Randomalites

The new rule: As much- or more- time must be spent practicing the viola as practicing the guitar. My viola practicing was waning at a disturbing level anyway, but it has become virtually non-existent in the last few months as I give myself maddening crash-courses on the guitar. This is not a productive plan of action.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Contemplating something risky. Details to follow as idea unfolds.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Everyone in the house is happier when I play the viola than when I'm playing the violin. Everyone.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I get paid on Wednesday. Therefore, I might be up for something social this weekend. It all depends on how early in the month I want to blow my Allotted Monthly Entertainment Budget. I'm thinking about seeing The Passion of Christ so I can get it out of the way and start commenting on it. Because I know it will be rife with comment material. For good or for bad.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm really glad I went to church on Sunday with pheret1, pinkfluffyjumpr, hellfaerie, and unhappymeal. Its been a long time since I've gone to church with people that I really consider good friends. If I didn't have commitments at my own church I'd consider going with you all full-time- although that would mean I'd either have to crash in the city every Saturday night, or drive in at an absolutely ludicrous hour every Sunday morning.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sprung has spring. At least temporarily.

(no subject)

So we've got "morals"- what you accept as your own personal way of leading your life.

And we've got "ethics", which tends to overlap largely with "morals", but involves kind of a societal concensus on morals.

Morals define the person; ethics define the society.

Morals don't necessarily dictate ethics, but ethics largely dictate morals. Agree or disagree?


Is it possible for an action to be immoral but not unethical? Or to be unethical but not immoral? Or, amoral but not unethical, or vice versa? Is there really a difference between immoral and amoral? Ethically speaking, that is......



**Editor's note: The views above do not necessarily reflect the views of this journal. They don't necessarily not reflect them, either. They are for entertainment purposes only exist soley for the scintillating discussion that is sure to follow hopefully will ensue**

(no subject)

happy birthday cinnajess!

(no subject)

I'm a little confused about something that I thought I knew. In the Sunday School class I just started going to during Lent, the concept came up of a crucifix (I believe I am using that term right- meaning a cross that shows Jesus on it- correct me if I am wrong) versus an empty cross.

Somewhere in the back of my brain, I have the idea that a crucifix is something that is mainly seen in Catholic churches, and the empty cross is used by Protestants and other non-Catholic churches, such as Anabaptists. However, someone else in the class disagreed with me, saying that Protestants, such as Lutherans and Episcopalians also use the crucifix, with Jesus actually depicted on the cross, instead of the empty cross. Since he is an ordained pastor, I would tend to go ahead and assume he is better educated than I in this matter- however, he is also an ordained pastor in an Anabaptist tradition, not a mainline Protestant tradition. Also, having been raised Lutheran (ELCA) and Episcopalian (I have been a member of the Church of the Brethren for the last six years, which is part of the Anabaptist tradition), I don't remember ever seeing an actual crucifix anywhere, just crosses. I also have vague memories of the concept coming up in Lutheran confirmation class, but that was fifteen years ago.

Can anyone help clear this up for me? Preferably with some kind of theological backing? Thank you.


**Crossposted lots of places- apologies if you get this forty-eight times on your friends page**

(no subject)

My repertoire is feeling stale, so I have decided to revive the Brahms Sonata no. 2 (In E-flat minor, if you're wondering, which I knew you were) that I played in high school. At the time, I really didn't like it- I thought it was quite dull. After all, it was originally written for clarinet. Despite the fact that my own dear sister, pheret1 played the clarinet for four or five years fairly seriously, I have never been a huge fan of solo clarinet (oddly enough, I do think it goes very well along with the viola, so I really love pieces like Schumann's Fairy Tales that feature both together). Hence, I probably developed a slight mental block regarding the Brahms.

As I was thinking over this last night, I broke out my recording. It features Kim Kashkashian, who is not my favorite recording artist on viola, unfortunately- while technically amazing, and musically sound, she seems to have this weird surfacey, almost scratchy quality to her playing that tends to rub me the wrong way- give me Yuri Bashmet any day, please. Besides, he's pretty hot. In that heavy-Russian-angsty kind of way. But I digress. I also perused the liner notes, and came upon this quote, which amused me very much.

Following in Joachim's footsteps, we too "grow to love" these Sonatas today, by gradually drawing near to this music that reveals its beauties only to those who really want to find them."

To me, that is a very diplomatic way of saying "hey, they kinda suck to begin with, but if you're lucky, they may grow on you".

Maybe I'm lucky, because they've all of a sudden begun to grow on me. I think the second movement, especially, is excruciatingly beautiful. To bad its in six flats, changing to five sharps, changing back to six flats. Yeurgh.

Programming

Viola players, how does this sound?:


-Becky Clarke Sonata, Mvmnt I

-Brahms, Sonata no 2, Mvmnt II

-Bach, Unaccompanied Suite no 3; Prelude, Sarabande and Gigue

-Reger Unaccompanied Suite no. 3, Mvmnts I and III (IV?) OR Hindemith Trauermusik


BREAK

-Bruch Romanze

-Hummel Fantaisie

-Vaughan Williams Suite, Group I, Nos I, II and III

(Optional encore, Bach, Suite 4, Gigue)