Please answer this: Given the below context: In 1861 Saint-Saens accepted his only post as a teacher, at the Ecole de Musique Classique et Religieuse, Paris, which Louis Niedermeyer had established in 1853 to train first-rate organists and choirmasters for the churches of France. Niedermeyer himself was professor of piano; when he died in March 1861, Saint-Saens was appointed to take charge of piano studies. He scandalised some of his more austere colleagues by introducing his students to contemporary music, including that of Schumann, Liszt and Wagner. His best-known pupil, Gabriel Faure, recalled in old age: After allowing the lessons to run over, he would go to the piano and reveal to us those works of the masters from which the rigorous classical nature of our programme of study kept us at a distance and who, moreover, in those far-off years, were scarcely known. ... At the time I was 15 or 16, and from this time dates the almost filial attachment ... the immense admiration, the unceasing gratitude I [have] had for him, throughout my life. Saint-Saens further enlivened the academic regime by writing, and composing incidental music for, a one-act farce performed by the students (including Andre Messager). He conceived his best-known piece, The Carnival of the Animals, with his students in mind, but did not finish composing it until 1886, more than twenty years after he left the Niedermeyer school.In 1864 Saint-Saens caused some surprise by competing a second time for the Prix de Rome. Many in musical circles were puzzled by his decision to enter the competition again, now that he was establishing a reputation as a soloist and composer. He was once more unsuccessful. Berlioz, one of the judges, wrote: We gave the Prix de Rome the other day to a young man who wasn't expecting to win it and who went almost mad with joy. We were all expecting the prize to go to Camille Saint-Saens, who had the strange notion of competing. I confess I was sorry to vote against a man who is truly a great artist and one who is already well known, practically a celebrity.... Guess a valid title for it!
++++++++
Answer: Camille Saint-Saens
Problem: Given the below context: Following the Seven Years' War (175663) and the forced migration of Native American tribes westward, German, Scots-Irish, and other European immigrants settled in the central Susquehanna Valley, including in the area that would become Northumberland, Pennsylvania. Northumberland was laid out around a central village green in 1772, on land originally purchased from the Iroquois by the Province of Pennsylvania in 1768, as part of the first Treaty of Fort Stanwix. During the American Revolution, the village was evacuated as part of the Big Runaway in 1778, and only finally resettled in 1784. In 1794, when the Priestleys moved there, it included Quaker and Wesleyan meeting houses, a brewery, two potteries, a potash manufacturer, a clock maker, a printer (who issued a weekly newspaper), several stores, and approximately one hundred houses. The Priestley property, purchased in 1794 at a total cost of 500 ( 56,400 in 2019) from Reuben Haines, who had secured the patent to the land for Northumberland, comprised four lots of the original village plan (numbers 2932). Currently, the house and grounds occupy 1 acre (4,000 m) at 472 Priestley Avenue. (The address of the house was originally "North Way", but the street was later renamed in honor of Joseph Priestley.) This street forms the northwest boundary of the property; the other boundaries are Hanover Avenue to the northeast, Wallis Street to the southwest, and the North Shore Railroad to the southeast. Beyond the railroad line is a baseball field, and beyond that lies the Susquehanna River, which was the original southeastern boundary of the property. The confluence of the West Branch Susquehanna River with the main (or North) branch of the Susquehanna is a short distance southwest of the property, which is at an elevation of 456 feet (139 m).The property's original area was 2 acres (8,000 m), but this was reduced by about half around 1830 when the Pennsylvania Canal (North Branch Division) was dug through the house's front yard, between the house and river. On... Guess a valid title for it!

A: Joseph Priestley House
Q: Given the below context: Nina, an interpreter, is beside herself with grief at the recent death of her boyfriend, Jamie, a cellist. When she is on the verge of despair, Jamie reappears as a "ghost" and the couple are reunited. Nina is ecstatic. But Jamie tells her about his days while she is at work, and one dialogue suggests she should embrace the life around her; one of these is about a memorial plaque in a park about a dead child and how parents who read it feel an immediate, compelling need to hug their children. The returned Jamie also reminds her that he also irritated her, and as a ghost he manifests behaviours she'd have little patience for turning up the central heating to stifling levels, moving furniture around and inviting back "ghost friends" to watch videos. This infuriates her, and their relationship deteriorates. She meets Mark, a psychologist, to whom she is attracted, but she is unwilling to become involved with him because of Jamie's continued presence. Nina continues to love Jamie but is conflicted by his self-centred behaviour and ultimately wonders out loud, "Was it always like this?" Over Nina's objections, Jamie decides to leave to allow her to move on. Towards the end of the film, Jamie watches Nina leave and one of his fellow ghosts asks, "Well?" and Jamie responds, "I think so... Yes." At this point the central conceit of the movie has become clear: Jamie came back specifically to help Nina get over him by tarnishing her idealised memory of him. Guess a valid title for it!
A:
Truly, Madly, Deeply