'A message from the gay community performed by the san francisco gay mens chorus'

[Vanguard]

30 minutes ago, california boy said:

wait, who is pushing adult males out into the search of youth to convert??  Are you suggesting that the gay community does that?  I think you are confusing the missionary program with a choir.

Can you tell me the difference between the Gay Men's Chorus singing about their beliefs and desire to teach tolerance and love vs. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing songs pushing their message?  The Church does EXACTLY the same thing.

I think you're coming in a bit late on the uptake. That is not my point. I had responded to pogi's comment that there isn't any significant difference between what other's might fear is the message from the choir (not necessarily my fear) and what the Church actually does in seeking out converts. The fear is that yes, adult males are out actively seeking new converts (whatever that might mean). Though I don't join those ranks, this fear is quite different than what the Church does though pogi and I still do not agree entirely. By the way, the MoTab's message is not that we are coming for your children - it's not exactly the same thing.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Here's an article that further explores the event:  https://latterdaysaintmusicians.com/the-tabernacle-choir-at-temple-square/the-mormon-tabernacle-choir-and-the-san-francisco-gay-mens-chorus-blend-their-voices-to-build-musical-bridges-of-understanding-and-unity

At the risk of drowning everyone in irony, here are some excerpts (bolding and underlining mine):

Irony.

I was vaguely aware of the coverage of this last year, but until now, I was unaware of what a nothingburger this really was. Inviting a few guests to sit in for a while during pre-concert soundcheck rehearsal (also a rather routine practice while the choir is on tour) is a far cry from the two groups appearing together on stage for a joint performance (which is the impression I was left with last year, not having closely examined the coverage). And I might not have been able to put it in proper perspective in my mind even now had I not observed the Tabernacle Choir on two previous tours and seen what typically happens on a Tabernacle Choir tour. 
 

Maybe they will do a joint concert sometime in the future; I don’t deny that possibility. But it certainly hasn’t happened yet. 
 

I don’t mean to be be disparaging or unduly dismissive. It’s nice that the choir organization extended those invitations and that the individuals graciously accepted. But come on folks! Let’s convey reality here. 

Edited July 9, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[LoudmouthMormon]

Well, in fairness, I guess, the MoTab did sing the Black Speech of Mordor for a Lord of the Rings PC game back in the day.   So just singing evil things doesn't necessarily make you evil.  I guess. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

wait, who is pushing adult males out into the search of youth to convert??  

Ironically, the SFGMC.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Are you suggesting that the gay community does that?  

Ironically, the lyrics to the song say that.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I think you are confusing the missionary program with a choir.

Nope.  The missionaries reach out to everyone.  They do not target children, and revel in doing so by subverting their parents. 

Unlike the deliberately and explicitly subversive lyrics in the song, the Church's policies honor and require parental consent.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

If you feel that the person you are teaching needs additional preparation, do not schedule an interview until he or she meets the standards. If the candidate is a minor, ensure that the parents or guardians have given permission, preferably in writing, for him or her to be baptized.
...

Do I need permission to baptize a minor child?

The Church’s concern with respect to children is their current and future well-being and the harmony of their home environment. For their protection, the following conditions must be met before you can baptize a minor child under legal age, as defined by local laws:

1. You must obtain permission from both parent(s) or legal guardian(s), and they must understand the doctrine that a baptized child will be taught and the covenants he or she will be expected to make. You may ask for this consent to be in writing if you feel it will help prevent misunderstandings.

2. You have discerned that there is clear evidence that the child understands the baptismal covenant and will make every effort to keep it through obeying the commandments, including faithfully attending Church meetings.

3. The child’s primary residence is not with parents who are polygamists. If one or both of the child’s parents are polygamists, you must contact the mission president for additional information.

4. The baptism is not prohibited by local laws and culture.

No subversion of parents at all.  Contrast the foregoing policy with the lyrics to the song:

Quote

YOU THINK THAT WE'LL CORRUPT YOUR KIDS
IF OUR AGENDA GOES UNCHECKED.
FUNNY, JUST THIS ONCE, YOU'RE CORRECT.

WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN,
HAPPENS BIT BY BIT,
QUIETLY AND SUBTLELY
AND YOU WILL BARELY NOTICE IT,
...
JUST LIKE YOU WORRIED,
THEY'LL CHANGE THEIR GROUP OF FRIENDS,
YOU WON'T APPROVE OF WHERE THEY GO AT NIGHT
...
WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN,
REACHING ONE AND ALL.
THERE'S REALLY NO ESCAPING IT
...
WE'RE COMING FOR THEM
WE'RE COMING FOR YOUR CHILDREN
WE'RE COMING FOR THEM
WE'RE COMING FOR THEM
WE'RE COMING FOR YOUR CHILDREN
FOR YOUR CHILDREN

Quite a distinction in approaches.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Can you tell me the difference between the Gay Men's Chorus singing about their beliefs and desire to teach tolerance and love vs. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing songs pushing their message?  The Church does EXACTLY the same thing.

Nothing like.

No threats of parental subversion.

No threats to "come for your children."

No gloating about doing these things "quietly and subtlely," about "converting" their children, about inducing them to go out at night where their parents won't approve (holy cow, what does telling parents that have to do with tolerance?), and so on.

No sexual euphemisms (adult men singing, repeatedly, "we're coming for your children").

Nope.  The Church's missionary efforts are nothing like what the song talks about.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 9, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

A news article quoted Chris Verdugo as saying:

"Verdugo admits that he did not expect the chorus would be unleashing such a storm with its post. "It's a lightning rod," he acknowledged, of the risks of referencing anything gay and child-related in the same breath. But, he says, the performance "came from a very innocent place. We weren’t trying to antagonize anyone … we never thought it would — and perhaps that’s on us."

I believe him, despite Nehor's claims that the song was obviously meant to make specific people angry. 

I'm having a difficult time believing him.  The lyrics are inherently provocative and antagonistic.

Neither the lyrics nor the staging of the video comes across as being "from a very innocent place."  Particularly the "Just this once, you're correct" bit in the video, together with the repeated sexual euphemism.  It seems, instead, to have been quite deliberately provocative and offensive.  

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

But yeah, they probably should have known that singing about converting children to agree with the choir's beliefs on homosexuality, against the wishes of their parents, wasn't going to go over very well with the people they were singing about.

Not that that justifies death threats or threats of harm in any way.  

Quite so.  Threats of violence and other ugly responses are not justified.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm having a difficult time believing him.  The lyrics are inherently provocative and antagonistic.

Neither the lyrics nor the staging of the video comes across as being "from a very innocent place."  Particularly the "Just this once, you're correct" bit in the video, together with the repeated sexual euphemism.  It seems, instead, to have been quite deliberately provocative and offensive.  

Quite so.  Threats of violence and other ugly responses are not justified.

Thanks,

-Smac

There have been enough posters on this thread who have repeatedly called into question your motives--despite you saying over and over again that they are wrong--that it seems like you of all people would be more willing to let people speak for themselves and not assign motives to them, despite your personal feelings about it.

But you are right, he could be lying.  I just see no good reason to assume he is.  I can't see how assuming that serves any positive purpose.  

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So did they pull the video because they were ashamed or because of the predictable death threats?

Sounds like it was due to the threats and general yuckiness/immaturity of the vocal minority response.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Yes. This. His acknowledgement makes me feel bad for the choir. As a colllective, I have to believe the message was well-intentioned. Perhaps they went overboard though they do not have the market on going overboard. ; ) I hope this does not sully whatever goodwill there is between the Church and this particular choir. : ( And yes, death threats and the like are discouraging, infuriating, and prone to leaving one despondent about mankind. : (

It sounds like they got a good response to this the few times they performed it in person, even among heterosexual groups.  So I would not be surprised if the negativity really did catch them off guard.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There have been enough posters on this thread who have repeatedly called into question your motives--despite you saying over and over again that they are wrong--that it seems like you of all people would be more willing to let people speak for themselves and not assign motives to them, despite your personal feelings about it.

But you are right, he could be lying.  I just see no good reason to assume he is.  I can't see how assuming that serves any positive purpose.  

Fair enough.  I'm viewing his claim in the context of the lyrics of the song and the staging of the video.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm having a difficult time believing him.  The lyrics are inherently provocative and antagonistic.

Says the person who keeps quoting the lyrics, but somehow keeps leaving off the 

“WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN...
WE'LL MAKE THEM TOLERANT AND FAIR.”

or

WHEN THEY START FINDING THINGS ONLINE
THAT YOU'VE KEPT FAR FROM THEIR SIGHT
(LIKE INFORMATION...)

or

THE WORLD'S GETTING KINDER.

or

LEARN TO LOVE,
 

or

WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN,
SOMEONE'S GOTTA TEACH THEM NOT TOHATE.
 

or

YOU'RE CHILDREN WILL CARE ABOUT
FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE FOR OTHERS
 

And on and on. All of the context that is required to judge the lyrics you leave off when you quote it out of context over and over. 
 

It’s almost like you are being inherently antagonistic and provocative. That makes it inherently hard to believe you. See how that works?

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Says the person who keeps quoting the lyrics, but somehow keeps leaving off the 

“WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN...
WE'LL MAKE THEM TOLERANT AND FAIR.”

or

WHEN THEY START FINDING THINGS ONLINE
THAT YOU'VE KEPT FAR FROM THEIR SIGHT
(LIKE INFORMATION...)

or

THE WORLD'S GETTING KINDER.

or

LEARN TO LOVE,
 

or

WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN,
SOMEONE'S GOTTA TEACH THEM NOT TOHATE.
 

or

YOU'RE CHILDREN WILL CARE ABOUT
FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE FOR OTHERS
 

And on and on.

I quoted the entirety of the lyrics verbatim in the OP.

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

All of the context that is required to judge the lyrics you leave off when you quote it out of context over and over. 

Yes, all of the context.  Again, I quoted the entirety of the lyrics in the OP.  That's context.

I have also pointed to the sexual euphemism in the song.  That's context.

I have also provided substantial information about the creators of the song and how they have previously written songs construed as glorifying pedophilia and child rape of Afghani boys.  That's context.

I have also noted their retraction and shutting down of their musical, and their apology to Afghanis.  That's context.

I have also noted that rather than retracting and apologizing for this song, they are doubling down on it.  That's context.

I have also noted that the Afghanis who criticized the creators are hardly "right wing."  That's context.

I have also noted that quite a few gay people have also found the song/video to be offensive, provocative, etc.  That's context.

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It’s almost like you are being inherently antagonistic and provocative. That makes it inherently hard to believe you. See how that works?

Nope.  I'm providing all sorts of context.

And here you are, once again personalizing the thread.  Please stop.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 9, 2021 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I quoted the entirety of the lyrics verbatim in the OP.

Yes, all of the context.  Again, I quoted the entirety of the lyrics in the OP.  That's context.

And yet every time since then you intentionally snip those parts out. I wonder why. It’s almost as if you are being intentionally provocative and antagonistic. 

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have also pointed to the sexual euphemism in the song.  That's context.

You continue to do this over and over. I wonder why? Also interesting that you leave off the fact that the sexual euphemism originated in the religious straight community used as scare tactics to prevent acceptance of our gay brothers and sisters. You leave off the context where people (even Dallin Oaks) advocated for laws preventing gay people from working with children say as a teacher. That context is somehow missing. It’s almost like you are being antagonistic and provocative. 

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have also provided substantial information about the creators of the song and how they have previously written songs construed as glorifying pedophilia and child rape of Afghani boys.  That's context.

I have also noted their retraction and shutting down of their musical, and their apology to Afghanis.  That's context.

Other people viewed it in a way they didn’t intend. They regretted it and made every attempt at restitution. How commendable. 

 

Edited July 9, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Vanguard said:

I think you're coming in a bit late on the uptake. That is not my point. I had responded to pogi's comment that there isn't any significant difference between what other's might fear is the message from the choir (not necessarily my fear) and what the Church actually does in seeking out converts. The fear is that yes, adult males are out actively seeking new converts (whatever that might mean). Though I don't join those ranks, this fear is quite different than what the Church does though pogi and I still do not agree entirely. By the way, the MoTab's message is not that we are coming for your children - it's not exactly the same thing.

Still asking what the difference is.  The message of the song is”We’ll convert your children to tolerance “.  How is the Gay Men’s Chorus doing their message of tolerance differently than how the Church does it?   

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Ironically, the SFGMC.

Ironically, the lyrics to the song say that.

How interesting that the context that shows what the song writer meant is left off. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  The missionaries reach out to everyone.  They do not target children, and revel in doing so by subverting their parents. 
 

How interesting. Baseball baptisms have occurred multiple times in multiple missions around the globe. Baptisms where missionaries (authorized representatives of the church) deliberately targeted children without parental consent. That bit of context for church policy isn’t relevant though right? Is there something similar you can point to for gay men?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Unlike the deliberately and explicitly subversive lyrics in the song, the Church's policies honor and require parental consent.  See, e.g., here:

Require consent for what? Teaching? Or just baptisms. Is the context that teaching is just fine relevant here?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

No subversion of parents at all.  Contrast the foregoing policy with the lyrics to the song:

Huh, there seems to be pieces missing from those lyrics. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

No sexual euphemisms (adult men singing, repeatedly, "we're coming for your children").

huh, no context of where that euphemism originated or why the choir was using it.

 

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And yet every time since then you intentionally snip those parts out. I wonder why. You continue to do this over and over. I wonder why?

Because I am quoting the parts that are objectionable.

Because quoting the entirety of the lyrics would be a waste of time since they are readily available (and again, I quoted the entirety of the lyrics in the OP).

Because everyone here knows about and has access to "those {snipped out} parts," such that the context is readily apparent.

35 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Also interesting that you leave off the fact that the sexual euphemism originated in the religious straight community used as scare tactics to prevent acceptance of our gay brothers and sisters.

Don't know what you're talking about here.

And "the religious straight community" didn't sing create and publicly post a video showing dozens of men singing about a sexual euphemism involving children.

35 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Other people viewed it in a way they didn’t intend.

Other people also viewed that musical about child rape negatively too.  And the creators apologized and shut it down.

Meanwhile, let's take a look at these pics (courtesy of that right-wing outfit, the Huffington Post) :

"Hope your baby girl is ready for a good time..."

"Freshman daughter drop off"

"Go ahead and drop off Mom too..."

"She called you daddy for 18yrs, now its OUR TURN."

"Thank You Fathers for your Freshman Daughters."

I'm curious if you are willing to give these fratboy idiots the same sort of presumption?  Or are these fratboys somehow smarter and more self-aware than the creators of the song/video?

Are you willing to say that "Other people viewed {these banners} in a way {these fratboys} didn’t intend"? 

Or is it more likely that these fratboys knew exactly what they were doing, and just didn't care?

As one guy guy said (regarding the SFGMC song/video) : "I get that this is a joke, but it’s like frat houses I’ve seen with signs for freshers arriving on campus 'Fathers, kiss your virgin daughters goodbye'. It’s a joke, but it’s in terrible taste and does not win them any fans or sympathy." 

Yep.

35 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

They regretted it and made every attempt at restitution. How commendable. 

And they're doubling down about the song/video.  No apology or retraction in sight. 

Familiarity breeds contempt, dunnit?  Basic decency, consideration and respect for those exotic and faraway Afghanis, but not for their next door neighbors.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 9, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How interesting. Baseball baptisms have occurred multiple times in multiple missions around the globe.  Baptisms where missionaries (authorized representatives of the church) deliberately targeted children without parental consent.

And corrected each time.

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That bit of context for church policy isn’t relevant though right?

Not really.  This thread isn't about baseball baptism.

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is there something similar you can point to for gay men?

Well, it's a long read: Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth

Thanks,

-Smac

[Maestrophil]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Says the person who keeps quoting the lyrics, but somehow keeps leaving off the 

“WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN...
WE'LL MAKE THEM TOLERANT AND FAIR.”

or

WHEN THEY START FINDING THINGS ONLINE
THAT YOU'VE KEPT FAR FROM THEIR SIGHT
(LIKE INFORMATION...)

or

THE WORLD'S GETTING KINDER.

or

LEARN TO LOVE,
 

or

WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN,
SOMEONE'S GOTTA TEACH THEM NOT TOHATE.
 

or

YOU'RE CHILDREN WILL CARE ABOUT
FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE FOR OTHERS
 

And on and on. All of the context that is required to judge the lyrics you leave off when you quote it out of context over and over. 
 

It’s almost like you are being inherently antagonistic and provocative. That makes it inherently hard to believe you. See how that works?

Here is where I could take offense should I choose to at these lyrics (I don't really choose to get offended very often :-)). - It's a lot like the signs "In this house - we believe in science, love is love etc."  The way they are worded implies that we , the straight listeners, are not already teaching our kids these things, and they NEED to be converted. It implies pretty directly that the listener is a homophobe and is teaching it to their children by default - just like those signs seem to imply that those 'other' homes where YOU live are rubes who hate science and gays if they don't believe or express themselves like I do.

I see the intent of taking the steam out of the trope of gay men coming for our kids by writing a 'parody' song - but I also agree with some that it can come across as mean-spirited and 'othering" if that is even a word.  🙂

 

Edited July 9, 2021 by Maestrophil
spelling

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How interesting. Baseball baptisms have occurred multiple times in multiple missions around the globe. Baptisms where missionaries (authorized representatives of the church) deliberately targeted children without parental consent. That bit of context for church policy isn’t relevant though right? Is there something similar you can point to for gay men?

How interesting you have to reach back 50-plus years into antiquity in search of a functional equivalency to shore up your tu quoque fallacy. 

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, california boy said:

Still asking what the difference is.  The message of the song is”We’ll convert your children to tolerance “.  

The "message" is also that they'll "corrupt" our children, that they will subvert parents and encourage children to "go at night" to where their parents "won't approve."

The "message" also includes a repeated sexual euphemism (a double entendre).  Dozens upon dozens of adult men "coming" for "{our} children."

43 minutes ago, california boy said:

How is the Gay Men’s Chorus doing their message of tolerance differently than how the Church does it?   

Again: 

No threats of parental subversion.

No threats to "come for your children."

No gloating about doing these things "quietly and subtlely," about "converting" their children, about inducing them to go out at night where their parents won't approve (holy cow, what does telling parents that have to do with tolerance?), and so on.

No sexual euphemisms (adult men singing, repeatedly, "we're coming for your children").

Nope.  The Church's missionary efforts are nothing like what the song talks about.

Good "Squirrel!" attempt, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 9, 2021 by smac97

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

Still asking what the difference is.  The message of the song is”We’ll convert your children to tolerance “.  How is the Gay Men’s Chorus doing their message of tolerance differently than how the Church does it?   

The Church invites people to be tolerant as an extension of a Gospel-centered life, not satirize them because they have already condemned them as intolerant. The Church teaches children tolerance to support these ideals in the home, not just sarcastically joke about it to undermine the parents and show them a lesson or two.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

Honestly, these lyrics could be taken straight out of the play book from the Mormon agenda.

There is a huge difference in my view of using a first person POV of  ‘I will make a choice to do and be…’ or  ‘I will tell others about what makes me happy’ and intending that will lead others to become like you and a POV that is from ‘we will make others choose…’, especially when the ‘others’ are other people’s children, people many of whom who strongly, even angerly at times disagree with those choices. The first is saying imo I will be an example that can bring change, the latter is saying change is coming to your children whether you want it or not and in the end to you too. 
 

The end results may be very similar (or not, would be interesting to see a study but not sure how one could go about it as while it might not be difficult to find parents opposed to both normalizing nonheterosexual behaviours and acceptance of the Church, the rejection level wouldn’t necessarily be equal plus not a large number of their children will likely be converting to the Gospel, so sample size would be a problem), a conversion of others to a belief held by the singer.
 

However, the method of the message itself with the nuances of what is being taught—the attitudes towards others especially—is important.  The first attitude is about sharing joy and happiness, desiring to bring all their friends to joy and this implies bringing happiness to the world as the song does not exclude anyone from being part of their circle of friends. The second song has an us vs them divide in it, it is the children of ‘them’ that are being reached out to.  The “make an ally of you yet” after the rest of the song comes across less as joy at opening someone’s heart so that they become true friends because you care about them and want them to be happy and more like a concern for one’s own happiness, a resistant parent will have to give in to keep family harmony and that benefits the songwriters.  The parents becoming their allies, their supporters is what is important   rather than the parents being happier themselves because their heart has learned a better way to love. 

Edited July 9, 2021 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How interesting you have to reach back 50-plus years into antiquity in search of a functional equivalency to shore up your tu quoque fallacy. 

Huh 🤔. SMAC called this up from 1987 on the first page:

Here John Dehlin talks about his experiences with baseball baptisms in the 1980’s. 
 

https://www.Mormon*******.***/podcast/mormon-stories-podcast-001-kiddie-bapsmy-mission-experience-in-guatemala/

Is it only bad when I do it? Trying to figure this out. 
 

ps

 Look. I have no issues with the church’s missionary program. What I take issue with is the continual mischaracterization that is occurring here with the gay men’s chorus. My intent in posting the baseball baptisms is to show that even good intentions can lead to bad results, and that he who is without sin ought to cast the first stone. The demonization that I see happening here, is unseemly. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Well, in fairness, I guess, the MoTab did sing the Black Speech of Mordor for a Lord of the Rings PC game back in the day.   

Really?  CFR please. 

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Really?  CFR please. 

https://www.ign.com/articles/2003/06/27/chance-thomas-interview-at-gamasutra

Quote

A new Chance Thomas interview has the respected composer and Music Director of The Lord of the Rings titles providing insight on a variety of subjects related to his work. These are his comments when asked if he'll be making music for The Return of the King:

...

It's really an uncommon approach to scoring games, as these themes have been created in advance to be used in all LOTR games simultaneously and perpetually, to tie all of the games together with a series of common musical threads and templates specific to each race. The templates have been thoroughly researched and are based on the actual text of Tolkien's literature. These themes will be quoted, varied, and used verbatim in a variety of ways across all of VUG's LOTR games to bring greater authenticity and continuity to the entire series. It elevates the importance of music in gaming, and this is one of the goals that those of us in GANG, AIAS, and NARAS have all been working towards for many years.

Wait until you hear the singers from the Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing the Black Speech of Mordor! It will make your hair stand on end and send shivers down your spine! It is soooooo creepy! And they are simply magnificent singing Eomer's war cry from the battle of the Pelennor Fields. You'll hear a Celtic fiddle player rip through a classical-Celtic section in the Overture of Man that may inspire an entire generation of kids to play the violin. He's unbelievable. Plus we've got Psaltry, Dulcimer, Viola di Gamba, Mandolin, the entire Utah Film Orchestra, etc., etc. etc... It really kicks, and I honestly think it will set an important benchmark for the next generation of music in games.

Looks legit.  See also here:

 

This score was nominated for Music of the Year in 2009 by the Game Audio Network Guild. It was performed by the Utah Film Orchestra. Lysa Rytting provided the masterful harp performances and Jenny Jordan added the ethereal vocals. Choral singers were from the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Judd Maher conducted, Glenn Neibaur engineered, MIke Roskelley mixed, Paul Taylor provided sheet music preparation.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Wiener's bill, which is now law, did not change criminal statutes. It allowed judges the option to not include on the state's sex offender registry those over the age of 18 who have been convicted of oral or **** intercourse with someone between the ages of 14 and 17, provided that the individual so convicted is within 10 years of age of their consensual sexual partner.

An aside:  They really need to include when this info is shared that it modified a law that judged typical heterosexual and homosexual behaviour differently (in that vagina penetration was given the pass now also given to oral and ——), they are now equivalent.  (This is from memory, if someone wants to CFR me, no problem). When they post it alone, it comes across as making an exception rather than removing one.