.Good news is that the south side of the roof is finally getting attention from Acorn- only 12 more rows of screws to replace.  One of two goat barns has been raked and scooped clean.  As soon as the wind switches from the North, Acorn can use a leaf blower and push the remaining goat pebbles out.Election Day looms, goats tend not to care too much about it..

We're pretty sure we've never seen anything close to the number of Oktoberfests taking place at breweries and bars around Australia as we're witnessing in 2024. So, as they started to ramp up, we sat down with Nathan Munt, co-founder and head brewer at King River Brewing, and a man who loves celebrating classic German and Belgian beer styles all year round. He launched the brewery with his wife Brianna in the heart of the idyllic King Valley in the Victorian High Country back in 2016, with a lineup featuring an Altbier, Kolsch, and a style that had first made him fall in love with beer: a Belgian tripel called Waiting For Godot, for reasons explained in this episode of The Crafty Pint Podcast. As well as sharing the story of how he went from a lover of food and wine to filling a garage with brewing equipment before swapping the world of banking for brewing trophy-winning beers, he discusses life running a small regional brewery, the joys of touring the High Country, sticking to his guns and brewing the styles he loves even as most of the industry was ignoring them, and his desire to see Kolsch properly understood and enjoyed in Australia. (Even if the pale ale he finally gave in and brewed five years after launching King River is now their best-seller...) Links relevant to or referenced in the show: Felons Brewing To Open Waterfront Venue In Manly: https://craftypint.com/news/3587/brisbane-based-felons-to-open-another-waterfront-venue-in-manly Jervis Bay Brewing Co Become A B Corp Business: https://craftypint.com/news/3588/better-every-day-jervis-bay-become-a-b-corp Behind Bars with Tristan Jallais of Natural Wine & Liquor: https://craftypint.com/news/3579/behind-bars-natural-science-wine-and-liquor King River Brewing on The Crafty Pint: https://craftypint.com/brewery/352/king-river-brewing Brew & A: Nathan Munt: https://craftypint.com/news/2942/brew-and-a-nathan-munt Muntoberfest 2024: https://events.humanitix.com/muntoberfest-2024/ticketsTo find out more about supporting the show or otherwise partnering with The Crafty Pint, contact craig@craftypint.com.

One of the great plays of the 20th century has come to Saint John. The Atlantic Repertory Company is putting on Waiting for Godot, with Canadian stars R.H. Thomson and Eric Peterson in the lead roles. We spoke with them and artistic director Stephen Tobias about the production.

Dan & Manny go deep into the August Nostalgic News to see if it passes the ultimate test--THE NOSTALGIA TEST!  August was insanely busy! The boys talk about the upcoming Broadway debut of Keanu Reeves & Alex Winter in Waiting For Godot, Gina Gershon's stories from the set of Cocktail, should we care about Quentin Tarantino's Toy Story opinions, who's sniffing bathing suits on the set of Baywatch, the Nostalgia Test reboot exception, why is the DeLorean coming back, how did Carl Weathers never have a star of the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and so much more! It's a jam packed episodes!    APPROXIMATE RUN OF SHOW: 00:00 Introduction to Nostalgia Test News 01:20 Keanu Reeves and Alex Winter on Broadway 05:05 Tom Cruise's First Wife on the Set of Cocktail 08:27 Quentin Tarantino's Take on Toy Story 4 14:41 The DeLorean's Comeback 19:46 Jeremy Jackson's Confession 24:53 Anaconda Reboot with Jack Black and Paul Rudd 27:47 Rebooting Bad Movies 30:37 Nostalgia Music News: Aerosmith Retires 33:46 Sublime's New Song Featuring Bradley Nowell 35:29 Limp Bizkit's Resurgence 37:32 Oasis Reunion Announcement 41:49 Tributes to Childhood Icons 45:32 Carl Weathers Honored Posthumously 50:19 August News Wrap-Up   Email us (thenostalgiatest@gmail.com) topics you want to hear us do on our next episode of The Nostalgia Test News & we'll send you a FREE Digital Art Print of a quote from this episode!    LINKS & ADDITIONAL NOTES Keanu Reeves Alex Winter Keanu Reeves and Alex Winter Set ‘Bill & Ted' Reunion on Broadway With ‘Waiting for Godot' Waiting For Godot (Play 1953) Samuel Beckett Tom Cruise's first wife was 'very present' on Cocktail set, says Gina Gershon Mimi Rogers Quentin Tarantino Refuses to Watch ‘Toy Story 4' Toy Story (Franchise) Lightyear (Movie 2022) Vin Diesel Pitch Black (Franchise) The DeLorean ruined its creator's life. Now it's coming back (to the future) Cyber Truck Baywatch (Franchise) Baywatch star Jeremy Jackson admits he ‘sniffed' female co-stars' ‘dirty bathing suits' after sneaking into trailers Nicole Eggert Anaconda (Movie 1997) ‘Anaconda' Re-Imagining in the Works with Jack Black and Paul Rudd in Early Talks to Star Jack Black Paul Rudd Jennifer Lopez Ice Cube Jon Voight Owen Wilson Danny Trejo Glitter (Movie 2001) “Baby Got Back” (Song 1991) Aerosmith retires from touring, citing permanent damage to Steven Tyler's voice last year Aerosmith Brandon Flowers The Killers Sublime X Stick Figure – "Feel Like That (feat. Bradley Nowell)" Limp Bizkit Fred Durst There's going to be an Oasis reunion in 2025 Sid Eudy Phil Donahue Richard Bey Late Actor Carl Weathers Remembered by Co-Stars From Stallone to Sandler Before His Hollywood Walk of Fame Star Ceremony James Earl Jones   Contact/Book The Nostalgia Test Podcast! If you had a great time listening to The Nostalgia Test Podcast and want to book us on your next podcast or have perform at your themed party, or have us host a special event, fill out the form below and LET'S GET NOSTALGIC! We can do so many fun Nostalgic Events! Podcast Guest Appearances Themed Parties Hosting Screenings Corporate Events Reunions Weddings Birthday Parties Trivia The Nostalgia Test Podcast will create a personalized Nostalgic experience for any occasion! Email us at thenostalgiatest@gmail.com or fill out the Google Form below to get the process started. We're open to in-person and virtual events. Pricing may vary depending on the details of your event/party.   LET'S GET NOSTALGIC!       Keep up with all things The Nostalgia Test Podcast on Instagram | Twitter | TikTok | YouTube | Facebook   The intro and outro music ('Neon Attack 80s') is by Emanmusic. The Lithology Brewing ad music ("Red, White, Black, & Blue") is by PEG and the Rejected    

Henry Fan: "It seems the Australian government would rather give back the money than approve the BIIP applications."View the full article here.Subscribe to the IMI Daily newsletter here.

The past few days have brought news about major new shows from director Jamie Lloyd on either side of the Atlantic.Keanu Reeves and Alex Winter will star in a new production of WAITING FOR GODOT on Broadway in 2025, while Sigourney Weaver, Tom Hiddleston and Hayley Atwell will appear in Shakespeare plays THE TEMPEST and MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING at Theatre Royal, Drury Lane in the West End.With the director's theatrical exposure at an all time high due to his recent productions of SUNSET BOULEVARD and ROMEO & JULIET, Mickey-Jo is looking back over Jamie Lloyd's career and sharing his thoughts on Lloyd's much talked about style and theatrical approach...•00:00 | introduction01:57 | history / background08:41 | Jamie Lloyd's ethos11:49 | West End news19:38 | Broadway news•About Mickey-Jo:As one of the leading voices in theatre criticism on a social platform, Mickey-Jo is pioneering a new medium for a dwindling field. His YouTube channel: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠MickeyJoTheatre⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ is the largest worldwide in terms of dedicated theatre criticism, where he also share features, news and interviews as well as lifestyle content for over 70,000 subscribers. Since establishing himself as a theatre critic he has been able to work internationally. With a viewership that is largely split between the US and the UK he has been fortunate enough to be able to work with PR, Marketing, and Social Media representatives for shows in New York, London, Edinburgh, Hamburg, Toronto, Sao Pãolo, and Paris. He has also twice received accreditation from the world renowned Edinburgh Festival Fringe. His reviews and features have also been published by WhatsOnStage, for whom he was a panelist to help curate nominees for their 2023 and 2024 Awards as well as BroadwayWorldUK, Musicals Magazine and LondonTheatre.co.uk. He has been invited to speak to private tour groups, at the BEAM 2023 new musical theatre conference at Oxford Playhouse, and on a panel of critics at an event for young people considering a career in the arts courtesy of Go Live Theatre Projects. Instagram/TikTok/X: @MickeyJoTheatre

// Ben in a vest // Worlds greatest lover // Download stories mostly removed // Cringey serenade // Nan rings //

an informal lecture/musing on the author Samuel Beckett, focusing a bit on his works KRAPP'S LAST TAPE and WAITING FOR GODOT, through a modernist lens. with excerpt from Steven Connor's book BECKETT, MODERNISM AND THE MATERIAL IMAGINATION published by Cambridge University Press. (2014) --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/caridad-svich/support

Life's never boring as an Ulster fan. Big news this week as Richie Murphy is now permanently at the wheel after successfully getting his feet under the table during his temporary time in charge. Now, the question is whether he'll be able to turn this ship around in choppy waters. Richie's at the helm but a number of his crew have jumped or been pushed overboard - nine of them in fact. It will certainly lighten the load financially, but  where does that leave the squad? There's also the small matter of the match at the weekend and a massive clash with our provincial rivals coming up on Saturday as we continue the race to secure a play-off place. To discuss all things Ulster Rugby I'm joined by Nathan and Jack.

Amanda Lenker Doyle, CSA is a self proclaimed treasure hunter. Obsessed with all things shimmery and bright, she has dedicated her life to the hunt for gems, jewels…and actors. After nearly two decades in film and television casting, Amanda has earned numerous accolades for her work. In 2018, she took home an Artios trophy for her work in Los Angeles theater production of “WAITING FOR GODOT” and in 2022, her short film "PLEASE HOLD" received an Academy Award nomination, showcasing her expertise in identifying and nurturing talent. Also notable among her credits is the critically acclaimed film "R#J," which made waves at Sundance and SXSW in 2021 as well as the hit film "WE BROKE UP," currently streaming on Hulu. She has contributed her casting expertise to many popular TV series such as "BLACK-ISH" and "THE MUPPETS" for ABC, "ZAC & MIA" for Netflix, and "WAYNE," now available on Amazon Prime. Beyond her role as a Casting Director, Amanda has also made a significant impact as a Producer. With a passion for bringing stories to life, she excels in overseeing all aspects of a production, from concept development through post. Her strong leadership skills and ability to assemble exceptional creative teams have resulted in the successful realization of numerous projects. As a Producer, Amanda understands the importance of creating an environment where talent can thrive. A connector-of-artists in all aspects of her creative life, Amanda believes that every actor should have an opportunity to shine — and she can't wait to see what beautiful gems she digs up.

Welcome in ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, to RFK Refugees Podcast.Ted and Jon talk about the NWSL Final (4:10), talk about the new NWLS media deal (12:30), Emma Hayes to USWNT (23:51), DCU Alum news (27:51), and DCU in disarray (32:03).Join us Live Monday at 8:30PM and Subscribe so you can get this and every episode wherever you get your podcasts!Thank you for listening! If you like what you hear and you want to help support our show and get exclusive content, head on over to our Patreon or subscribe to our Twitch page with your free Amazon sub (or your American Fiat Currency!)Follow us on Twitter, Threads, Facebook, Instagram, BlueSky, Youtube and Golz.tv.Vamos!RFKRefugees.com

Welcome in ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, to RFK Refugees Podcast.Ted and Jon talk about the NWSL Final (4:10), talk about the new NWLS media deal (12:30), Emma Hayes to USWNT (23:51), DCU Alum news (27:51), and DCU in disarray (32:03).Join us Live Monday at 8:30PM and Subscribe so you can get this and every episode wherever you get your podcasts!Thank you for listening! If you like what you hear and you want to help support our show and get exclusive content, head on over to our Patreon or subscribe to our Twitch page with your free Amazon sub (or your American Fiat Currency!)Follow us on Twitter, Threads, Facebook, Instagram, BlueSky, Youtube and Golz.tv.Vamos!RFKRefugees.com

On Wednesday's show: We discuss the latest developments in politics in our weekly roundup, this week with the help of Beth Simas and Jeronimo Cortina of the University of Houston. Also this hour: Fifty years ago today, tennis star Billie Jean King struck a blow for women's equality in sports, defeating her male counterpart, Bobby Riggs, in the so-called “Battle of the Sexes” at the Astrodome. Houston tennis great Zina Garrison reflects on the significance of the match, which will be commemorated at an event tonight at The MATCH. And The Catastrophic Theatre is restaging its 2013 production of Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot with the same cast from back then, including our own producer, Troy Schulze.

On Today's Show "That's still my trick too, never tell them how they're feeling. Never begin to even show how they're feeling. They'll get it anyway. You're describing negative space and the negative space you can't even get at.” - Jon Klassen Where there is empty space, our brains will fill in the blanks, and often, the way in which we personally fill those blank spaces is far more potent than anything that can be written in words or shown in an image. That's why despite being gifted in both illustrating and writing, Jon Klassen always intentionally restrains himself from specificity. Jon is a Caldecott Medal winner author and illustrator known for his distinctive minimalistic art style and quirky but profound writing. His work includes his Hat Trilogy, starting with "I Want My Hat Back", along with newer works such as "The Rock from the Sky," “The Skull: A Tyrolean Folktale” and many collaborations with his longtime friend and author Mac Barnett. In this episode, Jon tells us the story of how he learned to embrace the unspoken through a “gunshot moment” in his youth. He'll talk about how he intentionally incorporates negative space into his work and why that is so impactful for young readers in particular, and we'll hear about the SNL classics that inspired his coy sense of comedy. ***Connect with Jordan and The Reading Culture @thereadingculturepod and subscribe to our newsletter at thereadingculturepod.com/newsletter. ***In his reading challenge, "A Tale to Remember," Jon invites readers to follow a process that for him emerged unintentionally in the creation of his latest book, "The Skull: A Tyrolean Folktale." You can find his list and all past reading challenges at thereadingculturepod.com.This episode's Beanstack Featured Librarian is Ellen Clark, the Children's Outreach Librarian for Kokomo Howard County Public Library in Indiana. Ellen shares an experience she recently had that highlights the emotional impact librarians have not just on a community writ large, but on each individual reader.ContentsChapter 1 - Seventies University Guy Reads (2:25)Chapter 2 - Sketch Book Art Kids (not Jon) (7:51)Chapter 3 - Waiting For Godot (13:10)Chapter 4 - The Existential Gun Shot (19:40)Chapter 5 - No Sad Bears (21:47)Chapter 6 - Part 2 (28:34)Chapter 7 - A Girl and Her Skull (30:37)Chapter 8 - A Tale to Remember (34:51)Chapter 9 - Beanstack Featured Librarian (36:12)Show Links The Reading Culture Jon Klassen The Reading Culture on Instagram (for giveaways and extra content) Beanstack resources to build your community's reading culture Elm Trees of Manitoba P.D. Eastman Mac Barnett Jon's Ghost Story The Hat Trilogy Waiting for Godot For Whom the Bell Tolls Jack Handy - Fuzzy Memories George and Martha by James Marshall Book Review: ‘The Skull: A Tyrolean Folktale,' by Jon Klassen - The New York Times The Far Side Comics Bill Watterson Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy The Children's Book Podcast KHCPL.org Host: Jordan Lloyd BookeyProducer: Jackie Lamport and Lower Street MediaScript Editors: Josia Lamberto-Egan, Jackie Lamport, Jordan Lloyd Bookey

This podcast is a commentary and does not contain any copyrighted material of the reference source. We strongly recommend accessing/buying the reference source at the same time. ■Reference Source https://www.ted.com/talks/iseult_gillespie_why_should_you_read_waiting_for_godot ■Post on this topic (You can get FREE learning materials!) https://englist.me/94-academic-words-reference-from-iseult-gillespie-why-should-you-read-waiting-for-godot-ted-talk/ ■Youtube Video https://youtu.be/DtcHVw9HcZc (All Words) https://youtu.be/pVB5YIFSv2A (Advanced Words) https://youtu.be/OOiWD8DTREE (Quick Look) ■Top Page for Further Materials https://englist.me/ ■SNS (Please follow!)

Kait and Julia switch things up on this episode of Playdate! They discuss the style of Theater of the Absurd, provide a background on what to expect from absurdist plays, and their opinions on absurdist plays from the perspective of a playwright and a director.  Enjoy!

Episode 164 of A History of Rock Music in Five Hundred Songs looks at "White Light/White Heat" and the career of the Velvet Underground. This is a long one, lasting three hours and twenty minutes. Click the full post to read liner notes, links to more information, and a transcript of the episode. Patreon backers also have a twenty-three minute bonus episode available, on "Why Don't You Smile Now?" by the Downliners Sect. Tilt Araiza has assisted invaluably by doing a first-pass edit, and will hopefully be doing so from now on. Check out Tilt's irregular podcasts at http://www.podnose.com/jaffa-cakes-for-proust and http://sitcomclub.com/ Errata I say the Velvet Underground didn't play New York for the rest of the sixties after 1966. They played at least one gig there in 1967, but did generally avoid the city. Also, I refer to Cale and Conrad as the other surviving members of the Theater of Eternal Music. Sadly Conrad died in 2016. Resources No Mixcloud this week, as there are too many songs by the Velvet Underground, and some of the avant-garde pieces excerpted run to six hours or more. I used a lot of resources for this one. Up-Tight: The Velvet Underground Story by Victor Bockris and Gerard Malanga is the best book on the group as a group. I also used Joe Harvard's 33 1/3 book on The Velvet Underground and Nico. Bockris also wrote one of the two biographies of Reed I referred to, Transformer. The other was Lou Reed by Anthony DeCurtis. Information on Cale mostly came from Sedition and Alchemy by Tim Mitchell. Information on Nico came from Nico: The Life and Lies of an Icon by Richard Witts. I used Draw a Straight Line and Follow it by Jeremy Grimshaw as my main source for La Monte Young, The Roaring Silence by David Revill for John Cage, and Warhol: A Life as Art by Blake Gopnik for Warhol. I also referred to the Criterion Collection Blu-Ray of the 2021 documentary The Velvet Underground.  The definitive collection of the Velvet Underground's music is the sadly out-of-print box set Peel Slowly and See, which contains the four albums the group made with Reed in full, plus demos, outtakes, and live recordings. Note that the digital version of the album as sold by Amazon for some reason doesn't include the last disc -- if you want the full box set you have to buy a physical copy. All four studio albums have also been released and rereleased many times over in different configurations with different numbers of CDs at different price points -- I have used the "45th Anniversary Super-Deluxe" versions for this episode, but for most people the standard CD versions will be fine. Sadly there are no good shorter compilation overviews of the group -- they tend to emphasise either the group's "pop" mode or its "avant-garde" mode to the exclusion of the other. Patreon This podcast is brought to you by the generosity of my backers on Patreon. Why not join them? Transcript Before I begin this episode, there are a few things to say. This introductory section is going to be longer than normal because, as you will hear, this episode is also going to be longer than normal. Firstly, I try to warn people about potentially upsetting material in these episodes. But this is the first episode for 1968, and as you will see there is a *profound* increase in the amount of upsetting and disturbing material covered as we go through 1968 and 1969. The story is going to be in a much darker place for the next twenty or thirty episodes. And this episode is no exception. As always, I try to deal with everything as sensitively as possible, but you should be aware that the list of warnings for this one is so long I am very likely to have missed some. Among the topics touched on in this episode are mental illness, drug addiction, gun violence, racism, societal and medical homophobia, medical mistreatment of mental illness, domestic abuse, rape, and more. If you find discussion of any of those subjects upsetting, you might want to read the transcript. Also, I use the term "queer" freely in this episode. In the past I have received some pushback for this, because of a belief among some that "queer" is a slur. The following explanation will seem redundant to many of my listeners, but as with many of the things I discuss in the podcast I am dealing with multiple different audiences with different levels of awareness and understanding of issues, so I'd like to beg those people's indulgence a moment. The term "queer" has certainly been used as a slur in the past, but so have terms like "lesbian", "gay", "homosexual" and others. In all those cases, the term has gone from a term used as a self-identifier, to a slur, to a reclaimed slur, and back again many times. The reason for using that word, specifically, here is because the vast majority of people in this story have sexualities or genders that don't match the societal norms of their times, but used labels for themselves that have shifted in meaning over the years. There are at least two men in the story, for example, who are now dead and referred to themselves as "homosexual", but were in multiple long-term sexually-active relationships with women. Would those men now refer to themselves as "bisexual" or "pansexual" -- terms not in widespread use at the time -- or would they, in the relatively more tolerant society we live in now, only have been in same-gender relationships? We can't know. But in our current context using the word "homosexual" for those men would lead to incorrect assumptions about their behaviour. The labels people use change over time, and the definitions of them blur and shift. I have discussed this issue with many, many, friends who fall under the queer umbrella, and while not all of them are comfortable with "queer" as a personal label because of how it's been used against them in the past, there is near-unanimity from them that it's the correct word to use in this situation. Anyway, now that that rather lengthy set of disclaimers is over, let's get into the story proper, as we look at "White Light, White Heat" by the Velvet Underground: [Excerpt: The Velvet Underground, "White Light, White Heat"] And that look will start with... a disclaimer about length. This episode is going to be a long one. Not as long as episode one hundred and fifty, but almost certainly the longest episode I'll do this year, by some way. And there's a reason for that. One of the questions I've been asked repeatedly over the years about the podcast is why almost all the acts I've covered have been extremely commercially successful ones. "Where are the underground bands? The alternative bands? The little niche acts?" The answer to that is simple. Until the mid-sixties, the idea of an underground or alternative band made no sense at all in rock, pop, rock and roll, R&B, or soul. The idea would have been completely counterintuitive to the vast majority of the people we've discussed in the podcast. Those musics were commercial musics, made by people who wanted to make money and to  get the largest audiences possible. That doesn't mean that they had no artistic merit, or that there was no artistic intent behind them, but the artists making that music were *commercial* artists. They knew if they wanted to make another record, they had to sell enough copies of the last record for the record company to make another, and that if they wanted to keep eating, they had to draw enough of an audience to their gigs for promoters to keep booking them. There was no space in this worldview for what we might think of as cult success. If your record only sold a thousand copies, then you had failed in your goal, even if the thousand people who bought your record really loved it. Even less commercially successful artists we've covered to this point, like the Mothers of Invention or Love, were *trying* for commercial success, even if they made the decision not to compromise as much as others do. This started to change a tiny bit in the mid-sixties as the influence of jazz and folk in the US, and the British blues scene, started to be felt in rock music. But this influence, at first, was a one-way thing -- people who had been in the folk and jazz worlds deciding to modify their music to be more commercial. And that was followed by already massively commercial musicians, like the Beatles, taking on some of those influences and bringing their audience with them. But that started to change around the time that "rock" started to differentiate itself from "rock and roll" and "pop", in mid 1967. So in this episode and the next, we're going to look at two bands who in different ways provided a model for how to be an alternative band. Both of them still *wanted* commercial success, but neither achieved it, at least not at first and not in the conventional way. And both, when they started out, went by the name The Warlocks. But we have to take a rather circuitous route to get to this week's band, because we're now properly introducing a strand of music that has been there in the background for a while -- avant-garde art music. So before we go any further, let's have a listen to a thirty-second clip of the most famous piece of avant-garde music ever, and I'll be performing it myself: [Excerpt, Andrew Hickey "4'33 (Cage)"] Obviously that won't give the full effect, you have to listen to the whole piece to get that. That is of course a section of "4'33" by John Cage, a piece of music that is often incorrectly described as being four minutes and thirty three seconds of silence. As I've mentioned before, though, in the episode on "Papa's Got a Brand New Bag", it isn't that at all. The whole point of the piece is that there is no such thing as silence, and it's intended to make the listener appreciate all the normal ambient sounds as music, every bit as much as any piece by Bach or Beethoven. John Cage, the composer of "4'33", is possibly the single most influential avant-garde artist of the mid twentieth century, so as we're properly introducing the ideas of avant-garde music into the story here, we need to talk about him a little. Cage was, from an early age, torn between three great vocations, all of which in some fashion would shape his work for decades to come. One of these was architecture, and for a time he intended to become an architect. Another was the religious ministry, and he very seriously considered becoming a minister as a young man, and religion -- though not the religious faith of his youth -- was to be a massive factor in his work as he grew older. He started studying music from an early age, though he never had any facility as a performer -- though he did, when he discovered the work of Grieg, think that might change. He later said “For a while I played nothing else. I even imagined devoting my life to the performance of his works alone, for they did not seem to me to be too difficult, and I loved them.” [Excerpt: Grieg piano concerto in A minor] But he soon realised that he didn't have some of the basic skills that would be required to be a performer -- he never actually thought of himself as very musical -- and so he decided to move into composition, and he later talked about putting his musical limits to good use in being more inventive. From his very first pieces, Cage was trying to expand the definition of what a performance of a piece of music actually was. One of his friends, Harry Hay, who took part in the first documented performance of a piece by Cage, described how Cage's father, an inventor, had "devised a fluorescent light source over which Sample" -- Don Sample, Cage's boyfriend at the time -- "laid a piece of vellum painted with designs in oils. The blankets I was wearing were white, and a sort of lampshade shone coloured patterns onto me. It looked very good. The thing got so hot the designs began to run, but that only made it better.” Apparently the audience for this light show -- one that predated the light shows used by rock bands by a good thirty years -- were not impressed, though that may be more because the Santa Monica Women's Club in the early 1930s was not the vanguard of the avant-garde. Or maybe it was. Certainly the housewives of Santa Monica seemed more willing than one might expect to sign up for another of Cage's ideas. In 1933 he went door to door asking women if they would be interested in signing up to a lecture course from him on modern art and music. He told them that if they signed up for $2.50, he would give them ten lectures, and somewhere between twenty and forty of them signed up, even though, as he said later, “I explained to the housewives that I didn't know anything about either subject but that I was enthusiastic about both of them. I promised to learn faithfully enough about each subject so as to be able to give a talk an hour long each week.” And he did just that, going to the library every day and spending all week preparing an hour-long talk for them. History does not relate whether he ended these lectures by telling the housewives to tell just one friend about them. He said later “I came out of these lectures, with a devotion to the painting of Mondrian, on the one hand, and the music of Schoenberg on the other.” [Excerpt: Schoenberg, "Ode to Napoleon Buonaparte"] Schoenberg was one of the two most widely-respected composers in the world at that point, the other being Stravinsky, but the two had very different attitudes to composition. Schoenberg's great innovation was the creation and popularisation of the twelve-tone technique, and I should probably explain that a little before I go any further. Most Western music is based on an eight-note scale -- do, re, mi, fa, so, la, ti, do -- with the eighth note being an octave up from the first. So in the key of C major that would be C, D, E, F, G, A, B, C: [demonstrates] And when you hear notes from that scale, if your ears are accustomed to basically any Western music written before about 1920, or any Western popular music written since then, you expect the melody to lead back to C, and you know to expect that because it only uses those notes -- there are differing intervals between them, some having a tone between them and some having a semitone, and you recognise the pattern. But of course there are other notes between the notes of that scale. There are actually an infinite number of these, but in conventional Western music we only look at a few more -- C# (or D flat), D# (or E flat), F# (or G flat), G# (or A flat) and A# (or B flat). If you add in all those notes you get this: [demonstrates] There's no clear beginning or end, no do for it to come back to. And Schoenberg's great innovation, which he was only starting to promote widely around this time, was to insist that all twelve notes should be equal -- his melodies would use all twelve of the notes the exact same number of times, and so if he used say a B flat, he would have to use all eleven other notes before he used B flat again in the piece. This was a radical new idea, but Schoenberg had only started advancing it after first winning great acclaim for earlier pieces, like his "Three Pieces for Piano", a work which wasn't properly twelve-tone, but did try to do without the idea of having any one note be more important than any other: [Excerpt: Schoenberg, "Three Pieces for Piano"] At this point, that work had only been performed in the US by one performer, Richard Buhlig, and hadn't been released as a recording yet. Cage was so eager to hear it that he'd found Buhlig's phone number and called him, asking him to play the piece, but Buhlig put the phone down on him. Now he was doing these lectures, though, he had to do one on Schoenberg, and he wasn't a competent enough pianist to play Schoenberg's pieces himself, and there were still no recordings of them. Cage hitch-hiked from Santa Monica to LA, where Buhlig lived, to try to get him to come and visit his class and play some of Schoenberg's pieces for them. Buhlig wasn't in, and Cage hung around in his garden hoping for him to come back -- he pulled the leaves off a bough from one of Buhlig's trees, going "He'll come back, he won't come back, he'll come back..." and the leaves said he'd be back. Buhlig arrived back at midnight, and quite understandably told the strange twenty-one-year-old who'd spent twelve hours in his garden pulling the leaves off his trees that no, he would not come to Santa Monica and give a free performance. But he did agree that if Cage brought some of his own compositions he'd give them a look over. Buhlig started giving Cage some proper lessons in composition, although he stressed that he was a performer, not a composer. Around this time Cage wrote his Sonata for Clarinet: [Excerpt: John Cage, "Sonata For Clarinet"] Buhlig suggested that Cage send that to Henry Cowell, the composer we heard about in the episode on "Good Vibrations" who was friends with Lev Termen and who created music by playing the strings inside a piano: [Excerpt: Henry Cowell, "Aeolian Harp and Sinister Resonance"] Cowell offered to take Cage on as an assistant, in return for which Cowell would teach him for a semester, as would Adolph Weiss, a pupil of Schoenberg's. But the goal, which Cowell suggested, was always to have Cage study with Schoenberg himself. Schoenberg at first refused, saying that Cage couldn't afford his price, but eventually took Cage on as a student having been assured that he would devote his entire life to music -- a promise Cage kept. Cage started writing pieces for percussion, something that had been very rare up to that point -- only a handful of composers, most notably Edgard Varese, had written pieces for percussion alone, but Cage was: [Excerpt: John Cage, "Trio"] This is often portrayed as a break from the ideals of his teacher Schoenberg, but in fact there's a clear continuity there, once you see what Cage was taking from Schoenberg. Schoenberg's work is, in some senses, about equality, about all notes being equal. Or to put it another way, it's about fairness. About erasing arbitrary distinctions. What Cage was doing was erasing the arbitrary distinction between the more and less prominent instruments. Why should there be pieces for solo violin or string quartet, but not for multiple percussion players? That said, Schoenberg was not exactly the most encouraging of teachers. When Cage invited Schoenberg to go to a concert of Cage's percussion work, Schoenberg told him he was busy that night. When Cage offered to arrange another concert for a date Schoenberg wasn't busy, the reply came "No, I will not be free at any time". Despite this, Cage later said “Schoenberg was a magnificent teacher, who always gave the impression that he was putting us in touch with musical principles,” and said "I literally worshipped him" -- a strong statement from someone who took religious matters as seriously as Cage. Cage was so devoted to Schoenberg's music that when a concert of music by Stravinsky was promoted as "music of the world's greatest living composer", Cage stormed into the promoter's office angrily, confronting the promoter and making it very clear that such things should not be said in the city where Schoenberg lived. Schoenberg clearly didn't think much of Cage's attempts at composition, thinking -- correctly -- that Cage had no ear for harmony. And his reportedly aggressive and confrontational teaching style didn't sit well with Cage -- though it seems very similar to a lot of the teaching techniques of the Zen masters he would later go on to respect. The two eventually parted ways, although Cage always spoke highly of Schoenberg. Schoenberg later gave Cage a compliment of sorts, when asked if any of his students had gone on to do anything interesting. At first he replied that none had, but then he mentioned Cage and said “Of course he's not a composer, but an inventor—of genius.” Cage was at this point very worried if there was any point to being a composer at all. He said later “I'd read Cowell's New Musical Resources and . . . The Theory of Rhythm. I had also read Chavez's Towards a New Music. Both works gave me the feeling that everything that was possible in music had already happened. So I thought I could never compose socially important music. Only if I could invent something new, then would I be useful to society. But that seemed unlikely then.” [Excerpt: John Cage, "Totem Ancestor"] Part of the solution came when he was asked to compose music for an abstract animation by the filmmaker Oskar Fischinger, and also to work as Fischinger's assistant when making the film. He was fascinated by the stop-motion process, and by the results of the film, which he described as "a beautiful film in which these squares, triangles and circles and other things moved and changed colour.” But more than that he was overwhelmed by a comment by Fischinger, who told him “Everything in the world has its own spirit, and this spirit becomes audible by setting it into vibration.” Cage later said “That set me on fire. He started me on a path of exploration of the world around me which has never stopped—of hitting and stretching and scraping and rubbing everything.” Cage now took his ideas further. His compositions for percussion had been about, if you like, giving the underdog a chance -- percussion was always in the background, why should it not be in the spotlight? Now he realised that there were other things getting excluded in conventional music -- the sounds that we characterise as noise. Why should composers work to exclude those sounds, but work to *include* other sounds? Surely that was... well, a little unfair? Eventually this would lead to pieces like his 1952 piece "Water Music", later expanded and retitled "Water Walk", which can be heard here in his 1959 appearance on the TV show "I've Got a Secret".  It's a piece for, amongst other things, a flowerpot full of flowers, a bathtub, a watering can, a pipe, a duck call, a blender full of ice cubes, and five unplugged radios: [Excerpt: John Cage "Water Walk"] As he was now avoiding pitch and harmony as organising principles for his music, he turned to time. But note -- not to rhythm. He said “There's none of this boom, boom, boom, business in my music . . . a measure is taken as a strict measure of time—not a one two three four—which I fill with various sounds.” He came up with a system he referred to as “micro-macrocosmic rhythmic structure,” what we would now call fractals, though that word hadn't yet been invented, where the structure of the whole piece was reflected in the smallest part of it. For a time he started moving away from the term music, preferring to refer to the "art of noise" or to "organised sound" -- though he later received a telegram from Edgard Varese, one of his musical heroes and one of the few other people writing works purely for percussion, asking him not to use that phrase, which Varese used for his own work. After meeting with Varese and his wife, he later became convinced that it was Varese's wife who had initiated the telegram, as she explained to Cage's wife "we didn't want your husband's work confused with my husband's work, any more than you'd want some . . . any artist's work confused with that of a cartoonist.” While there is a humour to Cage's work, I don't really hear much qualitative difference between a Cage piece like the one we just heard and a Varese piece like Ionisation: [Excerpt: Edgard Varese, "Ionisation"] But it was in 1952, the year of "Water Music" that John Cage made his two biggest impacts on the cultural world, though the full force of those impacts wasn't felt for some years. To understand Cage's 1952 work, you first have to understand that he had become heavily influenced by Zen, which at that time was very little known in the Western world. Indeed he had studied with Daisetsu Suzuki, who is credited with introducing Zen to the West, and said later “I didn't study music with just anybody; I studied with Schoenberg, I didn't study Zen with just anybody; I studied with Suzuki. I've always gone, insofar as I could, to the president of the company.” Cage's whole worldview was profoundly affected by Zen, but he was also naturally sympathetic to it, and his work after learning about Zen is mostly a continuation of trends we can already see. In particular, he became convinced that the point of music isn't to communicate anything between two people, rather its point is merely to be experienced. I'm far from an expert on Buddhism, but one way of thinking about its central lessons is that one should experience things as they are, experiencing the thing itself rather than one's thoughts or preconceptions about it. And so at Black Mountain college came Theatre Piece Number 1: [Excerpt: Edith Piaf, "La Vie En Rose" ] In this piece, Cage had set the audience on all sides, so they'd be facing each other. He stood on a stepladder, as colleagues danced in and around the audience, another colleague played the piano, two more took turns to stand on another stepladder to recite poetry, different films and slides were projected, seemingly at random, onto the walls, and the painter Robert Rauschenberg played scratchy Edith Piaf records on a wind-up gramophone. The audience were included in the performance, and it was meant to be experienced as a gestalt, as a whole, to be what we would now call an immersive experience. One of Cage's students around this time was the artist Allan Kaprow, and he would be inspired by Theatre Piece Number 1 to put on several similar events in the late fifties. Those events he called "happenings", because the point of them was that you were meant to experience an event as it was happening rather than bring preconceptions of form and structure to them. Those happenings were the inspiration for events like The 14 Hour Technicolor Dream, and the term "happening" became such an integral part of the counterculture that by 1967 there were comedy films being released about them, including one just called The Happening with a title track by the Supremes that made number one: [Excerpt: The Supremes, "The Happening"] Theatre Piece Number 1 was retrospectively considered the first happening, and as such its influence is incalculable. But one part I didn't mention about Theatre Piece Number 1 is that as well as Rauschenberg playing Edith Piaf's records, he also displayed some of his paintings. These paintings were totally white -- at a glance, they looked like blank canvases, but as one inspected them more clearly, it became apparent that Rauschenberg had painted them with white paint, with visible brushstrokes. These paintings, along with a visit to an anechoic chamber in which Cage discovered that even in total silence one can still hear one's own blood and nervous system, so will never experience total silence, were the final key to something Cage had been working towards -- if music had minimised percussion, and excluded noise, how much more had it excluded silence? As Cage said in 1958 “Curiously enough, the twelve-tone system has no zero in it.” And so came 4'33, the piece that we heard an excerpt of near the start of this episode. That piece was the something new he'd been looking for that could be useful to society. It took the sounds the audience could already hear, and without changing them even slightly gave them a new context and made the audience hear them as they were. Simply by saying "this is music", it caused the ambient noise to be perceived as music. This idea, of recontextualising existing material, was one that had already been done in the art world -- Marcel Duchamp, in 1917, had exhibited a urinal as a sculpture titled "Fountain" -- but even Duchamp had talked about his work as "everyday objects raised to the dignity of a work of art by the artist's act of choice". The artist was *raising* the object to art. What Cage was saying was "the object is already art". This was all massively influential to a young painter who had seen Cage give lectures many times, and while at art school had with friends prepared a piano in the same way Cage did for his own experimental compositions, dampening the strings with different objects. [Excerpt: Dana Gillespie, "Andy Warhol (live)"] Duchamp and Rauschenberg were both big influences on Andy Warhol, but he would say in the early sixties "John Cage is really so responsible for so much that's going on," and would for the rest of his life cite Cage as one of the two or three prime influences of his career. Warhol is a difficult figure to discuss, because his work is very intellectual but he was not very articulate -- which is one reason I've led up to him by discussing Cage in such detail, because Cage was always eager to talk at great length about the theoretical basis of his work, while Warhol would say very few words about anything at all. Probably the person who knew him best was his business partner and collaborator Paul Morrissey, and Morrissey's descriptions of Warhol have shaped my own view of his life, but it's very worth noting that Morrissey is an extremely right-wing moralist who wishes to see a Catholic theocracy imposed to do away with the scourges of sexual immorality, drug use, hedonism, and liberalism, so his view of Warhol, a queer drug using progressive whose worldview seems to have been totally opposed to Morrissey's in every way, might be a little distorted. Warhol came from an impoverished background, and so, as many people who grew up poor do, he was, throughout his life, very eager to make money. He studied art at university, and got decent but not exceptional grades -- he was a competent draughtsman, but not a great one, and most importantly as far as success in the art world goes he didn't have what is known as his own "line" -- with most successful artists, you can look at a handful of lines they've drawn and see something of their own personality in it. You couldn't with Warhol. His drawings looked like mediocre imitations of other people's work. Perfectly competent, but nothing that stood out. So Warhol came up with a technique to make his drawings stand out -- blotting. He would do a normal drawing, then go over it with a lot of wet ink. He'd lower a piece of paper on to the wet drawing, and the new paper would soak up the ink, and that second piece of paper would become the finished work. The lines would be fractured and smeared, broken in places where the ink didn't get picked up, and thick in others where it had pooled. With this mechanical process, Warhol had managed to create an individual style, and he became an extremely successful commercial artist. In the early 1950s photography was still seen as a somewhat low-class way of advertising things. If you wanted to sell to a rich audience, you needed to use drawings or paintings. By 1955 Warhol was making about twelve thousand dollars a year -- somewhere close to a hundred and thirty thousand a year in today's money -- drawing shoes for advertisements. He also had a sideline in doing record covers for people like Count Basie: [Excerpt: Count Basie, "Seventh Avenue Express"] For most of the 1950s he also tried to put on shows of his more serious artistic work -- often with homoerotic themes -- but to little success. The dominant art style of the time was the abstract expressionism of people like Jackson Pollock, whose art was visceral, emotional, and macho. The term "action paintings" which was coined for the work of people like Pollock, sums it up. This was manly art for manly men having manly emotions and expressing them loudly. It was very male and very straight, and even the gay artists who were prominent at the time tended to be very conformist and look down on anything they considered flamboyant or effeminate. Warhol was a rather effeminate, very reserved man, who strongly disliked showing his emotions, and whose tastes ran firmly to the camp. Camp as an aesthetic of finding joy in the flamboyant or trashy, as opposed to merely a descriptive term for men who behaved in a way considered effeminate, was only just starting to be codified at this time -- it wouldn't really become a fully-formed recognisable thing until Susan Sontag's essay "Notes on Camp" in 1964 -- but of course just because something hasn't been recognised doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and Warhol's aesthetic was always very camp, and in the 1950s in the US that was frowned upon even in gay culture, where the mainstream opinion was that the best way to acceptance was through assimilation. Abstract expressionism was all about expressing the self, and that was something Warhol never wanted to do -- in fact he made some pronouncements at times which suggested he didn't think of himself as *having* a self in the conventional sense. The combination of not wanting to express himself and of wanting to work more efficiently as a commercial artist led to some interesting results. For example, he was commissioned in 1957 to do a cover for an album by Moondog, the blind street musician whose name Alan Freed had once stolen: [Excerpt: Moondog, "Gloving It"] For that cover, Warhol got his mother, Julia Warhola, to just write out the liner notes for the album in her rather ornamental cursive script, and that became the front cover, leading to an award for graphic design going that year to "Andy Warhol's mother". (Incidentally, my copy of the current CD issue of that album, complete with Julia Warhola's cover, is put out by Pickwick Records...) But towards the end of the fifties, the work for commercial artists started to dry up. If you wanted to advertise shoes, now, you just took a photo of the shoes rather than get Andy Warhol to draw a picture of them. The money started to disappear, and Warhol started to panic. If there was no room for him in graphic design any more, he had to make his living in the fine arts, which he'd been totally unsuccessful in. But luckily for Warhol, there was a new movement that was starting to form -- Pop Art. Pop Art started in England, and had originally been intended, at least in part, as a critique of American consumerist capitalism. Pieces like "Just what is it that makes today's homes so different, so appealing?" by Richard Hamilton (who went on to design the Beatles' White Album cover) are collages of found images, almost all from American sources, recontextualised and juxtaposed in interesting ways, so a bodybuilder poses in a room that's taken from an advert in Ladies' Home Journal, while on the wall, instead of a painting, hangs a blown-up cover of a Jack Kirby romance comic. Pop Art changed slightly when it got taken up in America, and there it became something rather different, something closer to Duchamp, taking those found images and displaying them as art with no juxtaposition. Where Richard Hamilton created collage art which *showed* a comic cover by Jack Kirby as a painting in the background, Roy Lichtenstein would take a panel of comic art by Kirby, or Russ Heath or Irv Novick or a dozen other comic artists, and redraw it at the size of a normal painting. So Warhol took Cage's idea that the object is already art, and brought that into painting, starting by doing paintings of Campbell's soup cans, in which he tried as far as possible to make the cans look exactly like actual soup cans. The paintings were controversial, inciting fury in some and laughter in others and causing almost everyone to question whether they were art. Warhol would embrace an aesthetic in which things considered unimportant or trash or pop culture detritus were the greatest art of all. For example pretty much every profile of him written in the mid sixties talks about him obsessively playing "Sally Go Round the Roses", a girl-group single by the one-hit wonders the Jaynettes: [Excerpt: The Jaynettes, "Sally Go Round the Roses"] After his paintings of Campbell's soup cans, and some rather controversial but less commercially successful paintings of photographs of horrors and catastrophes taken from newspapers, Warhol abandoned painting in the conventional sense altogether, instead creating brightly coloured screen prints -- a form of stencilling -- based on photographs of celebrities like Elvis Presley, Elizabeth Taylor and, most famously, Marilyn Monroe. That way he could produce images which could be mass-produced, without his active involvement, and which supposedly had none of his personality in them, though of course his personality pervades the work anyway. He put on exhibitions of wooden boxes, silk-screen printed to look exactly like shipping cartons of Brillo pads. Images we see everywhere -- in newspapers, in supermarkets -- were art. And Warhol even briefly formed a band. The Druds were a garage band formed to play at a show at the Washington Gallery of Modern Art, the opening night of an exhibition that featured a silkscreen by Warhol of 210 identical bottles of Coca-Cola, as well as paintings by Rauschenberg and others. That opening night featured a happening by Claes Oldenburg, and a performance by Cage -- Cage gave a live lecture while three recordings of his own voice also played. The Druds were also meant to perform, but they fell apart after only a few rehearsals. Some recordings apparently exist, but they don't seem to circulate, but they'd be fascinating to hear as almost the entire band were non-musician artists like Warhol, Jasper Johns, and the sculptor Walter de Maria. Warhol said of the group “It didn't go too well, but if we had just stayed on it it would have been great.” On the other hand, the one actual musician in the group said “It was kind of ridiculous, so I quit after the second rehearsal". That musician was La Monte Young: [Excerpt: La Monte Young, "The Well-Tuned Piano"] That's an excerpt from what is generally considered Young's masterwork, "The Well-Tuned Piano". It's six and a half hours long. If Warhol is a difficult figure to write about, Young is almost impossible. He's a musician with a career stretching sixty years, who is arguably the most influential musician from the classical tradition in that time period. He's generally considered the father of minimalism, and he's also been called by Brian Eno "the daddy of us all" -- without Young you simply *do not* get art rock at all. Without Young there is no Velvet Underground, no David Bowie, no Eno, no New York punk scene, no Yoko Ono. Anywhere that the fine arts or conceptual art have intersected with popular music in the last fifty or more years has been influenced in one way or another by Young's work. BUT... he only rarely publishes his scores. He very, very rarely allows recordings of his work to be released -- there are four recordings on his bandcamp, plus a handful of recordings of his older, published, pieces, and very little else. He doesn't allow his music to be performed live without his supervision. There *are* bootleg recordings of his music, but even those are not easily obtainable -- Young is vigorous in enforcing his copyrights and issues takedown notices against anywhere that hosts them. So other than that handful of legitimately available recordings -- plus a recording by Young's Theater of Eternal Music, the legality of which is still disputed, and an off-air recording of a 1971 radio programme I've managed to track down, the only way to experience Young's music unless you're willing to travel to one of his rare live performances or installations is second-hand, by reading about it. Except that the one book that deals solely with Young and his music is not only a dense and difficult book to read, it's also one that Young vehemently disagreed with and considered extremely inaccurate, to the point he refused to allow permissions to quote his work in the book. Young did apparently prepare a list of corrections for the book, but he wouldn't tell the author what they were without payment. So please assume that anything I say about Young is wrong, but also accept that the short section of this episode about Young has required more work to *try* to get it right than pretty much anything else this year. Young's musical career actually started out in a relatively straightforward manner. He didn't grow up in the most loving of homes -- he's talked about his father beating him as a child because he had been told that young La Monte was clever -- but his father did buy him a saxophone and teach him the rudiments of the instrument, and as a child he was most influenced by the music of the big band saxophone player Jimmy Dorsey: [Excerpt: Jimmy Dorsey, “It's the Dreamer in Me”] The family, who were Mormon farmers, relocated several times in Young's childhood, from Idaho first to California and then to Utah, but everywhere they went La Monte seemed to find musical inspiration, whether from an uncle who had been part of the Kansas City jazz scene, a classmate who was a musical prodigy who had played with Perez Prado in his early teens, or a teacher who took the class to see a performance of Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra: [Excerpt: Bartok, "Concerto for Orchestra"] After leaving high school, Young went to Los Angeles City College to study music under Leonard Stein, who had been Schoenberg's assistant when Schoenberg had taught at UCLA, and there he became part of the thriving jazz scene based around Central Avenue, studying and performing with musicians like Ornette Coleman, Don Cherry, and Eric Dolphy -- Young once beat Dolphy in an audition for a place in the City College dance band, and the two would apparently substitute for each other on their regular gigs when one couldn't make it. During this time, Young's musical tastes became much more adventurous. He was a particular fan of the work of John Coltrane, and also got inspired by City of Glass, an album by Stan Kenton that attempted to combine jazz and modern classical music: [Excerpt: Stan Kenton's Innovations Orchestra, "City of Glass: The Structures"] His other major musical discovery in the mid-fifties was one we've talked about on several previous occasions -- the album Music of India, Morning and Evening Ragas by Ali Akhbar Khan: [Excerpt: Ali Akhbar Khan, "Rag Sindhi Bhairavi"] Young's music at this point was becoming increasingly modal, and equally influenced by the blues and Indian music. But he was also becoming interested in serialism. Serialism is an extension and generalisation of twelve-tone music, inspired by mathematical set theory. In serialism, you choose a set of musical elements -- in twelve-tone music that's the twelve notes in the twelve-tone scale, but it can also be a set of tonal relations, a chord, or any other set of elements. You then define all the possible ways you can permute those elements, a defined set of operations you can perform on them -- so you could play a scale forwards, play it backwards, play all the notes in the scale simultaneously, and so on. You then go through all the possible permutations, exactly once, and that's your piece of music. Young was particularly influenced by the works of Anton Webern, one of the earliest serialists: [Excerpt: Anton Webern, "Cantata number 1 for Soprano, Mixed Chorus, and Orchestra"] That piece we just heard, Webern's "Cantata number 1", was the subject of some of the earliest theoretical discussion of serialism, and in particular led to some discussion of the next step on from serialism. If serialism was all about going through every single permutation of a set, what if you *didn't* permute every element? There was a lot of discussion in the late fifties in music-theoretical circles about the idea of invariance. Normally in music, the interesting thing is what gets changed. To use a very simple example, you might change a melody from a major key to a minor one to make it sound sadder. What theorists at this point were starting to discuss is what happens if you leave something the same, but change the surrounding context, so the thing you *don't* vary sounds different because of the changed context. And going further, what if you don't change the context at all, and merely *imply* a changed context? These ideas were some of those which inspired Young's first major work, his Trio For Strings from 1958, a complex, palindromic, serial piece which is now credited as the first work of minimalism, because the notes in it change so infrequently: [Excerpt: La Monte Young, "Trio for Strings"] Though I should point out that Young never considers his works truly finished, and constantly rewrites them, and what we just heard is an excerpt from the only recording of the trio ever officially released, which is of the 2015 version. So I can't state for certain how close what we just heard is to the piece he wrote in 1958, except that it sounds very like the written descriptions of it I've read. After writing the Trio For Strings, Young moved to Germany to study with the modernist composer Karlheinz Stockhausen. While studying with Stockhausen, he became interested in the work of John Cage, and started up a correspondence with Cage. On his return to New York he studied with Cage and started writing pieces inspired by Cage, of which the most musical is probably Composition 1960 #7: [Excerpt: La Monte Young, "Composition 1960 #7"] The score for that piece is a stave on which is drawn a treble clef, the notes B and F#, and the words "To be held for a long Time". Other of his compositions from 1960 -- which are among the few of his compositions which have been published -- include composition 1960 #10 ("To Bob Morris"), the score for which is just the instruction "Draw a straight line and follow it.", and Piano Piece for David  Tudor #1, the score for which reads "Bring a bale of hay and a bucket of water onto the stage for the piano to eat and drink. The performer may then feed the piano or leave it to eat by itself. If the former, the piece is over after the piano has been fed. If the latter, it is over after the piano eats or decides not to". Most of these compositions were performed as part of a loose New York art collective called Fluxus, all of whom were influenced by Cage and the Dadaists. This collective, led by George Maciunas, sometimes involved Cage himself, but also involved people like Henry Flynt, the inventor of conceptual art, who later became a campaigner against art itself, and who also much to Young's bemusement abandoned abstract music in the mid-sixties to form a garage band with Walter de Maria (who had played drums with the Druds): [Excerpt: Henry Flynt and the Insurrections, "I Don't Wanna"] Much of Young's work was performed at Fluxus concerts given in a New York loft belonging to another member of the collective, Yoko Ono, who co-curated the concerts with Young. One of Ono's mid-sixties pieces, her "Four Pieces for Orchestra" is dedicated to Young, and consists of such instructions as "Count all the stars of that night by heart. The piece ends when all the orchestra members finish counting the stars, or when it dawns. This can be done with windows instead of stars." But while these conceptual ideas remained a huge part of Young's thinking, he soon became interested in two other ideas. The first was the idea of just intonation -- tuning instruments and voices to perfect harmonics, rather than using the subtly-off tuning that is used in Western music. I'm sure I've explained that before in a previous episode, but to put it simply when you're tuning an instrument with fixed pitches like a piano, you have a choice -- you can either tune it so that the notes in one key are perfectly in tune with each other, but then when you change key things go very out of tune, or you can choose to make *everything* a tiny bit, almost unnoticeably, out of tune, but equally so. For the last several hundred years, musicians as a community have chosen the latter course, which was among other things promoted by Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier, a collection of compositions which shows how the different keys work together: [Excerpt: Bach (Glenn Gould), "The Well-Tempered Clavier, Book II: Fugue in F-sharp minor, BWV 883"] Young, by contrast, has his own esoteric tuning system, which he uses in his own work The Well-Tuned Piano: [Excerpt: La Monte Young, "The Well-Tuned Piano"] The other idea that Young took on was from Indian music, the idea of the drone. One of the four recordings of Young's music that is available from his Bandcamp, a 1982 recording titled The Tamburas of Pandit Pran Nath, consists of one hour, thirteen minutes, and fifty-eight seconds of this: [Excerpt: La Monte Young, "The Tamburas of Pandit Pran Nath"] Yes, I have listened to the whole piece. No, nothing else happens. The minimalist composer Terry Riley describes the recording as "a singularly rare contribution that far outshines any other attempts to capture this instrument in recorded media". In 1962, Young started writing pieces based on what he called the "dream chord", a chord consisting of a root, fourth, sharpened fourth, and fifth: [dream chord] That chord had already appeared in his Trio for Strings, but now it would become the focus of much of his work, in pieces like his 1962 piece The Second Dream of the High-Tension Line Stepdown Transformer, heard here in a 1982 revision: [Excerpt: La Monte Young, "The Second Dream of the High-Tension Line Stepdown Transformer"] That was part of a series of works titled The Four Dreams of China, and Young began to plan an installation work titled Dream House, which would eventually be created, and which currently exists in Tribeca, New York, where it's been in continuous "performance" for thirty years -- and which consists of thirty-two different pure sine wave tones all played continuously, plus purple lighting by Young's wife Marian Zazeela. But as an initial step towards creating this, Young formed a collective called Theatre of Eternal Music, which some of the members -- though never Young himself -- always claim also went by the alternative name The Dream Syndicate. According to John Cale, a member of the group, that name came about because the group tuned their instruments to the 60hz hum of the fridge in Young's apartment, which Cale called "the key of Western civilisation". According to Cale, that meant the fundamental of the chords they played was 10hz, the frequency of alpha waves when dreaming -- hence the name. The group initially consisted of Young, Zazeela, the photographer Billy Name, and percussionist Angus MacLise, but by this recording in 1964 the lineup was Young, Zazeela, MacLise, Tony Conrad and John Cale: [Excerpt: "Cale, Conrad, Maclise, Young, Zazeela - The Dream Syndicate 2 IV 64-4"] That recording, like any others that have leaked by the 1960s version of the Theatre of Eternal Music or Dream Syndicate, is of disputed legality, because Young and Zazeela claim to this day that what the group performed were La Monte Young's compositions, while the other two surviving members, Cale and Conrad, claim that their performances were improvisational collaborations and should be equally credited to all the members, and so there have been lawsuits and countersuits any time anyone has released the recordings. John Cale, the youngest member of the group, was also the only one who wasn't American. He'd been born in Wales in 1942, and had had the kind of childhood that, in retrospect, seems guaranteed to lead to eccentricity. He was the product of a mixed-language marriage -- his father, William, was an English speaker while his mother, Margaret, spoke Welsh, but the couple had moved in on their marriage with Margaret's mother, who insisted that only Welsh could be spoken in her house. William didn't speak Welsh, and while he eventually picked up the basics from spending all his life surrounded by Welsh-speakers, he refused on principle to capitulate to his mother-in-law, and so remained silent in the house. John, meanwhile, grew up a monolingual Welsh speaker, and didn't start to learn English until he went to school when he was seven, and so couldn't speak to his father until then even though they lived together. Young John was extremely unwell for most of his childhood, both physically -- he had bronchial problems for which he had to take a cough mixture that was largely opium to help him sleep at night -- and mentally. He was hospitalised when he was sixteen with what was at first thought to be meningitis, but turned out to be a psychosomatic condition, the result of what he has described as a nervous breakdown. That breakdown is probably connected to the fact that during his teenage years he was sexually assaulted by two adults in positions of authority -- a vicar and a music teacher -- and felt unable to talk to anyone about this. He was, though, a child prodigy and was playing viola with the National Youth Orchestra of Wales from the age of thirteen, and listening to music by Schoenberg, Webern, and Stravinsky. He was so talented a multi-instrumentalist that at school he was the only person other than one of the music teachers and the headmaster who was allowed to use the piano -- which led to a prank on his very last day at school. The headmaster would, on the last day, hit a low G on the piano to cue the assembly to stand up, and Cale had placed a comb on the string, muting it and stopping the note from sounding -- in much the same way that his near-namesake John Cage was "preparing" pianos for his own compositions in the USA. Cale went on to Goldsmith's College to study music and composition, under Humphrey Searle, one of Britain's greatest proponents of serialism who had himself studied under Webern. Cale's main instrument was the viola, but he insisted on also playing pieces written for the violin, because they required more technical skill. For his final exam he chose to play Hindemith's notoriously difficult Viola Sonata: [Excerpt: Hindemith Viola Sonata] While at Goldsmith's, Cale became friendly with Cornelius Cardew, a composer and cellist who had studied with Stockhausen and at the time was a great admirer of and advocate for the works of Cage and Young (though by the mid-seventies Cardew rejected their work as counter-revolutionary bourgeois imperialism). Through Cardew, Cale started to correspond with Cage, and with George Maciunas and other members of Fluxus. In July 1963, just after he'd finished his studies at Goldsmith's, Cale presented a festival there consisting of an afternoon and an evening show. These shows included the first British performances of several works including Cardew's Autumn '60 for Orchestra -- a piece in which the musicians were given blank staves on which to write whatever part they wanted to play, but a separate set of instructions in *how* to play the parts they'd written. Another piece Cale presented in its British premiere at that show was Cage's "Concerto for Piano and Orchestra": [Excerpt: John Cage, "Concerto for Piano and Orchestra"] In the evening show, they performed Two Pieces For String Quartet by George Brecht (in which the musicians polish their instruments with dusters, making scraping sounds as they clean them),  and two new pieces by Cale, one of which involved a plant being put on the stage, and then the performer, Robin Page, screaming from the balcony at the plant that it would die, then running down, through the audience, and onto the stage, screaming abuse and threats at the plant. The final piece in the show was a performance by Cale (the first one in Britain) of La Monte Young's "X For Henry Flynt". For this piece, Cale put his hands together and then smashed both his arms onto the keyboard as hard as he could, over and over. After five minutes some of the audience stormed the stage and tried to drag the piano away from him. Cale followed the piano on his knees, continuing to bang the keys, and eventually the audience gave up in defeat and Cale the performer won. After this Cale moved to the USA, to further study composition, this time with Iannis Xenakis, the modernist composer who had also taught Mickey Baker orchestration after Baker left Mickey and Sylvia, and who composed such works as "Orient Occident": [Excerpt: Iannis Xenakis, "Orient Occident"] Cale had been recommended to Xenakis as a student by Aaron Copland, who thought the young man was probably a genius. But Cale's musical ambitions were rather too great for Tanglewood, Massachusetts -- he discovered that the institute had eighty-eight pianos, the same number as there are keys on a piano keyboard, and thought it would be great if for a piece he could take all eighty-eight pianos, put them all on different boats, sail the boats out onto a lake, and have eighty-eight different musicians each play one note on each piano, while the boats sank with the pianos on board. For some reason, Cale wasn't allowed to perform this composition, and instead had to make do with one where he pulled an axe out of a single piano and slammed it down on a table. Hardly the same, I'm sure you'll agree. From Tanglewood, Cale moved on to New York, where he soon became part of the artistic circles surrounding John Cage and La Monte Young. It was at this time that he joined Young's Theatre of Eternal Music, and also took part in a performance with Cage that would get Cale his first television exposure: [Excerpt: John Cale playing Erik Satie's "Vexations" on "I've Got a Secret"] That's Cale playing through "Vexations", a piece by Erik Satie that wasn't published until after Satie's death, and that remained in obscurity until Cage popularised -- if that's the word -- the piece. The piece, which Cage had found while studying Satie's notes, seems to be written as an exercise and has the inscription (in French) "In order to play the motif 840 times in succession, it would be advisable to prepare oneself beforehand, and in the deepest silence, by serious immobilities." Cage interpreted that, possibly correctly, as an instruction that the piece should be played eight hundred and forty times straight through, and so he put together a performance of the piece, the first one ever, by a group he called the Pocket Theatre Piano Relay Team, which included Cage himself, Cale, Joshua Rifkin, and several other notable musical figures, who took it in turns playing the piece. For that performance, which ended up lasting eighteen hours, there was an entry fee of five dollars, and there was a time-clock in the lobby. Audience members punched in and punched out, and got a refund of five cents for every twenty minutes they'd spent listening to the music. Supposedly, at the end, one audience member yelled "Encore!" A week later, Cale appeared on "I've Got a Secret", a popular game-show in which celebrities tried to guess people's secrets (and which is where that performance of Cage's "Water Walk" we heard earlier comes from): [Excerpt: John Cale on I've Got a Secret] For a while, Cale lived with a friend of La Monte Young's, Terry Jennings, before moving in to a flat with Tony Conrad, one of the other members of the Theatre of Eternal Music. Angus MacLise lived in another flat in the same building. As there was not much money to be made in avant-garde music, Cale also worked in a bookshop -- a job Cage had found him -- and had a sideline in dealing drugs. But rents were so cheap at this time that Cale and Conrad only had to work part-time, and could spend much of their time working on the music they were making with Young. Both were string players -- Conrad violin, Cale viola -- and they soon modified their instruments. Conrad merely attached pickups to his so it could be amplified, but Cale went much further. He filed down the viola's bridge so he could play three strings at once, and he replaced the normal viola strings with thicker, heavier, guitar and mandolin strings. This created a sound so loud that it sounded like a distorted electric guitar -- though in late 1963 and early 1964 there were very few people who even knew what a distorted guitar sounded like. Cale and Conrad were also starting to become interested in rock and roll music, to which neither of them had previously paid much attention, because John Cage's music had taught them to listen for music in sounds they previously dismissed. In particular, Cale became fascinated with the harmonies of the Everly Brothers, hearing in them the same just intonation that Young advocated for: [Excerpt: The Everly Brothers, "All I Have to Do is Dream"] And it was with this newfound interest in rock and roll that Cale and Conrad suddenly found themselves members of a manufactured pop band. The two men had been invited to a party on the Lower East Side, and there they'd been introduced to Terry Phillips of Pickwick Records. Phillips had seen their long hair and asked if they were musicians, so they'd answered "yes". He asked if they were in a band, and they said yes. He asked if that band had a drummer, and again they said yes. By this point they realised that he had assumed they were rock guitarists, rather than experimental avant-garde string players, but they decided to play along and see where this was going. Phillips told them that if they brought along their drummer to Pickwick's studios the next day, he had a job for them. The two of them went along with Walter de Maria, who did play the drums a little in between his conceptual art work, and there they were played a record: [Excerpt: The Primitives, "The Ostrich"] It was explained to them that Pickwick made knock-off records -- soundalikes of big hits, and their own records in the style of those hits, all played by a bunch of session musicians and put out under different band names. This one, by "the Primitives", they thought had a shot at being an actual hit, even though it was a dance-craze song about a dance where one partner lays on the floor and the other stamps on their head. But if it was going to be a hit, they needed an actual band to go out and perform it, backing the singer. How would Cale, Conrad, and de Maria like to be three quarters of the Primitives? It sounded fun, but of course they weren't actually guitarists. But as it turned out, that wasn't going to be a problem. They were told that the guitars on the track had all been tuned to one note -- not even to an open chord, like we talked about Steve Cropper doing last episode, but all the strings to one note. Cale and Conrad were astonished -- that was exactly the kind of thing they'd been doing in their drone experiments with La Monte Young. Who was this person who was independently inventing the most advanced ideas in experimental music but applying them to pop songs? And that was how they met Lou Reed: [Excerpt: The Primitives, "The Ostrich"] Where Cale and Conrad were avant-gardeists who had only just started paying attention to rock and roll music, rock and roll was in Lou Reed's blood, but there were a few striking similarities between him and Cale, even though at a glance their backgrounds could not have seemed more different. Reed had been brought up in a comfortably middle-class home in Long Island, but despised the suburban conformity that surrounded him from a very early age, and by his teens was starting to rebel against it very strongly. According to one classmate “Lou was always more advanced than the rest of us. The drinking age was eighteen back then, so we all started drinking at around sixteen. We were drinking quarts of beer, but Lou was smoking joints. He didn't do that in front of many people, but I knew he was doing it. While we were looking at girls in Playboy, Lou was reading Story of O. He was reading the Marquis de Sade, stuff that I wouldn't even have thought about or known how to find.” But one way in which Reed was a typical teenager of the period was his love for rock and roll, especially doo-wop. He'd got himself a guitar, but only had one lesson -- according to the story he would tell on numerous occasions, he turned up with a copy of "Blue Suede Shoes" and told the teacher he only wanted to know how to play the chords for that, and he'd work out the rest himself. Reed and two schoolfriends, Alan Walters and Phil Harris, put together a doo-wop trio they called The Shades, because they wore sunglasses, and a neighbour introduced them to Bob Shad, who had been an A&R man for Mercury Records and was starting his own new label. He renamed them the Jades and took them into the studio with some of the best New York session players, and at fourteen years old Lou Reed was writing songs and singing them backed by Mickey Baker and King Curtis: [Excerpt: The Jades, "Leave Her For Me"] Sadly the Jades' single was a flop -- the closest it came to success was being played on Murray the K's radio show, but on a day when Murray the K was off ill and someone else was filling in for him, much to Reed's disappointment. Phil Harris, the lead singer of the group, got to record some solo sessions after that, but the Jades split up and it would be several years before Reed made any more records. Partly this was because of Reed's mental health, and here's where things get disputed and rather messy. What we know is that in his late teens, just after he'd gone off to New

Nicole reckons with her cringe girlboss past, Stu spergs about how badly they got WWI wrong, new permanent third mic Cole has some wild shit to tell you about Wonder Woman comics lore. How could you take something as wild as a demigoddess created by a Freudian bdsm polycule and turn it into this bland rehash of First Avenger? How could you take a solid cast of stars and character actors and force them into orbit around the dead cold star that is animate mannequin Gal Gadot? Why did people like this movie? All this and much more on Marvelous!   Thank you for listening! Please consider subscribing to our Patreon where you can enjoy special bonus content, exclusive Discord community events, and have your name added to our Credits Page. Production by Miguel Tanhi. Art by Zoe Woolley. Follow @MarvelousDeath for updates.  

Queues are a part of all our lives. We hate them. We try and avoid them. But there's no escape. So, why not understand how they work and how, every so often, they can lead to an encounter that can change your life. Our Queuing Studies Course, aptly called 'Queuing for Godot', is a great way of changing your mind about queues.The only university that makes you chuckle AND learn at the same time.

Hey Kits! Weekdays at 7-ish Eastern, we livestream The Daily Beaver Morning Show, a (sometimes) quick take on the news, in addition to our usual formats. Today, we had a guest scheduled, but you know how life laughs at you, when you make plans? We'll have our guest on Monday. So, yes Kits, we're wingin' it! We have an on-the-fly Friday Morning Beaver Bite for you. Today, we talk about: Nordstrom; Canada Soccer; Pay Gaps; Mississippi 1958 Feels; More AB / BC Budget Details; Joni Snags a Gershwin; Tucker Breaks Some News; Fox Blues; "Interference" or "Influence" desPIERREation; Thirstiness; and Go Sens Go! Our morning show is the purrr-fect thing for busy Kits who are on-the-go, but still want to stay engaged. PS: This episode is also available on our new True North Eager Beaver Media YouTube channel at [https://youtu.be/KIxmYrXfxBo]. PPS: If you wish to encourage us to do more, leave us a positive review and stars on Apple Podcasts and/or buy us a cup of coffee. Just go to [https://ko-fi.com/eagerbeaver] to find your way to our tip jar. PPPS: And if you prefer to get something for your tips, we also have merchandise to show off: Eager Beaver and Blue Jacket Guy Civics Ts are now on sale (and wearing automatically boosts your romantic energy by 18.4%; our lab results do not lie). Being informed has never been soooo ♫ faaaa-bu-lousss ♪! Get yours here: [https://crier.co/crier-media-shop/?_shop_categories=true-north-eager-beaver]. This is episode 69 of our Eager Beaver morning show. ________________ Not everyone can do everything. But everyone can do something. Because #DemocracyIsSomethingYouDo... Take a moment to write your MPP, MP, and a few Senators from your province, to let them know that they, or their party, will not get your vote, or money, if they continue bumping uglies with Nazis, and that if they continue, you will make it a mission to actively encourage your entire network of friends and family to do the same. Letters (especially handwritten) are most effective, then phone calls (flood their lines), then e-mails Better yet... Ask for a meeting. Mailing your elected representative is free. No stamp required. This is the time to make it clear, we are not having this. Hit hard. Hit fast. Don't miss. ________________ Of course, retweets, shares, gentle corrections, constructive criticism, compliments, tips, requests, bribes to be on the show, and positive reviews (if you think we deserve some stars, please rate us) are always welcome. You can do that via our show's Facebook blog page, via Twitter @TrueEager, or by e-mail at TrueNorthEagerBeaver@gmail.com. And if you really enjoy our podcast, why not subscribe via our Podpage [https://www.podpage.com/the-true-north-eager-beaver/], and tell a friend? Until next time, be kind to, and gentle with, yourselves, Your Eager Beaver __________________ Thank you to our podcast's founding sponsors: * The Peppermaster * The Miss Vee Mysteries from Corvid Moon Publishing * Canadian Tarot Dot Com Artwork credit: Peter Jarvis [Recording Date: March 3, 2023]

W4 Games is dedicated to strengthening the open-source Godot Engine, a cross-platform game engine for 2D and 3D games. Their mission is “to help the video game industry reclaim their control of the technology powering their games and reverse a dramatic trend where they have to rely on proprietary solutions from an ever-shrinking number of vendors.”To start learning more about Godot, explore some of the best games made with Godot or join the community.Connect with Juan on Twitter, GitHub, or LinkedIn.Today's Lifeboat badge winner is Martijn Pieters for their answer to 'While' loop one-liner.

In Paris in 1953, one of the strangest and most popular plays of the 20th century premiered, Waiting for Godot, written by the Irish writer Samuel Beckett. Since the premier, people have been trying to figure out what this play means. It's been interpreted in countless ways, with no definitive confirmation from Beckett one way or another. Waiting for Godot is famous as a play about nothing, but it has endured because it is in fact a play about life. For what is life but a sequential collection of waitings? Waiting for school to end. Waiting to find someone to love. Waiting to know what to do. Waiting to feel better. Waiting for money or recognition. And ultimately, the last waiting, waiting for death. And yet, between all these waitings, we find meaning to continue on. Peter Connor is a professor of French and Comparative Literature at Barnard College. He is the author of Georges Bataille and the Mysticism of Sin (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U.P., 2000). See more information on our website, WritLarge.fm. Follow us on Twitter @WritLargePod. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In Paris in 1953, one of the strangest and most popular plays of the 20th century premiered, Waiting for Godot, written by the Irish writer Samuel Beckett. Since the premier, people have been trying to figure out what this play means. It's been interpreted in countless ways, with no definitive confirmation from Beckett one way or another. Waiting for Godot is famous as a play about nothing, but it has endured because it is in fact a play about life. For what is life but a sequential collection of waitings? Waiting for school to end. Waiting to find someone to love. Waiting to know what to do. Waiting to feel better. Waiting for money or recognition. And ultimately, the last waiting, waiting for death. And yet, between all these waitings, we find meaning to continue on. Peter Connor is a professor of French and Comparative Literature at Barnard College. He is the author of Georges Bataille and the Mysticism of Sin (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U.P., 2000). See more information on our website, WritLarge.fm. Follow us on Twitter @WritLargePod. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies

In Paris in 1953, one of the strangest and most popular plays of the 20th century premiered, Waiting for Godot, written by the Irish writer Samuel Beckett. Since the premier, people have been trying to figure out what this play means. It's been interpreted in countless ways, with no definitive confirmation from Beckett one way or another. Waiting for Godot is famous as a play about nothing, but it has endured because it is in fact a play about life. For what is life but a sequential collection of waitings? Waiting for school to end. Waiting to find someone to love. Waiting to know what to do. Waiting to feel better. Waiting for money or recognition. And ultimately, the last waiting, waiting for death. And yet, between all these waitings, we find meaning to continue on. Peter Connor is a professor of French and Comparative Literature at Barnard College. He is the author of Georges Bataille and the Mysticism of Sin (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U.P., 2000). See more information on our website, WritLarge.fm. Follow us on Twitter @WritLargePod. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/performing-arts

In Paris in 1953, one of the strangest and most popular plays of the 20th century premiered, Waiting for Godot, written by the Irish writer Samuel Beckett. Since the premier, people have been trying to figure out what this play means. It's been interpreted in countless ways, with no definitive confirmation from Beckett one way or another. Waiting for Godot is famous as a play about nothing, but it has endured because it is in fact a play about life. For what is life but a sequential collection of waitings? Waiting for school to end. Waiting to find someone to love. Waiting to know what to do. Waiting to feel better. Waiting for money or recognition. And ultimately, the last waiting, waiting for death. And yet, between all these waitings, we find meaning to continue on. Peter Connor is a professor of French and Comparative Literature at Barnard College. He is the author of Georges Bataille and the Mysticism of Sin (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U.P., 2000). See more information on our website, WritLarge.fm. Follow us on Twitter @WritLargePod. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Paris in 1953, one of the strangest and most popular plays of the 20th century premiered, Waiting for Godot, written by the Irish writer Samuel Beckett. Since the premier, people have been trying to figure out what this play means. It's been interpreted in countless ways, with no definitive confirmation from Beckett one way or another. Waiting for Godot is famous as a play about nothing, but it has endured because it is in fact a play about life. For what is life but a sequential collection of waitings? Waiting for school to end. Waiting to find someone to love. Waiting to know what to do. Waiting to feel better. Waiting for money or recognition. And ultimately, the last waiting, waiting for death. And yet, between all these waitings, we find meaning to continue on. Peter Connor is a professor of French and Comparative Literature at Barnard College. He is the author of Georges Bataille and the Mysticism of Sin (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U.P., 2000). See more information on our website, WritLarge.fm. Follow us on Twitter @WritLargePod. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

https://youtube.com/c/ami1649/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/ami1649/message

Michael and I complete a writing prompt where we have to start our stories with the same first line. Then we discuss the absurdist play Waiting For Godot by Samuel Beckett.

Michigan football has now had three practices as it gears up for the 2022 season. But, we don't know much about how the team looks just yet. Why the roster has given us confidence, as well as why the defensive line is looking more and more like a strength. Also, noting why the notion that the defense is inexperienced is erroneous.Support Us By Supporting Our Sponsors!LinkedInLinkedIn jobs helps you find the candidates you want to talk to, faster. Post your job for free at Linkedin.com/lockedoncollege Terms and conditions apply.Built BarBuilt Bar is a protein bar that tastes like a candy bar. Go to builtbar.com and use promo code “LOCKED15,” and you'll get 15% off your next order.BetOnlineBetOnline.net has you covered this season with more props, odds and lines than ever before. BetOnline – Where The Game Starts! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Michigan football has now had three practices as it gears up for the 2022 season. But, we don't know much about how the team looks just yet. Why the roster has given us confidence, as well as why the defensive line is looking more and more like a strength. Also, noting why the notion that the defense is inexperienced is erroneous. Support Us By Supporting Our Sponsors! LinkedIn LinkedIn jobs helps you find the candidates you want to talk to, faster. Post your job for free at Linkedin.com/lockedoncollege Terms and conditions apply. Built Bar Built Bar is a protein bar that tastes like a candy bar. Go to builtbar.com and use promo code “LOCKED15,” and you'll get 15% off your next order. BetOnline BetOnline.net has you covered this season with more props, odds and lines than ever before. BetOnline – Where The Game Starts! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kherson, Waiting for Godot. Donetsk evacuation as 'Allies' advance The Duran: Episode 1344 #Ukraine #Russia #Kherson #theduran

Steven Kent Mirassou talks about the abject frustration that the most mundane AND crucial activities - those that separate his wine from his wine fans - causes, and his hope for furthering his esthetic goals This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit winesaveslives.substack.com/subscribe

Philip Quast graduated from the National Institute of Dramatic Art in 1979 and began his career with State Theatre Company of South Australia debuting as Adam in The Mystery Plays of Wakefield. He went on to appear in numerous productions with the company including On The Wallaby, A Hard God, No End of Blame and The Threepenny Opera. His first musical was in the title role of Nimrod Theatre Company's Candide. Philip also began appearing as a presenter on the Australian children's show Play School, a program he would continue to present for 17 years.He shot to prominence in 1987 when he appeared as Javert in the original Australian production of Les Misérables. This performance won him a Sydney Critic Award and in 1989, he travelled to London to play Javert on the West End and eventually in Les Misérables: The Dream Cast at The Royal Albert Hall.Philip's stage success continued as he won the coveted role of Georges Seurat in the original London production of Stephen Sondheim's Sunday in the Park with George at the National Theatre where he also performed in David Hare's Stuff Happens, A Funny Thing Happened On The Way to the Forum, South Pacific and most recently the award winning Follies (which screened live around the world.)He has won three Laurence Olivier Awards for Best Actor in a Musical; Sunday in the Park with George, South Pacific and The Fix.He has appeared with the Sydney Theatre Company in Coriolanus, Sondheim's Into the Woods,The Cherry Orchard, Democracy and the much-lauded production of Waiting For Godot. Most recently with Death of a Salesman.Philip has been a member of the Royal Shakespeare Company's seasons in London and Stratford Upon Avon with The White Devil, Macbeth, Troilus and Cressida and The Secret Garden.His other innumerable roles include Juan Peron in Andrew Lloyd Webber's 2006 production of Evita at the Adelphi Theatre, Judge Turpin in Sweeney Todd at London's Royal Festival Hall, The Lincoln Centre in New York and for The English National Opera. He played Georges in the Menier Chocolate Factory's production of Jerry Herman's La Cage aux Folles in the West End.His many film and television appearances include; Midsomer Murders, Morse, UltraViolet, Brides of Christ, The Damnation of Harvey McCue,Truth, Hacksaw Ridge,The Devil's Double and Picnic At Hanging Rock.Philip can be heard in over 15 cast recordings. He now devotes much of his time to directing, writing and teaching.Philip will be performing at this year's Adelaide Cabaret Festival with Moments In The Woods – Songs & Stories of Sondheim, directed by Mitchell Butel. Moments In The Woods also features Geraldine Turner, Queenie van de Zandt, Josie Lane and Mitchell Butel. The show plays June 23rd at Her Majesty's Theatre, Adelaide.The STAGES podcast is available to access and subscribe from Whooshkaa, Spotify and Apple podcasts. Or from wherever you access your favourite podcasts. A conversation with creatives about craft and career. Recipient of Best New Podcast at 2019 Australian Podcast Awards. Follow socials on instagram (stagespodcast) and facebook (Stages).www.stagespodcast.com.au

Philip Quast graduated from the National Institute of Dramatic Art in 1979 and began his career with State Theatre Company of South Australia debuting as Adam in The Mystery Plays of Wakefield. He went on to appear in numerous productions with the company including On The Wallaby, A Hard God, No End of Blame and The Threepenny Opera. His first musical was in the title role of Nimrod Theatre Company's Candide. Philip also began appearing as a presenter on the Australian children's show Play School, a program he would continue to present for 17 years.He shot to prominence in 1987 when he appeared as Javert in the original Australian production of Les Misérables. He travelled to London to play Javert on the West End and eventually in Les Misérables: The Dream Cast at The Royal Albert Hall.Philip's stage success continued as he won the coveted role of Georges Seurat in the original London production of Stephen Sondheim's Sunday in the Park with George at the National Theatre where he also performed in David Hare's Stuff Happens, A Funny Thing Happened On The Way to the Forum, South Pacific and most recently the award winning Follies (which screened live around the world.)He has won three Laurence Olivier Awards for Best Actor in a Musical; Sunday in the Park with George, South Pacific and The Fix.He has appeared with the Sydney Theatre Company in Coriolanus, Sondheim's Into the Woods,The Cherry Orchard, Democracy and the much-lauded production of Waiting For Godot. Most recently with Death of a Salesman.Philip has been a member of the Royal Shakespeare Company's seasons in London and Stratford Upon Avon with The White Devil, Macbeth, Troilus and Cressida and The Secret Garden.His other innumerable roles include Juan Peron in Andrew Lloyd Webber's 2006 production of Evita at the Adelphi Theatre, Judge Turpin in Sweeney Todd at London's Royal Festival Hall, The Lincoln Centre in New York and for The English National Opera. He played Georges in the Menier Chocolate Factory's production of Jerry Herman's La Cage aux Folles in the West End.His many film and television appearances include; Midsomer Murders, Morse, UltraViolet, Brides of Christ, The Damnation of Harvey McCue,Truth, Hacksaw Ridge,The Devil's Double and Picnic At Hanging Rock.Philip can be heard in over 15 cast recordings. He now devotes much of his time to directing, writing and teaching.Philip will be performing at this year's Adelaide Cabaret Festival with Moments In The Woods – Songs & Stories of Sondheim, directed by Mitchell Butel. Moments In The Woods also features Geraldine Turner, Queenie van de Zandt, Josie Lane and Mitchell Butel. The show plays June 23rd at Her Majesty's Theatre, Adelaide.The STAGES podcast is available to access and subscribe from Whooshkaa, Spotify and Apple podcasts. Or from wherever you access your favourite podcasts. A conversation with creatives about craft and career. Recipient of Best New Podcast at 2019 Australian Podcast Awards. Follow socials on instagram (stagespodcast) and facebook (Stages).www.stagespodcast.com.au

Nothing to be done.

Great talk with the legendary Austin Pendleton! Actor, playwright, theatre director, and instructor, who currently due to the pandemic still teaches his courses over zoom joins Dystopia Tonight to chat about his long and varied career in show business. We talk, What's Up Doc, Barbara Streisand, Peter Bogdanovich, Jerome Robbins, Joe Pesci, My Cousin Vinny, advice from Lynn Redgrave, discovering Philip Seymour Hoffman, his long battle with stuttering, Waiting For Godot reviews that almost ended his career, Finding Nemo, Ellen Degeneres, Meryl Streep, and so much more, Enjoy guys!       

Join us as we discuss the absurdist piece, Waiting for Godot

Wanky analysis alert! Ok, actually Bottom has had numerous comparisons to Waiting for Godot over the years. Rik and Ade performed the play at uni and then more famously starred in a 1991 run in the West End at the same time Bottom debuted on TV. So, like A' Level students, here's our ill-informed attempt to "compare and contrast". Angela, Paul and Mat discuss the history of Waiting for Godot, its different interpretations, the Emperor's new clothes, bewildered actors and how even the writer didn't know what it meant, profound University experiences, Rik and Ade's run of the show in the West End, comparisons to Bottom, dramatic dialogue, other comedies that reference Godot and the torture and boredom of just... waiting. The book "Talking Bottom: A guide to the cult sitcom" can be found to order at: https://unbound.com/books/bottom/

VP of Pitcher List and MLB Associate Producer Alex Fast (@AlexFast8) joins Ben and Zach to discuss his acting career and filmography, life in Columbia, Maryland, finding inspiration in Samuel Beckett and Stanley Kubrick, his favorite bassists, worst stage experiences, Saturday Night Live, and plenty of baseball, including his favorite pitchers past and present, the best parts of Camden Yards, the Curse of the Andino™, how he found Pitcher List, and of course, why baseball. Follow Shaggin' Flies on Twitter @ShagginFliesPL Email us at shagginfliespodcast@gmail.com Get PL+ and join our community!: https://pitcherlist.com/plus