That violinist who is also a writer

A melody in a world of dreams

2,481 notes

Why teach music?

Music is a science:
It is exact, specific, and it demands exact acoustics. A conductor’s full score is a chart, a graph which indicates frequencies, intensities, volume changes, melody, and harmony all at once and with the most exact control of time.

Music is mathematical:
It is rhythmically based on the subdivisions of time into fractions which must be done instantaneously, not worked out on paper.

Music is a foreign language:
Most of the terms are in Italian, German, or French; and the notation is certainly not English— but a highly developed kind of shorthand that uses symbols to represent ideas. The semantics of music is the most complete and universal language.

Music is history:
Music usually reflects the environments and times of its creation, often even the country and/or racial feeling.

Music is a physical education:
It requires fantastic coordinations of the fingers, hands, arms, lips, cheek, and facial muscles, in addition to extraordinary dinary control of the diaphragmatic, back, stomach, and chest muscles, which respond instantly to the sound the ear hears and the mind interprets.

Music is all these things, but most of all music is art:
It allows a human being to take all these dry technically boring (but difficult) techniques and use them to create emotion. That is one thing that science cannot duplicate: humanism, feeling, emotion, call it what you will.

This is why we teach music!
Not because we expect you to major in music.
Not because we expect you to play or sing all your life.
Not so you can relax.
Not so you can have fun.
BUT— so you will be human.
So you will recognize beauty.
So you will be sensitive.
So you will be closer to an infinite beyond this world.
So you will have something to cling to.
So you will have more love, more compassion, more gentleness, more good— in short, more life.

Of what value will it be to make a prosperous living unless we know how to live?

That is why we teach music.

Pennsylvania Music Educators’ Association  (via vivaciousviolinist)

(via bsharpcflat)

9,163 notes

composers: a summary

bach:
I FKN HATE PARALLEL FIFTHS
vivaldi:
3 billion concertos hhaha
cpe bach:
who am i
mozart:
sunshine and smiles
haydn:
i basically invented every single genre lol
beethoven:
ANGST ANGST ANGST and triplets and going deaf
chopin:
my soUL
paganini:
hahhaha noobs
liszt:
AHAHAHHAHA noobs
alkan:
fck ur fingers lol
brahms:
cLARA
schubert:
im a mushroom
wagner:
have a twenty year long opera lol and leitmotifs
tchaikovsky:
boom boom cannons
rachmaninoff:
HANDS
debussy:
sevenths and modes and whole tones awww yiss
ravel:
bitch please ninths elevenths quadrillionths
holst:
who needs stringed instruments ha anD I HATE THE PLANETS
prokofiev:
lol get out of my way conventional tonality i will modulate in one measure to f double fuckflat minor and stay there for a page
shostakovich:
anGST ANGST ANGST FUCK YOU STALIN
cage:
reich:
rrrrererreeepepeepeppppeeeaaaeaeaeaeeaaaatattatttt
stravinsky:
da da da da da DA da da
schoenberg:
(/79jjsOO##jksi&@'
satie:
im funny

388 notes

Many of us have this idea that we’re meant to be perfect as writers. Instead, try thinking of your writing as akin to your fingerprints. They are what they are – unique patterns that exclusively represent you – not good or bad or better or worse than anyone else’s.
Instead of trying to perfect your writing, then, strive to get acquainted with this pattern and become more and more proficient at expressing it. There is no endpoint in this process, and we will never arrive at “perfect.” So why not give up the chase right now, and just enjoy the resonance and beauty of our humble, flawed writing as it is?
Sage Cohen (via writingquotes)

764 notes

yeahwriters:

randomhouse:

"HI WERE YOU LOOKING FOR ME YOU WERE LOOKING FOR ME RIGHT PLEASE PET ME INSTEAD OF READING ONE OF THESE THINGS PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE"
Don’t fall for those sweet eyes and those elegantly draped whiskers and those widdle paws and that boopable nose. Stay true to the cause! Read!

WAAAHT KITTENS BRAINZ MELTINGGG

yeahwriters:

randomhouse:

"HI WERE YOU LOOKING FOR ME YOU WERE LOOKING FOR ME RIGHT PLEASE PET ME INSTEAD OF READING ONE OF THESE THINGS PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE"

Don’t fall for those sweet eyes and those elegantly draped whiskers and those widdle paws and that boopable nose. Stay true to the cause! Read!

WAAAHT KITTENS BRAINZ MELTINGGG

41,101 notes

mothsexinspace:

ruingaraf:

themarchrabbit:

Seriously, it kills me when I see people hold scientists up as pinnacles of logic and reason.

Because one time the professor I was interning for got punched in the face by another professor, because mine got the funding, and told the other professor his theory was stupid.

This same professor told me to throw rocks to scare the “stupid fucking crabs” into moving so we could count them properly.

SCIENCE

thank you

this is one of the best comments this post has recieved

oh my god this

(via missenthusiasimal)

9,003 notes

humansofnewyork:

"I’m studying to be a librarian."
"What’s the sexiest part about being a librarian?"
"I’d say the width of our knowledge. The rest of academia seems to have a rather specific focal point, whereas librarians need to know enough to serve as a guide for researchers of every discipline."

humansofnewyork:

"I’m studying to be a librarian."

"What’s the sexiest part about being a librarian?"

"I’d say the width of our knowledge. The rest of academia seems to have a rather specific focal point, whereas librarians need to know enough to serve as a guide for researchers of every discipline."

(via fuckyeahreading)

43,491 notes

steampunkscarecrow:

pintpotjudas:

itstimeforfeminism:

calendar—girl:

girlsgetbusyzine:

writeswrongs:

cumaeansibyl:

coffeeandconlangs:

Unnecessary “fillers” in our speech. I’d rather have “like” than up-talking, though (if we had to choose one, that is). Ewwww, up-talking. Then again, a combination of the two would render me homicidal maniac.


Like, did you ever notice? That, like, the speech patterns people, like, think are stupid?  Are, like, commonly associated with, like, women?
And, like, there’s this thing? Where, like, women aren’t supposed to be, like, assertive? So they, like, qualify their speech? Because, like, we’re not supposed to, like, stand by our opinions?

1) humiliate women so they don’t feel qualified to speak authoritatively about anything
2) humiliate women for speaking in such a way that reflects how you treat her
3) laugh, you are superior because you don’t use words like “like.”  It isn’t as if being a huge stupid asshole has ever made you worse than a woman who speaks with verbal tics.  

The nail. It is hit on the head.


Also ‘like’ is a very clever way to refer to something. ‘They said’ is much more forceful and implies accuracy whereas ‘they were like’ ‘it was like’ ‘i was like’ allows you some leeway in the interpretation.

Also, every single language has filler words. They serve a vital function in conversation! Sometimes the speaker isn’t sure what word they want to use, or maybe they forgot where they were going with it. Filler words help buy time for the speaker without confusing the listener, because they don’t tend to add a whole lot of meaning to the statement (with the exception of how “like” is used in the previous comment; though that’s awesome too!). 
Honestly, having a linguistic sense of superiority is so petty… like good for you, you’re so bound to absolutes that you can’t grasp language variation or change over time, wow, so proud, good job kiddo :/

steampunkscarecrow:

pintpotjudas:

itstimeforfeminism:

calendar—girl:

girlsgetbusyzine:

writeswrongs:

cumaeansibyl:

coffeeandconlangs:

Unnecessary “fillers” in our speech. I’d rather have “like” than up-talking, though (if we had to choose one, that is). Ewwww, up-talking. Then again, a combination of the two would render me homicidal maniac.

Like, did you ever notice? That, like, the speech patterns people, like, think are stupid?  Are, like, commonly associated with, like, women?

And, like, there’s this thing? Where, like, women aren’t supposed to be, like, assertive? So they, like, qualify their speech? Because, like, we’re not supposed to, like, stand by our opinions?

1) humiliate women so they don’t feel qualified to speak authoritatively about anything

2) humiliate women for speaking in such a way that reflects how you treat her

3) laugh, you are superior because you don’t use words like “like.”  It isn’t as if being a huge stupid asshole has ever made you worse than a woman who speaks with verbal tics.  

The nail. It is hit on the head.

Also ‘like’ is a very clever way to refer to something. ‘They said’ is much more forceful and implies accuracy whereas ‘they were like’ ‘it was like’ ‘i was like’ allows you some leeway in the interpretation.

Also, every single language has filler words. They serve a vital function in conversation! Sometimes the speaker isn’t sure what word they want to use, or maybe they forgot where they were going with it. Filler words help buy time for the speaker without confusing the listener, because they don’t tend to add a whole lot of meaning to the statement (with the exception of how “like” is used in the previous comment; though that’s awesome too!).

Honestly, having a linguistic sense of superiority is so petty… like good for you, you’re so bound to absolutes that you can’t grasp language variation or change over time, wow, so proud, good job kiddo :/

176 notes

newwavenova:

genderpunkenby:

just another reminder that comic sans is a font that is easier for people with dyslexia to read. So maybe know that before you talk shit about comic sans yeah?

For those who want to improve accessibility in places where comic sans is not viable (like in an essay) try using Helvetica, Courier, Ariel, Veranda, or Computer Modern as they have also tested well for readability.

(source study: http://www.luzrello.com/Publications_files/assets2013.pdf)

(via steampunkscarecrow)