text:
Singers in uproar over critical body insults at Glyndebourne
May 19, 2014 by norman lebrecht
Andrew Clark in the FT refers to a singer as 'a chubby bundle of puppy-fat.'
Michael Church in the Independent sniffs at 'a dumpy girl'. Andrew Clements in the Guardian calls her 'stocky'.
'Unbelievable, unsightly and unappealing', writes Richard Morrison in the Times.
Rupert Christiansen in the Telegraph calls one singer 'dumpy' and another 'stressed by motherhood' (how would he know?).
The boys – late-middleaged men, actually – were having fun at the expense of a beautiful young singer (pictured), an artist whose self-image could be seriously damaged by such mindless assaults. This was a slurry of sexist attitudes masquerading as music criticism, and the singing community are not taking it lying down.
Social media have gone white-hot with their fury.
Here are some anonymous samples:
– Just been reading the reviews of rosenkavalier at glyndebourne. Shame on every critic who wrote such cutting remarks about x's physique. Shame on you. Congratulations on crushing yet another young woman's self esteem.
– There's a real anger from musicians towards the Glyndebourne Rosenkav reviews and their hideous, overly personal comments.
– Open mouthed shock reading the Glyndebourne Rosenkav reviews. Such personal hateful comments on a singer's body. Totally deplorable.
– Tired of reading schlock headlines & casual, outrageous sexism from critics.
– "Chubby bundle of puppy fat"- who the xxx do you think you are? Could she sing it is that not relevant?
– I am sick of reading this kind of nonsense from critics who have experienced nothing and know even less. I currently teach many young singers who are increasingly suffering body dysmorphia anxiety because of exactly this kind of thing.
– I think it's amazingly irresponsible of someone like Christiansen, who ought to know more about the bigger picture of being a singer. It does seem that he has free rein these days to say whatever he wants. His blinkered and sustained attack on ENO over the last few years has been pretty astonishing.
… and more, much more.
Slippedisc has just published an open letter on voice and image by one of Britain's foremost opera singers, the mezzo-soprano Alice Coote. Click here to read Alice.
UPDATE: What the newspapers should do now. Click here.
Next Article Previous Article
Comments (78)
So glad you have picked up this story. The comments on body shape are totally unacceptable. This poor young singer must be deeply hurt, and she's not even fat- just short and curvy, which isn't the usual shape for a teenage boy. Describing Kate Royal as "unusually thin" makes her sound unhealthy too.
I was absolutely disgusted by the language in these reviews. As they admit she sings gloriously why do they then have to insult her?
I don't know what the critic is talking about, on the pic we see a young beautiful woman, are they out of their mind?
And if they say this about someone as pretty as she is…. what would they say about Beverly Sills?
Seems to me the physical requirements of the role are dictated by the libretto and Glyndebourne/Richard Jones should have taken this into account when casting. As there seems to be some consistency in the comments I think they should be taken seriously. If you believe the good ones, you should also believe the bad ones>
I'm sorry but do you actually know anything at all about Opera. This isn't some Broadway play they were casting for where the actor needs to look the part. Opera is about the voice and the goal is to cast the person who can sing the role best. How they look is completely irrelevant.
AMA, not to agree with or endorse in any way what these critics have said or the terms they've used, but opera emphatically IS about more than just the voice. It's a combination of numerous arts (music merely first amongst equals) to create drama. Set design, direction, costumes and acting are all intensely relevant. Otherwise it's just a concert with nice costumes.
What's objectionable here is the implication by these writers that the singers' physical appearance has any bearing on their ability to inhabit these roles and convey the drama – which, of course, it hasn't; any more than it has any bearing on the (important, but emphatically not the whole story) quality of their singing.
That's taking it too far. It's not completely irrelevant how an opera singer on stage looks like. If the role is too far apart from the physical appearance, it can be a distraction to the drama. But it is not as relevant as the Zeitgeist seems to dictate, I agree.
If absolutely necessary, it may be pointed out in general if the singer's appearance is not the most believable one for the role. That includes the essential message already. But detailed description of someone's curves or guessing about motherhood is getting personal and out of line. It's all about discretion which these male critics in question don't seem to have.
This is the result of decades of pop stars' shows and musical theatre spectacles wherein the females (excepting perhaps the older character actresses) are required to look like Las Vegas showgirls. Critics, and maybe the public too, are now brainwashed about how a singer should look, regardless of how they sing. (I personally know a tale of woe from a fine young American soprano who auditioned at a London school for a voice degree program. She was told outright that she was too fat.) Did this kind of thing happen to Kirsten Flagstad, Birgit Nilsson, Dame Joan Sutherland, Montserrat Caballé, Renata Tebaldi, and other zaftig divas? I think not.
Of course, these women didn't have to be subjected to the depraved demands of contemporary Regietheater, which insists that punters be given the right to ogle undraped singing bodies.
It has nothing to do with regietheater! That is bullshit you just said!
This sort of thing ("too fat") was certainly said, and often, about Joan Sutherland, Montserrat Caballe (nicknamed Monster-fat Cowbelly, I well recall), Jessye Norman (Jess Enormous), Rita Hunter and, by the way, Maria Callas, whose tremendous weight loss may or may not have contributed to the early decline in her vocal estate.
Yes, they were often outsized in those days, but we were still focused on their voices. I didn't care. Nilsson was no beauty but she wasn't the least bit fat and she could act and my god could she ever sing. Tebaldi was never fat.
There is perhaps more emphasis on looks now because we see more of it on the screen, up close, and have forgotten that the point of opera was to be IN THE PRESENCE of a great voice, with all the acting (often superb in those bad old days) and meaning they could muster.
Yes, in my conservatory days we did say "Monster-Fat" and "Jess Enormous" but those were appellations strictly used in musicians' inner circles. We would have never read such joking insults in global newspapers.
Sorry, I was wrong. It is not in the libretto. It is just the tradition of the role in question.
Even if it had been in the libretto, there is no excuse for the horrible, body shaming and utter disrespect shown to this and other singers. Nothing justifies it! They admit she sang gloriously and then completely denigrate her body. HORRIBLE.
You do know what Mary Garden looks like don't you?
It would be perfectly reasonable to make note of what might seem like unconventional and/or non-traditional casting, but the language in which it was done is absolutely inexcusable.
Kay, I highly doubt the critics were referring to this letter when they made these comments. Their comments are exactly what is killing this art form! We are being told that physical appearance is more important than vocal abilities! They say her singing and acting were amazing, but since she is not of a certain physique it was a failure. Complete bull.
Graceful now means anorexic? A healthy figure is now incapable of grace? He did not require lithe, willowy, or anorexic, but graceful. Does the singers walk look like a tank headed for battle? If so, she would be unacceptable for the role. But if she is able to look like a young woman, possibly with curves, why not? I agree that the body slurs are totally inappropriate, these critics may be stuck in the 60's with Twiggy, but the singing profession has historically made room for the normal to plus size bodies that often do accompany plus sized voices.
Yes… what would a graceful girl have looked like in Strauss' day? Ever seen a Renoir painting?! This girl would have been considered well above average in both physique and looks, if we are judging from an historical perspective. You will never win the argument that thinner is more attractive / desirable than fleshier – from a pre-1930s historical perspective at least.
Mary Garden would probably be considered roly-poly by this blinkered batch of critics.
I have been aware of this for a few hours, but resisted 'naming and shaming' the 'journalists' concerned (as they should be) as it would also have drawn further (presumably unwelcome) attention to the singer involved (in whose appearance I can find nothing to warrant such wantonly hurtful comments).
We really need to resist such cheap 'image over substance' attitudes. While one MIGHT (I say 'might') have issues over the casting of roles occasionally, there is a right (constructive, professional) and a wrong and shoddy (hurtful, negative, unprofessional) way to raise such questions.
I suggest we put these journalists on a platform so we can judge what physical imperfections we might judge them to have.
I take it she sang OK?
Andrew Clark of the FT said: "X's Octavian is a chubby bundle of puppy-fat, better suited to playing Mariandel in Acts 1 and 3 than the romantic rose-cavalier of Act 2 – albeit gloriously sung."
I think this statement alone shows to what degree he was interested in the artistry and musical aspect of things. Utterly shameful!
Rupert Christiansen's review in the Telegraph said "There is no doubt of the talent of this young Irish mezzo, based in Germany, who sings with vibrant assurance and proves herself a spirited comedian. But she is dumpy of stature…"
Great singer, great actor… but none of that counts, right?
Not fitting into a role stereotype is one thing but these comments are ridiculous and nothing more than malicious bullying. These men should be ashamed of themselves. Opera is story telling through the arts, not Britain's next top model. Go to fashion week if you want to see exceptionally skinny women!!!
The little Siegmund Freud in me wonders if there is a correlation between male homosexuality and fear of anything looking like a true female body with strong maternal attributes…
We know that is the case for fashion designers.
That's just in case the critiques are gay…
So making homophobic insinuations about critics you don't know is ok in your book? In fact three of the critics quoted above are either happily married or widowed. Misogynist or sexist remarks are not the sole preserve of gay men.
There is nothing homophobic in my comments, since phobia concerns fear. But we know that many homosexual men have a phobia of the real world female body with maternal attributes, as we can witness in the fashion industry, where mostly gay fashion designers have created the stereotype of the catwalk woman model that has to look like a starving bony boy…
I have to agree with Hugh. You're simply buying into another stereotype, and surely this whole incident amply demonstrates the inadvisability of that.
This incident might be unrelated to my observations, nevertheless that other stereotype you accuse me of falling for is real and damages women's and everybody's psyche every day. Our current intersubjective ideal of the female body is out of order with what nature has given us. Who is afraid of real women? Many it seems…
All of which is a distraction from the main point which is- those who point out the physique of the person singing as a factor in anything at all about opera is completely misguided and seem to not really care about whether this is a voice that moves us or not. The only real criteria that was in place for most of the history of opera is: does this voice move me to tears or rapture? Every thing else is secondary. Until our current age comes to this realization we will continue to have a drought of great big beautiful voices.
A great director once told me that if a critic's choice of critical focus is the aesthetics of the singer, they are in fact exposing their own lack of knowledge, preparation, calibre of education, moral and ethical standings and instead they stoop to pop-culture mentality that is derived of a lazy mind and lack of imagination. I personally believe critics should try their hand at opening books with historic photographs of buxom and hugely (pardon the pun) talented nymphs portraying men. They could instead mention the sets, imagery, lighting, costume design, history of the venues, orchestral arrangements, stage management of that particular piece… the list really does do go on.
Anyone can write a review. To me, a good reviewer should capture the spirit of the piece. Writing is about captivating the audience, not tearing artists to pieces. Words are like arrows: once loosed, they cannot be retrieved so easily. Thousands of quotes about treading on dreams, not saying anything if unable to think of anything nice to say and just being decent if not kind to another fellow human being flood my mind.
My heart goes out to that beautiful singer and to the thousands of artists who spend thousands of hours preparing the delivery of sublime music and sweating, bleeding and breaking their bodies on sometimes perilous sets and working so terribly hard at pleasing a whole theatre, for the privilege of being shredded to pieces by literary hacks to then graciously accept the pittance they receive (usually AFTER their last performance – yes let's think on that for a second) and try to lock in another opportunity with that company to do it all over again at some stage.
The world is harsh enough without critics. To those critics who are so devoid of basic decency filters: If you happen to be blessed with children, think about what you are about to write and ask yourself if this is something you would say to your child; Is this going to help them be a better person and enrich the world for having said these things? I can guarantee your tune will change. Again, pardon the pun.
Ileana, I absolutely agree with everything you have said. People who write in high profile journalism should not be exempt from treating people who are doing a highly skilled job with integrity and commitment (and one that those critics themselves are not able to do) with respect and decency. There is a startling lack of this in the media and it needs to stop now. We are all vulnerable and deserve to be treated as such.
Hear, hear. Well said!
I heartily agree with you. It seems like the only ones with the body-image problem in the art form of opera are the critics. I will refrain from calling them 'stupid', 'unimaginative', 'unprepared', 'arrogant', 'moronic' etc.…..because it seems everyone has an opinion with adjectives to describe everything and the more negative, the better. What is wrong in conveying an Octavian who is overweight? I tell my daughter everyday that people, (that includes men) come in different sizes and shapes and we should not allow ourselves to criticize and judge. Overweight people fall in love and get married everyday in real life. Here we have a person who easily criticizes in the negative because it seems to me that they themselves feel uncomfortable in their own skin, whatever their size.
I want to walk around with a placard asking "Just who the **** do you you think you are? HOW DARE YOU?" Outrage should not be confined to singers. We are all hurt by this. It is inexcusable.
Glyndebourne needs to put out a statement in support of their singer(s). The Critics need to be chastised for their lack of professionalism and outright cruelty.
Do Glyndebourne have a view? Will they be rescinding seats presumably offered to these critics or their publications for further operas this season?
I wouldn't be too worried about what Rupert Christiansen says or doesn't. He's an intelligent guy who knows quite a lot about Opera. But I once saw him at the reforming of Kent Opera at Margate several years ago. He sad at the back, with his pen ready, looking like a very unattractive little weasel, the very image of a malicious critic. So he has no right to be commenting on the physical attributes, or lack of them, of any singer.
Looks like the lessons of this incident have been lost on you. Christiansen's personal appearance is no more related to the issue than the singer's is. Or was that an attempt at humour?
Pointing out hypocrisy seems reasonable to me.
Critics are to artists what pigeons are to statues. Most critics are frustrated musicians who love to degrade those that can sing well.
These critics' comments are awful, but I think much of the outrage here is due to the fact that the critics were discussing a woman. Look up reviews concerning Johan Botha, the tenor from South Africa. A masterful singer, he can't sing a production without a critic speaking negatively of his weight.
Actually, Jamie, Andrew Clements, for one, seems perfectly capable of reviewing the great Botha without mentioning the tenor's weight.
Read it:
Then look at the last few months of reviews from the specific critics who are being critiqued in this case — they do indeed give most male performers a pass on their failure to measure up to contemporary standards of heroic, athletic masculinity.
Tara Erraught is establishing a formidable career in the music world outside the UK.
She regularly sings at the Munich Opera to great acclaim. The reviews by self important critics such as Rupert Christensen just show the British island mentality at its worst.
I could quite understand it if such a fine singer as Tara were to refuse ever to perform in the UK again.
I don't think we should resort to abusing the critics to make the point that they shouldn't be making such remarks; which I belive they shouldn't be. But I do think we have to take some responsibility in the business. And this sort of thing is not new either.
We have claimed for years that opera is about theatre as well as music, we have tried to "sex" up the industry, singers do provocative photo shoots, we have brought "realism" into productions and in this production, Kate Royal is in the buff..the first thing that is seen on curtain up I believe. Keenlyside has been taking his kit off for years, barihunks websites etc. The genie is somewhat out of the bottle and whilst I think all of these critical remarks are unecessary, I cannot help think that we are crying wolf a little bit because the industry, in its search for new audiences has I think, at times, behaved deplorably and with some disingenuity.
Opera IS actually about more than just the voice of course; otherwise we would do concert performances and nothing else. We want theatre, we even want, I suppose, "believability". But I agree with Alice Coote that none of this should be at the expense of the vocal performance. If we choose singers on looks then Heaven help us. I once barred a patron for loudly proclaiming during a performance of Boheme that it was ridiculous to have a black Rodolfo, so prejudice is not reserved to looks.
Rupert et al have transgressed by mentioning the physical attributes of the singer, especially since she appears to have given a lovely vocal and theatrical performance. I agree entirely with the criticism of them (NOBODY should read this post and in anyway deduce that I think such remarks are necessary, they aren't!) and a few critics will attest that I have pulled them up on such things in the past. But we all, in some way, share the blame as a collective industry.
Are these critics essentially saying to young singers, if you are not built like a model (either sex) you need not consider a career in opera?
How quickly standards have shifted from gold to gilt. Not only in music, but I would have thought the requirement for the singing to be the thing judged would have survived the reality-show mentality that has made so much all about appearances.
No, they are not saying that. They are questioning a casting decision and the manner in which a stage character has been presented.
Hallo guys, pl don't take the critics too seriously, they should amuse you and be happy if they sometimes agree with your personal impression. Most of them wanted to become artists but failed, hardly any of them has taste and just look at them how they are dressed….they lack style like most of the producers and directors. This is daly the truth nowadays and trust me it's even worse in Germany and Austria. They report ravishing about a ghastly production of Norma from Salzburg no one in Italy would have a ever accepted. Pereira is clever not to take it on to la Scala including Signora Bartoli. There are only a few real connoisseurs among directors and critics, that is the sad truth. In the UK you had great ones like Rosenthal or Steane and among directors be lucky if you see any of magic Robert Carsen's direction and be happy if he might be asked to do next Covent Garden's Rosenkavalier. Opera is about singing first but one also needs to convince and this has nothing to do with weight! Think of Caballe singing Norma at Orange, Nilsson being maybe the greatest Isolde ever, Pavarotti incomparable as Rodolfo or Nemorino. No one cares about their figures. Only one singer surpassed them all but she is a class of her own: La divina Maria Callas but her career was over after ten years as she gave us maybe too much?
Michael Church appears to have amended his text in the Indie but the rest of the article was also well up to his usual standard. Nice, too, to see a pseudo-lefty paper out itself as being no better than those they love to criticise.
I did not see the production and I don't know if I agree with him, but Rupert Christiansen's review sounds perfectly reasonable. The reviewer expressed his opinion very clearly and reasonably: he spoke quite well of the voice and acting talent of this Tara Erraught in the role of Octavian (which is having a lot of free exposure, by the way). He just said that he found her to be "dumpy of stature" and that the costume did not help her and made her resemble not a sexy young man but a child (Heidi, Just William), thus implying that the fault is not the singer's but the director's and the costume designer's. Today, since the production will be sung by several different casts, they don't think of the singers: they just design something that should fit everybody. But human bodies are different. If it's a reprise the director isn't even there. There's a new soprano who has to wear the same costume designed last year for a lady half her size. I have a soprano friend who refused to do a production for this precise reason. She is a famous singer. She can choose. Others have simply to do as they're told. Many times I wished there could still be agents, husbands, mothers who can say to the director: "My artist/wife/daughter will never go on stage like that. Find something else." Trouser roles are especially tricky. If Radames is fat, it's not a big deal: the audience can just assume that Aida and Amneris have their tastes. But it really makes a difference for the audience if the Marschallin is having a sexual affair with a teenager or with a 8 years old child! I hope everybody agrees on this. A singer's self-esteem get destroyed by comments on their voices as well. In fact, they are far worse, because everybody can decide whether a woman can look plausibly as a sexy teenager boy, but most of the opera-goers just have no clues about how the voice works and they are prone to believe or agree with anything they read. As Quantz said, singers, musicians and artists in general just should abandon the narcissism of reading reviews (which seldom have something interesting to teach, even the ones that I write) and rely instead on intelligent friends which they know they can trust.
Many great singers don't have a career because they are fat and they have light voices, which – artistic directors think – are easier to find. How often have I heard agents say to fat singers: "If you sang Verdi, that would be different but you're too fat to sing Mozart". There are some not-so-good sopranos who sing Salome everywhere just because they look good when they have no clothes on. I've seen top-model-looking sopranos with pretty but not audible (unless you're a dog) voices who sing Mozart and Handel everywhere just because of their looks. And what about countertenors, who are often hired just because the director can't figure out a plausible costume for a woman mezzo or contralto in a trouser role and wants to see some nice bare-chested muscular man as Orfeo? That's a fact. And it would be important to complain with theatre directors who cast singers just because of their looks. But if a reviewer writes that a singer didn't look the role because he/she has a body-type which is not immediately suited to it and he/she was not helped by the director and costume designer, he is not a "bully" and he's not offensive. He is making a perfectly reasonable and relevant remark. It's the same as when one writes: "Mrs *** had a fine but not especially strong voice and she was not helped by the careless conductor who let the orchestra regularly submerge her voice." The reader who attended the show have the possibility to agree or disagree.
This debate has been going on in the States for some time. Some blame the current general manager of the Metropolitan Opera, who clearly favors glamorous singers like Netrebko. Some singers, especially sopranos, have said they felt pressure to lose weight if they wanted good roles (Deborah Voight was one–she has since had vocal problems). Here there is a lot more leeway for mezzos (Stephanie Blythe, before her Marilyn Horne) and for men. Others point to HD broadcasts and their many close-ups as the reason for the emphasis on looks. In the US there has been quite a lot of reaction to the trend to emphasize appearance. In this country, critics have generally been on the side of the angels. Several major critics recently wrote summary articles pointing out that the opera news this last season has been voices, including the three amazing bel canto tenors who were featured at the Met in the last weeks of the season (one African-American, two very much shorter than the women with whom they were paired–none, it's safe to say, exactly what the composer and librettist probably pictured). But the prejudice is there. In the documentary "The Audition," one of the judges questions giving a Metropolitan Opera Auditions award to Angela Meade, because she is so heavy that she may not, the judge says, have much of a career. She is the second cast Norma referenced in Alice Coote's excellent letter, the one who electrified audiences (along with another non-svelte wondrous singer, mezzo Jamie Barton) and will be back next year in Ernani.
Thank you, Norman, for posting. I also read Alice Coote's open letter. Alas, we do live in a time in which outside appearance matters, and not what makes opera opera: the human voice ( – witness, for example, http://barihunks.blogspot.com/). We certainly are being deprived from hearing great voices, simply because they happen not to be in perfect female or male bodies (remember the infamous Covent Garden "Ariadne auf Naxos" director-imposed cocktail dress?). Alice Coote's open letter is spot on. Hopefully, this time everyone takes note: opera is about singing, it is not a beauty contest. The reality is all too often that opera productions are entrusted to directors with huge egos or massive psychological "interests" – or, worse, both – without the basic knowledge about reading a score, and demanding perfect bodies with limited vocal resources and heft for the leading roles. One might as well record an opera with great singers who SING, and then film the work using lip synching actors. Not the ideal, of course, but that's what one would need if one wants to enjoy both beautiful singing and beautiful people. Another sad reality is that many critics are wannabe's who never were able to create a performing career themselves, or botched their musicological dissertation, or simply want the world to know they, and only they, are the ones with true knowledge. Then, of course, there is the pervasive body-cult which is impossible to escape. As audience members who love opera, we might also do well by reflecting whether we, too, have fallen prey to its effects. That said, any form of offensive language toward anyone involved in an opera production must not be tolerated. Sadly, this affair reflects on how standards of decency have slipped toward the vulgar, not only in the world of opera, but in society at large. In this sense, the offensive criticisms say as much about the critics themselves and about today's society and culture (or lack thereof) than about the opera production under review. Today we witness what it means when people take seriously the image of reality rather than reality itself. With desastrous consequences.
Richard Jones is very meticulous in his casting. I am convinced he got exactly what he asked for.
Just wonderful. In a world where it seems most people can't hear their way out of a paper bag, we have these critics who are making mean, and non-musical remarks about musicians. It doesn't even matter that opera combines music and the visual arts. The number of people who can't hear or even make sensible remarks about the aural part of the art of music today is only going to be increased when critics make personal, offensive, immature remarks such as these. The truly important parts – the sound, the tone, the technique, the intonation, the rhythmic vitality – are being discounted in a world that becomes more visually oriented by the day. It is no wonder that musicians are so often undervalued.
I have never seen the young singer in question but I offer two thoughts:
First, I find it very unusual that a multiplicity of critics would all zero in on the same issue; thus, I conclude that there may well be an issue here. And if a singer's self-esteem is damaged by negative reviews, then she has more significant problems with which to deal than what a critic writes.
Second: the idea that how singers look is not important is so outdated as to be laughable. Sorry to disappoint all of you but live opera is both a visual and an aural experience. We don't close our eyes when we enter the opera house and we care about more than just the singing. Otherwise, why are so many people outraged at new productions? In fact, why do new productions at all? If a singer's looks detract from how their portrayal comes across, then it's a problem and it's worth a critical comment. BTW: Andrew Clark, in the FT (the one online entry I could find) balanced his view of her looks by saying the role was "gloriously sung."
"I find it very unusual that a multiplicity of critics would all zero in on the same issue; thus, I conclude that there may well be an issue here"
Really? Or perhaps you should conclude that these deplorable, pathetic men have all known each other for years, and have actually had a good session bitching about this issue in a bar after the show before writing up their reviews.
This is so infuriating. Can we please have a circuit where we aficionados can listen to people like Ms X and other luminaries mentioned here – and the idiots who get their beauty standards from an extremely narrow, myopic, pornified slice of unreality go get their pleasures elsewhere?
I got to hear Caballé when I was a very young child. I can't overstate the impact that concert had on me, seeing that authoritative musician on stage showing the results of so much hard work, dedication and culture. (By the way, it was a very long recital, and she didn't go offstage for a moment, not even to change into another dress, another bit of contemporary idiocy I'll never understand.)
It's a somewhat delicate matter to explain to non-music lovers that musicians who communicate well are indeed sexy, and many of us appreciate erotic tension as much as anybody else when it appears onstage, but that that sort of attractiveness is much more subtly arranged and convoluted than just showing abs or tits. That's why I don't like the defense, so very easy in this case, that Ms X is actually beautiful already in photographs. Were she or any other singer really ugly to almost every taste, that wouldn't matter – please open your mouth, and we'll see (stupid pun intended).
Please, singers who might be reading, believe us: many of us want to let ourselves be convinced through voice (and some effort at acting) that you're Cleopatra or Butterfly, and are ready to save money for the privilege. And you critics, rethink it if you're behaving like Karl Lagerfeld, or go review his fashion shows. Gah.
Don't suppose any of these male 'experts' ever mentioned that they thought Pavarotti was too fat, ugly or sweaty to play many of his lead roles? No because he had a great voice. – so why should it be different for woman?
For what it is worth I just googled the lady in question and she is a gorgeous looking girl – but that should totally irrelevant!
Here's one of the same critics on Pavarotti. I wouldn't have said calling him "bloated" and referring to him as "big Lucy" was particularly kinder than the comments in his "Rosenkavalier" review.
And here he is more recently on the "massive bulk" of Johan Botha.
This critic is evidently something of a body-fascist, and he has a singularly ungracious way of putting things – but clearly, this is not a gender issue.
I would like to express my concern at this wanker even being allowed back into any theatre after these remarks. After these sort of remarks he should be sent to cover Garden Shows.
I did see the production, it was flawless. The lead artists sung and acted beautifully and the balance and chemistry between them amazing. The best Rosenkavalier I have ever seen. It is totally crazy to refer to body type in opera. What matters is the voice quality and the skill of the interpretation. This production succeeded in capturing the period Strauss was dealing with in a very clever way. Sod the critics. If you can get a ticket for this then kill for it, joyous on every level.
I will no doubt be criticised by most of the earlier commentators. But I cannot understand why some are in such uproar over a few, brief comments contained in much longer reviews. No, I have not seen the production. I saw the first review and commented in another thread that I would certainly not go and see this Rosenkavalier. I have no desire to see an Octavian or Marschallin in the buff – or in a body suit pretending to be in the buff. I say that only because I cannot see that the drama or the libretto justifies it. Richard Jones disagrees. But it is indisputable fact that the drama on-stage is an absolutely vital part of opera. Thus if a singer also agrees to his concept and freely elects to disrobe, she (or he) cannot thereafter argue that this fact is beyond comment.
This story has just come to my attention. I wish I'd seen this production for myself so I could come to my own conclusion, although my bias is usually in favour of the quality of the singing and playing over the visual, if a choice must be made.
What puzzles me is the absence of Tara Erraught's name from this story or the comments. Since she is the subject, why has her name been ignored or – worse – suppressed? Is there an explanation?
As I have always suspected, Show me a critic and I'll show you a good reason for abortion.
The director is smiling all the way to the bank because he has generated the buzz that he dreamed of. No, this nonsense must stop. When Rosencavalier is reduced to this, people are not thinking and are acting like morons. The director clearly means to offend and insult the audience. Don't take the bait. Look how low the discourse is over an exalted masterpiece! These culturewreckers need to be stood up to and made to feel our contempt. This site often chronicles the sorry state of opera today throughout the world. Well, productions like this one are a large part of the problem. Passionately as I love this opera, I wouldn't cross the street to watch a production like this but I would traverse the Sahara on hands and knees for the opportunity to insult and berate this cynical, philistine elitist who seeks to raise himself up by smearing graffiti on art.
I trust that all of these offended critics will be getting their money back, as with every opera or concert that has ever failed to totally delight them. Oh, did I miss something?
I am posting this publicly for the very first time. I think body image in opera destroyed my relationship of 20 years. My ex has a phenomenal voice and personality to match. He has won major competitions including the Met and I can't help but think that his short and stocky appearance has kept him from acquiring the success he dreamed of and deserves. It led to a frantic weight loss, personality change, mid life crisis and eventually the need for him to travel away from the U.S. and away from me. I guess I could truly never convey how beautiful of voice and figure he was to me and that led to my part in the demise of our relationship. As a voice teacher myself I support all singers big and small and pray that this trend of picture perfect weight and attractiveness ends soon. Everyone who works hard should have their chance at success and I hope wherever my ex is he is having the successful career he sacrificed so much for.
Since when did body size become an issue for sopranos. Think Montserrat Cabale, Jesse Norman, Victoria de los Angeles and countless others.
Its the VOICE!!
How about this? Let's level the playing field. How about some pictures of the bodies of the critics, so we can see their middle-aged spread, receding hairline, double chin, pocked face, pop-bottle glasses. BRING IT!
Exactly why I threw out my TV. Media will no longer truffel me with lies and bias.
May the offenders be strickened with a disease of the brain.
Johan Botha….can't sing a production without a critic speaking negatively of his weight. – See more at: https://slippedisc.com/2014/05/singers-in-uproar-at-critical-body-insults-at-glyndebourne/#sthash.T7pNZxWk.dpuf
Actually, Jamie, he can, as you can read in a review by one of the specific critics being taken to task here.
Read the last few months of reviews from these men — they do, often as not, give a pass to overweight men.
Anything in daily life may be accomplished by waiting on hold firmly with a certain objective even though you'll
find hindrances towards success. I am not going how to lose 10 pounds a week with exercise go
into the math of metabolic process though the simple truth is
you'll want to below the knob on calories starting your system daily to
ensure that you lose lose weight. In short after lunch avoid breads, cereals, rice, pasta, potatoes and corn and fill on proteins and


text:
Featured News - Current News - Archived News - News Categories
Congressman Brian Higgins, NY-26, voted in support of S. 74, the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Thursday. The bill had previously passed in the Senate with a vote of 78-22 and now heads to the White House for the president's signature.
"I was proud to support this strong bipartisan legislation, which expands basic protections under the law to ensure that all victims of domestic violence and sexual assault can receive the care and the services that they need," said Higgins, a member of the House victims' rights caucus.
S. 74 extends VAWA protections to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, in addition to Native American and immigrant victims. It also includes new provisions for addressing domestic violence on college campuses, reducing the backlog of untested DNA evidence in rape kits, and protecting victims of human trafficking.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
|NeXT, Sun Microsystems
|Initial release
|Written in
|Operating system
|Solaris; Windows NT; Unix-like operating systems with the Mach kernel
|Available in
|Application programming interface
OpenStep is an object-oriented application programming interface (API) specification for a legacy object-oriented operating system, with the basic goal of offering a NeXTSTEP-like environment on a non-NeXTSTEP operating system. OpenStep was principally developed by NeXT with Sun Microsystems, to allow NeXTSTEP (like) development on Sun's operating systems, specifically Solaris. NeXT produced a version of OpenStep for their own Mach-based Unix, known as OPENSTEP (all capitalized),[1] as well as a version that ran on Windows NT. The software libraries that shipped with OPENSTEP are a superset of the original OpenStep specification, including many features from the original NeXTSTEP.
The OpenStep API was created as the result of a 1993 collaboration between NeXT and Sun Microsystems, allowing this cut-down version of the NeXTSTEP operating system object layers to be run on Sun's Solaris operating system (more specifically, Solaris on SPARC-based hardware). Most of the OpenStep effort was to strip away those portions of NeXTSTEP that depended on Mach or NeXT-specific hardware being present. This resulted in a smaller system that consisted primarily of Display PostScript, the Objective-C runtime and compilers, and the majority of the NeXTSTEP Objective-C libraries. Not included was the basic operating system, or the lower-level display system.
The first draft of the API was published by NeXT in summer 1994. Later that year they released an OpenStep compliant version of NeXTSTEP as OPENSTEP, supported on several of their platforms as well as Sun SPARC systems. The official OpenStep API, published in September 1994, was the first to split the API between Foundation and Application Kit and the first to use the "NS" prefix.[2] Early versions of NeXTSTEP used an "NX" prefix and contained only the Application Kit, relying on standard Unix libc types for low-level data structures. OPENSTEP remained NeXT's primary operating system product until they were purchased by Apple Computer in 1996. OPENSTEP was then combined with technologies from the existing classic Mac OS to produce Mac OS X. iPhone and iPad's iOS is also a descendant of OPENSTEP, but targeted at touch devices.
Sun originally adopted the OpenStep environment with the intent of complementing Sun's CORBA-compliant object system, Solaris NEO (formerly known as Project DOE), by providing an object-oriented user interface toolkit to complement the object-oriented CORBA plumbing. The port involved integrating the OpenStep AppKit with the Display PostScript layer of the Sun X11 server, making the AppKit tolerant of multi-threaded code (as Project DOE was inherently heavily multi-threaded), implementing a Solaris daemon to simulate the behavior of Mach ports, extending the SunPro C++ compiler to support Objective-C using NeXT's ObjC runtime, writing an X11 window manager to implement the NeXTSTEP look and feel as much as possible, and integrating the NeXT development tools, such as Project Builder and Interface Builder, with the SunPro compiler. In order to provide a complete end-user environment, Sun also ported the NeXTSTEP-3.3 versions of several end-user applications, including Mail.app, Preview.app, Edit.app, Workspace Manager, and the Dock.
The OpenStep and CORBA parts of the products were later split, and NEO was released in late 1995 without the OpenStep environment. In March 1996, Sun announced Joe, a product to integrate NEO with Java. Sun shipped a beta release of the OpenStep environment for Solaris on July 22, 1996,[3] and made it freely available for download in August 1996 for non-commercial use, and for sale in September 1996. OpenStep/Solaris was shipped only for the SPARC architecture.
The API OpenStep contrasts with the earlier NeXTSTEP primarily in five ways:
- OpenStep describes only the upper-level libraries and services (like Display PostScript), whereas NeXTSTEP referred to both these libraries and the operating system as well.
- Any code depending entirely on the Mach kernel was removed, so that OpenStep could be run on top of any reasonably powerful operating system.
- A significant amount of effort was put into making the system "endian-free", an issue NeXT had already faced during a port of NeXTSTEP to the Intel platform.
- Low-level objects such as strings were represented with C data types in NeXTSTEP, whereas in OpenStep a number of new classes (NSString, NSNumber, etc.) were introduced to support endian-conversion as well as provide added functionality and become platform-independent. This had ripple-effects throughout the API, mostly for the better. This set of classes (a framework) was called the Foundation Kit, or just Foundation for short.
- OpenStep uses reference counting to manage memory and object lifetimes, and provides Autorelease Pools as a form of automatic memory management. NeXTSTEP does not provide reference counted memory management.
The API specification itself is composed of the two main sets of object-oriented classes: the GUI and graphics front-end known as the Application Kit, and the aforementioned Foundation Kit.
However, OpenStep also specified the use of Display PostScript, a versatile and powerful PostScript-based method of drawing windows and graphics on screen. NeXT, with its devotion to implementing object-oriented solutions, supplied pswraps for interfacing C code to Display PostScript. pswraps acted in an encapsulative way similar to Embedded SQL, and was somewhat object oriented. The Application Kit, Foundation, and Display PostScript comprise the three key technologies in the OpenStep specification; many of the specific calls in the API were available in NeXTSTEP as well, but many were modified or re-packaged for OpenStep.
Building on OpenStep[edit]
The standardization on OpenStep also allowed for the creation of several new library packages that were delivered on the OPENSTEP platform. Unlike the operating system as a whole, these packages were designed to run stand-alone on practically any operating system. The idea was to use OpenStep code as a basis for network-wide applications running across different platforms, as opposed to using CORBA or some other system.
Primary among these packages was Portable Distributed Objects (PDO). PDO was essentially an even more "stripped down" version of OpenStep containing only the Foundation Kit technologies, combined with new libraries to provide remote invocation with very little code. Unlike OpenStep, which defined an operating system that applications would run in, under PDO the libraries were compiled into the application itself, creating a stand-alone "native" application for a particular platform. PDO was small enough to be easily portable, and versions were released for all major server vendors.
In the mid-1990s, NeXT staff took to writing in solutions to various CORBA magazine articles in a few lines of code, whereas the original article would fill several pages. Even though using PDO required the installation of a considerable amount of supporting code (Objective-C and the libraries), PDO applications were nevertheless considerably smaller than similar CORBA solutions, typically about one-half to one-third the size.
The similar D'OLE provided the same types of services, but presented the resulting objects as COM objects, with the goal of allowing programmers to create COM services running on high-powered platforms, called from Microsoft Windows applications. For instance one could develop a high-powered financial modeling application using D'OLE, and then call it directly from within Microsoft Excel. When D'OLE was first released, OLE by itself only communicated between applications running on a single machine. PDO enabled NeXT to demonstrate Excel talking to other Microsoft applications across a network before Microsoft themselves were able to implement this functionality (DCOM).
Another package developed on OpenStep was Enterprise Objects Framework (EOF), a tremendously powerful (for the time) object-relational mapping product. EOF became very popular in the enterprise market, notably in the financial sector where OPENSTEP caused something of a minor revolution.[citation needed]
OPENSTEP for Mach[edit]
NeXT's first operating system was NeXTSTEP, a sophisticated Mach-UNIX based operating system that originally ran only on NeXT's Motorola 68k-based workstations and that was then ported to run on 32-bit Intel x86-based "IBM-compatible" personal computers, PA-RISC-based workstations from Hewlett-Packard, and SPARC-based workstations from Sun Microsystems.
NeXT completed an implementation of OpenStep on their existing Mach-based OS and called it OPENSTEP for Mach 4.0 (July, 1996), 4.1 (December, 1996), and 4.2 (January, 1997). It was, for all intents, NeXTSTEP 4.0, and still retained flagship NeXTSTEP technologies (such as DPS, UNIX underpinnings, user interface characteristics like the Dock and Shelf, and so on), and retained the classic NeXTSTEP user interface and styles. OPENSTEP for Mach was further improved, in comparison to NeXTSTEP 3.3, with vastly improved driver support – however the environment to actually write drivers was changed with the introduction of the object-oriented DriverKit.
OPENSTEP for Mach supported Intel x86-based PC's, Sun's SPARC workstations, and NeXT's own 68k-based architectures, while the HP PA-RISC version was dropped. These versions continued to run on the underlying Mach-based OS used in NeXTSTEP. OPENSTEP for Mach became NeXT's primary OS from 1995 on, and was used mainly on the Intel platform. In addition to being a complete OpenStep implementation, the system was delivered with a complete set of NeXTSTEP libraries for backward compatibility. This was an easy thing to do in OpenStep due to library versioning, and OPENSTEP did not suffer in bloat because of it.
Solaris OpenStep[edit]
In addition to the OPENSTEP for Mach port for SPARC, Sun and NeXT developed an OpenStep compliant set of frameworks to run on Sun's Solaris operating system. After developing Solaris OpenStep, Sun lost interest in OpenStep and shifted its attention toward Java. As a virtual machine development environment, Java served as a direct competitor to OpenStep.
OPENSTEP Enterprise[edit]
NeXT also delivered an implementation running on top of Windows NT 4.0 called OPENSTEP Enterprise (often abbreviated OSE). This was an unintentional demonstration on the true nature of the portability of programs created under the OpenStep specification. Programs for OPENSTEP for Mach could be ported to OSE with little difficulty. This allowed their existing customer base to continue using their tools and applications, but running them on Windows, to which many of them were in the process of switching. Never a clean match from the UI perspective, probably due to OPENSTEP's routing of window graphics through the Display Postscript server—which was also ported to Windows—OSE nevertheless managed to work fairly well and extended OpenStep's commercial lifespan.
OPENSTEP and OSE had two revisions (and one major one that was never released) before NeXT was purchased by Apple in 1997.
Rhapsody, Mac OS X Server 1.0[edit]
After acquiring NeXT, Apple intended to ship Rhapsody as a reworked version of OPENSTEP for Mach for both the Mac and standard PCs. Rhapsody was OPENSTEP for Mach with a Copland appearance from Mac OS 8 and support for Java and Apple's own technologies, including ColorSync and QuickTime; it could be regarded as OPENSTEP 5. Two developer versions of Rhapsody were released, known as Developer Preview 1 and 2; these ran on a limited subset of both Intel and PowerPC hardware. Mac OS X Server 1.0 was the first commercial release of this operating system, and was delivered exclusively for PowerPC Mac hardware.
Darwin, Mac OS X 10.0 and later[edit]
After replacing the Display Postscript WindowServer with Quartz, and responding to developers by including better backward compatibility for classic Mac OS applications through the addition of Carbon, Apple released Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server, starting at version 10.0; Mac OS X is now named macOS.
macOS's primary programming environment is essentially OpenStep (with certain additions such as XML property lists and URL classes for Internet connections) with macOS ports of the development libraries and tools, now called Cocoa.
macOS has since become the single most popular desktop Unix-like operating system in the world, although macOS is no longer an OpenStep compliant operating system.[citation needed]
GNUstep, a free software implementation of the NeXT libraries, began at the time of NeXTSTEP, predating OPENSTEP. While OPENSTEP and OSE were purchased by Apple, who effectively ended the commercial development of implementing OpenStep for other platforms, GNUstep is an ongoing open source project aiming to create a portable, free software implementation of the Cocoa/OPENSTEP libraries.
GNUstep also features a fully functional development environment, reimplementations of some of the newer innovations from macOS's Cocoa framework, as well as its own extensions to the API.
See also[edit]
- ^ Toastytech.com
- ^ Cocoa Fundamentals Guide: A Bit of History
- ^ "Sun announces availability of Solaris OpenStep and Workshop OpenStep Beta" (Press release). Sun Microsystems, Inc. Retrieved 2006-10-25.


text:
What to CookAmanda & Merrill
Lobster Diavolo
- Merrill
For a while, it looked like this recipe wasn't going to happen. One week, we ran out of time to shoot it, the next our local seafood store was out of lobster, the week after that Amanda and I were both going to be away and couldn't do a shoot. It was beginning to seem like one of my all-time favorite dishes -- which I've sampled all up and down the Northeast coast, from Esca in New York to Street and Company in Portland, Maine -- simply wasn't meant to be. At least not this summer on Food52.
But then at the end of August, I spent a week with my family in Maine, and the opportunity presented itself: a fisherman friend offered to drop off a bunch of lobsters, and I knew exactly what was going to be on the menu. If it's done right, Lobster Diavolo sings with the fresh, juicy tang of summer tomatoes and thrums with the gentle heat of chilis. When tossed with al dente pasta, the sauce provides a kicky backdrop that complements rather than overwhelms the sweet suppleness of the lobster itself. I like to keep the lobster in large pieces so it looks pretty on the plate, and I've always loved Esca's addition of fresh mint, so I adopted it myself.
Last week, we were finally able to shoot this dish. We snuck in the photo at the very end of the day, as the light was waning. Once we had the shot, and we were all gathered around the pan, forking up spicy strands of pasta and sweet chunks of lobster, I felt that somehow, summer was now complete.
Lobster Diavolo
Serves 2
- 2 pounds Roma tomatoes (or 28 ounces canned tomatoes with their juices)
- 2 tablespoons olive oil, plus more for finishing
- 2 fat cloves garlic, crushed
- 1/4 to 1/2 teaspoon chili flakes
- Salt
- Two 1.5-pound live lobsters
- 1/2 pound spaghetti
- 1 teaspoon chopped fresh mint
See the full recipe (and save and print it) here.
Like this post? See Merrill's post from last week: Two-Tone Fudgesicles
Photos by Nicole Franzen and Joseph Di Leo.


text:
Search terms
Remember what we said
The Voice Tracer digital recorder is ideal for capturing conversations - the audio quality is outstanding even in loud environments. On top of that, it also lets you charge your device everywhere you want via USB. See all benefits
Unfortunately this product is no longer available
The signal–to-noise (S/N) ratio of the high-sensitivity microphone is far better than those of standard microphones. Recording sensitivity is increased (picks up more voice signal) without compromising sound quality.
Recording with good audio quality at lectures or presentations can be a challenge. Especially if you do not sit in the front row, the voice of the speaker may be to quiet too record in acceptable quality. The ClearVoice feature adjusts quiet passages dynamically, thus improving the intelligibility of quieter voices.
Your VoiceTracer just works - Plug and Play in Windows, Mac OS and Linux.
Voice volume indicator for clear volume feedback. The innovative voice volume indicator directly shows you the sound input volume on the display.
The large graphical display lets you view all important file information at a glance, thanks to the backlit display even in poor lighting conditions.
Help protect the environment by simply recharging the batteries of your device using USB instead of buying new batteries.
Store your music collection and downloaded songs on your Voice Tracer. Playback of WMA and MP3 music formats is supported.
The innovative hands-free microphone is included in the box.
Thanks to the fast data transfer of a hi-speed 2.0 USB connection, transfering recordings to your PC is up to 40 times faster compared with the original USB standard.
The index function helps and eases finding relevant passages in an instant.
Recordings can be taken in the popular MP3 or the high quality PCM format. The PCM format offers outstanding audio CD like recording quality and therefore makes listening to your audio files a pleasure.


text:
LIT looking for instructors
The Lamar Institute of Technology Office of Workforce Training and Continuing Education will hold an instructor recruiting fair from 4 to 8 p.m. on July 17. The event will be at the Multi-Purpose Center at 802 E. Lavaca in Beaumont. The department is looking for instructors to teach in several areas, including health sciences, pharmacy technology, OSHA, supervision, welding, entrepreneurship, leadership, real estate and public safety as well as others. These will be part-time temporary positions with a pay range of $25 to $50 an hour depending on experience, education and the course being taught. Applicants should bring a resume. For more information, call (409) 880-8114.


text:
Dr. Julie Gralow has made it her personal mission to help women with breast cancer live healthy, fulfilling lives. This commitment has taken her beyond the clinic and into the lives of many of her patients, whether in her home town of Seattle or as far away as Ukraine and Uganda.
Dr. Gralow's passion for cancer care was sparked when she was an undergraduate at Stanford. She landed a part-time job as a lab technician with renowned cancer researcher Dr. Ron Levy, who was testing a new approach to treating lymphoma.
"I remember feeling like we were doing the coolest thing in the world," reflected Dr. Gralow. "And I thought what a career - to be able to take a promising idea from the laboratory to the patients' bedside. I loved the blend of research and patient care, and I knew from then on that I wanted to become an oncologist."
Three decades later, Dr. Gralow is a leading breast cancer specialist and researcher in her own right, serving as Director of Breast Medical Oncology at the University of Washington and an active member of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. While many things have changed during her career, she points to the growing number of cancer survivors – and the increased focus on their long-term wellbeing – as one of the most exciting trends.
"The evolution of cancer survivorship, and promoting healthy lifestyles for survivors, is an area I've been most thrilled to see and participate in. We still have a long way to go, but I've seen the incredible difference that survivorship programs can make in patients' lives."
Dr. Gralow became personally involved in these efforts in the 1990s, through her work with Team Survivor, a non-profit organization that organizes group exercise opportunities for women affected by cancer.
She originally joined the program to coach some of her own patients, who were training for a Team Survivor-sponsored triathlon. But the day before the race, she decided she wanted to do more than sit on the sidelines: she wanted to cross the finish line with her patients. So without any training, Dr. Gralow completed her first of many Team Survivor races.
"Participating side-by-side with my patients, whether it's a half marathon or a triathlon, has been huge in my life," she said. "It's incredibly rewarding to help these women set a goal, train hard and achieve it."
Encouraged by these experiences, Dr. Gralow later started exploring ways she could improve breast cancer care for women outside of the United States. In 1997, she joined a multi-year breast cancer project in the Ukraine, where she provided training to local doctors on the latest chemotherapy, diagnostics and supportive care approaches.
While there, she and her colleagues also decided to try to change a long-held Ukrainian medical custom, in which doctors did not disclose or discuss patients' cancer diagnoses.
"Doctors in Ukraine were taught not to tell women that they had breast cancer," she said. "They believed women would commit suicide if they knew. Women were told they had a serious infection that needed to be treated with breast surgery and strong antibiotics. But these women knew they had breast cancer: they were treated in the chemotherapy ward of a cancer hospital. It just made the experience so much more scary and difficult."
The team identified a small group of healthcare providers who were interested in a more open approach. They worked together to develop culturally appropriate ways to speak openly with patients about their diagnosis. To Dr. Gralow's surprise, this new approach quickly took hold - among both providers and patients. Soon, a new network of breast cancer survivor support groups arose.
"It was incredible," she said. "These support groups spread like wildfire because, for the first time, women felt allowed to talk openly about their disease."
Inspired by these women and by the breast cancer advocacy movement in the United States, in 2003 Dr. Gralow helped organize and secure funding for the first-ever Eastern European/Central Asian Breast Cancer Advocacy Conference. Later this year, the conference will take place for the fifth time, in Lithuania, bringing together patients, physicians and government leaders from 17 countries.
"It's amazing to see these women supporting each other, getting ideas and learning how to better advocate for better research, resources and care," said Dr. Gralow.
Most recently, Dr. Gralow joined a Harvard University task force that is exploring ways to improve cancer care in developing countries, and is helping to establish a new cancer hospital in Uganda. Together with a Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and University of Washington team, Dr. Gralow is training the hospital's staff and educating women in nearby rural communities about women's health and cancer prevention.
"The way we're approaching cancer in Uganda is very different from what we do in the U.S.," she said. "There, it has to be cheap, feasible, and use far less technology than we do here. But it's fascinating to see how we can do so much good with little amounts of money. I think there are great lessons to be learned, which we can ultimately apply to provide better, more cost-effective care for our patients here at home."
Julie Gralow, MD, is the recipient of ASCO's 2008 Statesman Award for her extraordinary volunteer service, dedication, and commitment to the Society. She is currently Director of Breast Medical Oncology at the University of Washington and has dedicated her life to fighting breast cancer. She is committed to improving quality of life for breast cancer patients through education, exercise and diet, and to promoting breast cancer awareness in the community.
Last Updated: August 09, 2011


text:
Nashua's share for proposed playground is estimated at $86,000By KIMBERLY HOUGHTON
New Hampshire Union Leader
April 24. 2014 11:46PM
NASHUA — For the first time since the debate started about where Legacy Playground should be built, the estimated price-tag for the city's portion of the project was unveiled.
While Leadership Greater Nashua is fundraising to collect $250,000 for the fully accessible playground, the city will likely still have to provide financial assistance to pay for infrastructure costs regardless of where it is built, officials said.
Project organizers have said repeatedly that they would like the new playground to be constructed at Greeley Park, and introduced preliminary plans to an aldermanic committee this week highlighting the proposed layout of the structure.
Opponents and supporters of the Greeley Park location have attended numerous meetings to voice their opinions on the site, which must be approved by the Board of Aldermen because of a building moratorium at the park.
On Wednesday, Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan said it could cost the city upward of $86,000 if the Greeley Park location is authorized. That figure includes $36,000 for site work, $33,500 to resurface Carriage Road, $12,000 in upgrades to the stonehouse bathroom facility and $4,750 for four additional handicap parking spaces.
However, it was noted that Carriage Road may not need to be resurfaced, and that the bathroom renovations were already slated to take place this summer regardless of whether a new playground was built at the park.
Sheehan said the city's costs for the related playground infrastructure needs are significantly less if the Greeley Park site is selected, adding many other locations in Nashua would be significantly more expensive because of asbestos cleanup, additional fencing and construction of bathrooms and utilities.
Eric Brand, project organizer, said that the Greeley Park site has far less costs associated with it than other locations investigated by Leadership Greater Nashua. In addition, he said various grants or other sources of revenue may be available to help offset some of the costs.
To date, $105,528 has been collected for the new playground that has yet to find a home. An additional $26,500 has been pledged, according to Brand.
The Board of Aldermen voted on Tuesday to hire an independent consultant to study numerous locations within the city to determine where the fully accessible play structure would be most feasible.


text:
If Walls Could Talk / Ming Gyo (Daniel) Chung / Unconquerable Dreams
Korean born Min Gyo (Daniel) Chung is an emerging illustrator based in Toronto, Canada. His work has been recognized by the American Illustration, 3×3, CMYK and Creative Quarterly. In 2013, he won the Adobe Design Achievement Awards in the Illustration category, including the Grand Prize for Traditional Media. He is currently pursuing a Bachelor of Design (BDes) in the Illustration program at OCAD University.
Unconquerable Dreams is a sculptural installation presenting a comparative study between the Terracotta Army sculptures in China and blow up sex dolls. It examines the idea of mass-producing inanimate objects with humanistic features to compromise one's unattainable desire. Furthermore, it questions the repetition of history, the absurdity of mass production and the human inclination to manipulate the ephemerality of life.
IWCT is an experiential illustration event that will be on public display at the Gladstone Hotel from March 6–30, 2014.
Curated by Leila Courey, IWCT is a juried exhibition of experiential illustration that features work by emerging and established artists. Selected projects use illustration—or other art forms related to it—to occupy or alter the hotel's 2nd floor gallery and public spaces, in dramatic, conceptual, and experimental ways.
We'd like to thank media sponsor Applied Arts Magazine and agency partner Zulu Alpha Kilo, for their generous support.
For press and media inquiries please contact Managing Director – Artistic Projects, Britt Welter-Nolan


text:
New Apple Mac Mini with 2x Performance Review, Specs, Features and Price
Are you looking for a new device that offer portability and powerfull performance? Apple has been launched their new Apple Mac Mini with upgraded features and specifications provide 2x better performance than the old version. Comes with several configurations and made from highly recyclable solid aluminum for cassing, new 2011 Apple Mac Mini is available now in the Apple Store with starting price at $599 or $699 depending your configurations.Read more ›


text:
Meet thousands of Cloverdale singles through one of the best Cloverdale online dating sites. Matchmaker.com has great instant messenger and live video Cloverdale chat service for our members. Cloverdale dating has never been easier with our show interest feature that will allow you to break the ice with attractive local singles.
Matchmaker.com has some great services for Cloverdale singles looking for a longer term relationship. Besides our great Cloverdale chat product with live video matchmaker users can send email messages to people in the area. The Cloverdale dating scene can be hard to find the right person at times; however, we are here to help and our Cloverdale online dating service is free to register.
CloverdaleJoin Now Free!
Cloverdale Girls | Cloverdale Men | Cloverdale Gay | Cloverdale Lesbians
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
More Cloverdale Links:
Cloverdale Personals | Cloverdale Speed Dating | Cloverdale Chat | Cloverdale Singles | Cloverdale Love
Senior Dating | Catholic Dating | Christian Dating | Muslim Dating
Black Singles | Asian Singles | Latin Dating
Try our Cloverdale dating service today. Matchmaker.com is one of the oldest Cloverdale online dating services on the Internet and has brought thousands of couples together from the area. Test drive our Cloverdale Chat room with one of the best online communities for the Cloverdale single person. Also, keep in mind that we have a huge member base of Cloverdale singles and that we also cater to members of the many backgrounds.
Still not convinced that matchmaker is the free Cloverdale dating service for you? Once you've filled out the quick registration process you will be to see full size photos and profiles of thousands of Cloverdale singles. Did you know that free Cloverdale dating is a few clicks away? Find love and romance in Cloverdale at matchmaker today!


text:
I have recently switched to using a Minneapolis Duct Blaster and have noticed that switching the rings has been resulting in varying results. My question is which reading is more accurate?
I know that each ring is used depending on the amount of leakage in the duct system, however it doesn't seem clear which ring I should be using. Yesterday I test a 1.5 ton system in a condo and I used the #2 ring. I got a result of 240 CFM then I put in the #3 ring (smallest one) and got 180 CFM. Which one is accurate?
Views: 939
Hi Stephen, if we don't get a more knowledgeable answer, my blaster experience is very limited, we can summon someone from TEC. But from this link: http://www.energyconservatory.com/sites/default/files/documents/dbq... it looks like ring #2 (90 to 300 cfm) would be the best choice. However, there are areas of crossover between the different rings and I'm unsure if two different rings would yield the same number. Example would be ring #2 giving a reading of 100 CFM, should one switch to ring #3 and if so would they see a big difference?
Thanks for the reply Bud. I usually start with ring #2 and if its on the low side I will try ring #3. If its on the high side I will go with #1. It seems like the answer is a gut feeling of which one is right, the instructions only say to use which ring you "think best matches" but thats far from scientific.
I had been using the retro tech duct blaster which seemed to have closer numbers when you changed the rings or wouldnt give a reading if the leakage was out of the rings range. However, the Minnieapolis one seems to give a different number for each ring and doesnt really show out of range.
Number 3 ring should be more accurate. This is according to my HERS training which I was taught if you can achieve the pressure the smallest ring is the most accurate or the fan speed as high as possible. This is true also of the Blower Door.
I use Retrotec and always move to the smallest ring I can to achieve readings. Is see small difference but never 60 cfm maybe 1-10 cfm
Are you certain you had the correct ring set on the manometer to match the blaster?
Thanks for the info, I have been going with the number that I get with the smaller ring so that makes me feel more confidant.
Yes I changed the setting on the manometer.
Stephen, curious if you changed back and forth between #2 and #3 and got the same reading with each ring repeatedly, or just made the switch once?
No I only switched once.
I got to ask - When was the last time you did a calibration check because based on Minneapolis Flow Tables a 180 is impossible to get on the smallest flow ring. You may wish to check the manuals page http://www.energyconservatory.com/support/manuals for how to field check your fan & gauge.
I can't recall does EC have a can't reach 25 feature where it will extrapolate the number for you? If so & you are not reaching 25, that tells you immediately that you need to switch rings to a larger size
With that as Glen points out - the higher the fan speed & smaller the ring the more accurate reading you will have. The biggest catch is making sure everything is set up right (no one standing on a hose) and you double check your settings - if any of these is off so is the result.
Choosing a size - I generally base mine on the size of the house, what I see, and prior results by the contractor. Fortunately even if I need to switch rings, it isn't a big deal - just don't forget to change the manometer setting
Thats why I was confused on my readings because I'm still getting a reading outside of what the CFM should be for that ring. If it is out of range does that mean its wrong?
I did a field calibration and I'm slightly higher than the CFM of 106 for fully calibrated, I read CFM 109.
Just checking all the bases. Did you remember to switch configurations on the dg 700 to account for the different rings? That would certainly make a difference.
I built a test box- 2 ft square where the duct blaster attaches to one side and I can vary the openings on the other side. When I switch rings, I always get readings that are the same (within the margin of error), even when I am outside the ideal range of the duct blaster. Makes me think it is a setup, or calibration error.
You were testing leakage to the outside and total leakage, and also doing a Blower Door Test on the condo?
If so, what surfaces were your sealed vents on. Drywall? Laminate/tile Flooring? Carpet? How did you seal those? How windy outside? Are your ducts inside conditioned space? Outside in traditional areas, attic or crawl? Outside in service areas unique to multi level structures? How well did your temporary sealing hold up? I did one last night and pulled a less then perfect seal into the duct. As you would expect that 4 x 12 return increased leakage by 200 CFM @25.
In general the higher speed, smaller ring is more accurate, both BD and DB. How does your test result compare with the standards. Code or Energy Star is CFM / 100 sf of conditioned space; ACCA is 10% of system air flow. Before you got there did you expect to hit one of these targets? If so, how close did you come?
To reiterate what Glen said, always use the smallest ring that allows you to achieve the desired level of (de)pressurization. It will always be the most accurate reading available.
It may not be the Blaster but the water vapor presser inside, air speed outside. I have also found duct leaks change with attic temp. I have found return air leaks if in a stud of wall change with Relativity Humidity in wood and sheet rock. super dry out the wood to 2% then when spring hits with 100%RH day after day its less. In my own home I did a duct blaster each morn for 90+ days and got different reading each day. Hood test are better at repeating same CFM. but still +- 5% each day with temp and RH. The tighter the building the closer the reading. I opened a main duct snap in plenum with high static presser .4"wc and dropped an extra 450 CFM into the attic- the heat and presser from hanging 30' kinda put it self together and lowered the CFM 450, with lower presser. The local who made the duct needs to replace the tooling on his duct maker as it does not snap together well.
© 2018 Created by Home Performance Coalition (HPC) Powered by