rofitable execution of our existing business, as well as the acquisition o
I am scared that my writing is like this, because this was honestly confusing for me to read, and I hope my readers do not feel the same about my writing. I actually had to reread the sentence. Cutting down on filler phrases like "will be" should help make the action of my sentences more clear.
strong, precise verb
This reminds me of our poetry module. I have learned how powerful consolidating all your meaning into fewer words by choosing the perfect verb is.
by high stress.
It is sometimes hard for me to distinguish active and passive voice. A good test I just found is to see if using the word "by" followed by a name makes sense with the verb. If so, it is passive.
at the end of the sentence
I think it is important to remember that this does not mean your sentences must be two-part, having two clauses. Most sentence will naturally link the old to the new. It is just that you should not present the new first.
play”
I thought that the "old information" meant only the information that was considered "new" in the previous sentence. Good to know that the "old" information can be information provided anywhere previously.
It the piece technically well executed? Regardless of the style, the performance - whether improvised, derived from notation, or electroacoustically produced - should be free of extraneous notes, sounds, effects, nuances of any kind that do not contribute to communication of the musical ideas. Does it exploit a variety of elements of music, i.e. rhythm, harmony, melody, texture/timbre? Although a quality piece of music need not have all elements equally represented (in fact, many if not most fine works do not), a piece that relies solely on any one element is likely to be less than fulfilling. Is the chief attraction not the music but the words? If the answer is yes, then the piece probably should be considered more as a theater piece or as poetry, than music. For music is the most abstract of arts, and although the marriage of text and music can be transcendent, the best does not need verbal associations to enhance it. Are the elements of the work highly integrated so that each supports the other’s function? Melody, for example, cannot exist without at least some degree of rhythm; rhythm, however, can exist without melody, as can harmony without either rhythm or melody. But it seems that most truly satisfying music exploits the elements in ways that cause the product of them to be greater that the sum of the elements, disparately. Does the piece appeal on a variety of levels – intellectual, emotional, spiritual? A piece can be strong enough in any one of these areas to justify being called good, but the best music somehow seems to appeal on many levels. Is there a feeling of "musicality" about it? That is, does the piece invoke a desire for body movement that corresponds to the gestures in sound? Musicality is distinctly human and inexorably connected to physical movement in ways that are imbedded in our psyches from the first expressive sounds uttered by our ancient ancestors to experiences as recent as our last rehearsal. Is there satisfying formal organization to the way the gestures are presented and developed? Since music occurs over time and for practical reasons, if for no other, music has to have a beginning and end, it seems to be our nature to expect some kind of sequence and development of the ideas that we find satisfying as anticipation and memory blend to create a mental image of form. Is there a good balance between familiarity and variety, appropriate for the length of the piece? Clearly, very extended pieces will need to introduce more variety than very short ones; likewise the task of maintaining coherence within greater diversity is more difficult and expected in longer pieces. After having been listened to many times, does the piece still have appeal, appeal that is based on some new revelations rather than solely on comfortable familiarity? Complexity in and of itself is not especially valuable, but exceptional music seems to have many facets, and holds up well and continues to interest even after many listenings. Do you feel positively stimulated, better, richer, fuller, or improved in some way for having heard the piece? This may seem a lot to expect, but truly great pieces (which, or course most music, even very fine music, will not be) often have a beneficial effect on careful listeners. Like the nutrition axiom "we are what we eat," (which, although obviously not literal, makes the point that our physical health is affected by our diet) in the arts we are what we consume, and what we habitually listen to affects our spirits. The best music makes us better by stimulating our minds and touching our hearts, and helps us feel better about ourselves and the world.
Summary: The key qualities of good music are, in short, that it is pleasing the ear and does not have out of place or incorrect notes, that it uses a variety of musical elements (melody, rhythm, timbre, etc.) and uses them in balance and cooperation with one another, and that it invokes a variety of responses in the listener, whether they be intellectual, emotional, or even physical, such as dancing.
There is a widespread notion these days, fostered in our current social climate that disdains value judgements, that all music is good and differences are just matters of cultural bias or personal preference. But, critical evaluation is different from personal taste and preference. Many things in life are this way: We may be quite fond of someone, yet recognize their faults, faults that are universally acknowledged as undesirable – extreme rudeness, for example; someone may treat us well, but be unacceptably discourteous to others. We are conflicted in such cases, so we distinguish our intellectual, judgmental awareness from our personal feelings, feelings that may not be entirely influenced by intellect. And in a similar way, sometimes we are attracted to music for a variety of emotional reasons: nostalgia for the past, perhaps an association some music has with a personally significant time or place, while recognizing that the music – apart from the unique meaning it has for us – has comparatively little value, or least less value, to others. We all are subject to such influences and most of us are able to distinguish these two distinct ways of responding to music. Many people do not, however. Many listeners are only concerned with what they like and do not question the why of it, and couldn’t be less concerned with what might be objectively considered good or bad. All that matters is that they like it. And that’s fine and understandable. The troublesome thing is when what one likes, based entirely on personal, individual attraction, preference, predisposition, . . . whatever, is considered what is "good" in the objective. And this is exactly how many people approach music. We all have experienced this, understand it, accept it – may even approve of it. But if we were to acknowledge, or at least concede purely for purposes of discussion, that there can be some objective criteria applied to music to justify – on bases other than our personal preferences - that some is better and some worse, what should they be? John Winsor’s ideas were quite well thought-out and compelling. But I suspect they may not be easily grasped by some of the very people who most commonly confuse personal taste with qualitative judgement.
Summary: It must be understood that there is a difference between liking a piece of music and thinking that it is good- there is a difference between passion and reason. While a particular song may be enjoyed and may create some emotional response for the listener, it may not necessarily invoke those same emotions in everyone else, and it may not be objectively good. There must be some way to define what makes music good or bad, despite personal taste.
Although I’m sure many disagree, I wholeheartedly believe that some music is – in ways that can be more-or-less universally and objectively considered – good or bad. There is precedence for this in nature – some smells, for example, almost universally are considered bad and others good. And while the middle ground may be occupied by an array of differences that allow for preferences and disagreement, there still seem to be tendencies for widespread agreement in such things. And Anthropologists are discovering that there is broad similarity across many cultures and ethnicities, about what is considered physical beauty or handsomeness among we humans. That doesn’t mean, of course, that the same is necessarily true when it comes to artifacts or objects of art created by humans. But music consists of sound, and certainly there are some sounds that are almost universally disliked – a crying baby, for example, or the sound of fingernails being scraped across a blackboard. So since our sensitivity to sound seems to be subject to some universality when it comes to what is considered good or bad, it follows that music should also be subject – at least to some degree – to universal standards.
Summary: As with any stimulation, sound can be deemed either pleasant or unpleasant, and there are many extreme cases where some sounds are almost universally one or the other. Thus, if pleasant and unpleasant sounds can be distinguished at the most extreme cases, they must also be distinguishable in the less extreme cases, despite the myriad of opinions and preferences; there must be a way to deem sound, and therefore music, as good or bad even in the most seemingly subjective of cases.
deleting material for balance
This is especially important for me, because I tend to fixate on random details and write a whole paragraph about something that could have been said in half of a sentence. I really need to cut out dead weight. Balancing will probably be the majority of my revision.
Do the transitions move your readers
Without even looking at my narrative, I can tell this will be a problem. I was going for a slightly punchy, quick-wit flavor for my writing, and I think I lost some smoothness because of it.
the thesis promises
Does this really apply to our narratives? Do narratives have theses? The way I see it, narratives just tell a story; they are not like essays or arguments where a point is being made. They simply share a story, not forcing any one particular point, but letting the reader draw their own lessons from the experience.
large issues in the paper,
I feel like the revision process is all about making sure your ideas are expressed adequately. It isn't about whether or not all your grammar is perfect, or if your sentences are concise enough. Instead, we are supposed to ask ourselves, "Did I say everything I needed to? Did my writing do everything I intended it to?"
When you finish revising, that’s the time to proofread.
I feel that revising is more like fixing concepts and the heart of your work, while proofreading is just fixing how the heart is presented. It is more important that the messages, the concepts, of your writing are correctly displayed than it is for your writing to be perfectly worded.
it hits you with its poignancy.
Is this really that poignant? I recognize that it is written originally, but the point being made is not that original or innovative. Essentially, Burns is just saying that sometimes in life, we put effort into things for nothing. Is that not just an obvious life lesson that just about anyone, at any age, can come to understand?
struggle with little reward at the end.
This makes me think of how he struggles so much to apologize to the mouse when, in the end, it is just a mouse; there is little reason to feel that sorry for it. He seems to make small problems or losses into a monumental ordeal.
the dialect causes it to be read as though in a foreign language
This is true because I did struggle to maintain focus on the meaning while piecing together the literal text. Even when I could get the common english equivalent of what was being said figured out, I often got words wrong when compared to the common english version provided.
And she gets a makeover.
how? i guess she turns into a red demon thing now? i don't get it. who the heck are all these characters? i have no clue and I am an xmen fan! just not understanding this issue very well and his debriefing of it isn't helping
The Mutants enter Limbo, and Illyana can’t get them back out. While fighting demons, they talk about Destiny’s vision, and learning, and all that.
sentences are so choppy in this whole paragraph. i wish this person had more voice as a writer.
What camera do you use, and what are you photography tips? At the moment, I’m using a Nikon D90
i love that she does this. as an artist or even just someone with general interest in photography, its super interesting and helpful. i actually might use this for my personal photography
A real, hold-in-your-hands, The Foodie Teen cookbook is in the works, and I truly cannot express how terrified, ecstatic, and absolutely thrilled to bits I am.
what is off about the sentence structure here? is it two complete sentences? i can't quite tell if it is grammatically wrong or just awkward.
I’ve been 18 for ten days now aaand I’m already done adulting… all this student loan/health insurance/knowing what you want to do with your life stuff is way too serious for me considering I still feel approximately five years old and I’m wearing fuzzy Christmas socks in October.
shouldn't the post start out at least mentioning something about its actual topic?
one of the oddest (and most elaborately named) entries in Grant’s thirty-strong cinematic oeuvre. Released in August 1995 (just over a year after Four Weddings made him a household name) the film reeks unmistakably of contractual obligation
his vocabulary is diverse yet relatable. i get the impression that he is intelligent, yet i still understand everything he says. also, he never says something the same way twice.
Okay now look outside. Look up at the sky and find a cloud which will be really easy if you live in the UK.
I love how she makes it interactive. it makes me want to read on and learn why she is telling me to do this.
I feel like I should tell you a few things about myself so I’ve done a list. I can’t do cartwheels. I hate it when people wink at me. I love to write and talk! I’m also very addicted to chocolate. Have a look around my blog and I hope you enjoy my no theme blog.
While this part may seem a little silly, I actually really enjoy it. She says that she must tell us these things about herself before we can read on, but then they end up being very inconsequential. It shows me not only what her blog will be like, but also what she is like: the little things are what are most important.