Phonics Made Easy by School Zone Interactive. Visit their website at schoolzone.com .
I love this company – let me tell you why. They bought one of my royalty free rap instrumentals and used it in their software (Yes, there’s more to it than just that). My hip hop library was intended for rappers to use for albums, but this company had business saavy and used it for their phonics software. Still falls under the “synchronization license” of my library. My hat is off to the person in this company that thought outside the box to come up with that. Most companies would look strictly at corporate buyout music from business entities, not at my hip hop outlets.
Let me tell you what else I love out this company. Very few people that use my soundtracks give me credit – and that’s really all I ask for many of my royalty free libraries. This company was courteous enough to not only give me credit, but they also sent me a finished copy of their software. It was released several years ago and I just now had the chance to actually load up the software and try it out. The software is made for age 6+ and I got a couple of the answers wrong! Mmmm…….
Thank you School Zone Interactive for being a creative company, and most of all for being upright and straight ahead in your business dealings. I salute you!
Learning beginning phonics has never been so much fun! Your child will explore beginning and ending letter sounds, long and short vowel sounds, rhyming families, letter blends, and more.
Drive South was a Southern California country band I played in during the early 90’s. It was a transition group between two other bands. Bob Gross – Bass Guitar. Peter Klimes – Electric Guitar. Jono Brown – Drums. Vocals – Jolene. Keyboards – Conrad Askland. I’m on the top left.
I kind of like this photo. Was taken back around 1993 or so.
Some pictures from our production of “The Apple Tree”. Read more about it in my “Apple Tree” section of my website. It’s a musical comedy. The first act features Adam, Eve and the Snake in a humorous look at the differences between the sexes ala Mark Twain.
Updates on actors 09/07
James Padilla (left – Snake) had the lead role of Curly in Oklahoma and working on the role of Frank ‘N Furter in Rocky Horrow Show.
Erin Heminway (middle – Eve) has the lead role in the Bellingham production of Hair.
Kevin Pitman (right – Adam) currently studying under an acting apprenticeship program in….is it Chicago? He’s an incredibly detailed and thorough actor. VERY fun to watch him develop a character to it’s fullest.
O Lord my God, When I in awesome wonder,
Consider all the worlds Thy Hands have made;
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder,
Thy power throughout the universe displayed.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art!
When through the woods, and forest glades I wander,
And hear the birds sing sweetly in the trees.
When I look down, from lofty mountain grandeur
And see the brook, and feel the gentle breeze.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art!
And when I think, that God, His Son not sparing;
Sent Him to die, I scarce can take it in;
That on the Cross, my burden gladly bearing,
He bled and died to take away my sin.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art!
When Christ shall come, with shout of acclamation,
And take me home, what joy shall fill my heart.
Then I shall bow, in humble adoration,
And then proclaim: “My God, how great Thou art!”
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art!
VIENNA, Austria — Jazz legend Joe Zawinul, who soared to fame as one of the creators of jazz fusion and performed and recorded with Miles Davis, died early Tuesday, a hospital official said. He was 75.
Zawinul had been hospitalized since last month. A spokeswoman for Vienna’s Wilhelmina Clinic confirmed his death without giving details.
Zawinul won widespread acclaim for his keyboard work on chart-topping Davis albums such as “In A Silent Way” and “*Biznich* Brew,” and was a leading force behind the so-called “Electric Jazz” movement.
In 1970, Zawinul founded the band Weather Report and produced a series of albums including “Heavy Weather,” “Black Market” and “I Sing the Body Electric.” After that band’s breakup, he founded the Zawinul Syndicate in 1987.
Zawinul is credited with bringing the electric piano and synthesizer into the jazz mainstream.
This past spring, he toured Europe to mark the 20th anniversary of the Zawinul Syndicate. He sought medical attention when the tour ended, the Viennese Hospital Association said in a statement last month.
A handwritten score by a French composer contains an orchestra part that changes from D# to Eb in the same measure. The key signature is 6 sharps. The question asked to me was whether the second note is actually an Eb, or if the flat simply cancels out the E# in the key signature, making it a natural E.
The player mentioned it might be a convention of French music to have the flat cancel out the sharp in the key signature. I believe the Eb is simply what it is, an Eb and I will explain why.
Flats and sharps are simply what they are, they are not added to or subtracted from the key signature or previous accidentals. In other words, a written Eb will always be just Eb – makes no difference about key signature or what is before.
Now there was a time in Early Music where the execution of accidentals had not been standardized. There was a time where accidentals would carry through a piece until they were changed again. In other words, if on page one the score show an F#, then the F’s would remain sharped until changed again – if that didn’t happen til page 5 it made no difference, the F’s remained sharp until let’s say on page F it was written as an F natural. Now imagine how confusing this was for a player to jump in on page 3 having no knowledge of the previous accidental! This is why it was later made standard that an accidental would only last for one measure.
In music theory the chords of the score each relate to each other. A Cm chord has a different quality and function depending how it fits into the score. For example: A Cm as the tonic in the key of Cm, or a Cm as the ii chord in Bb major, or the Cm as a vi chord in Eb major. As a composer writes, especially with chromatic music like Wagner, it’s common to temporarily change keys within a song – but in a very short phrase the key signature won’t be changed – it is done with accidentals. This is why when looking at a single part it may not make sense how the note is written, but it DOES make sense when seen with the score as a whole (if it is written and scored well).
The conundrum is that if you don’t see the underlying chord movement in your mind, the note seems written as a mistake. If you DO understand the underlying chords, and the writer notates the pitch so it’s easier to read but doesn’t support the actual theory of the chord – it’s VERY confusing to read. Most of the time I notice notes like this “dumbed down” in modern praise music, band charts, and usually when someone has written a score by hand without really understanding the chords.
An example of this: You are in the key of Bb major (two flats). In the middle of the piece the composer writes a ii-V-I to temporarily module to the key of E (chords would be F#m – B – E). On the “B” chord the third is D#. The player that is scored for that note sees they are in the key of Bb, but instead of an Eb written, they see D#. It looks like a mistake. But if they saw the whole score they would know it can ONLY be D# because it is the third of the B chord. If it were dumbed down to an Eb the chord would become the notes B-Eb-F# – if I were to sightread that I would miss it, thinking it were a jazz extension.
I hope this all makes sense. It’s much simpler to understand it than it is to explain it….like most things.
“I don’t understand how an airplane can fly, so they don’t. Can you build an airplane? Didn’t think so. Then you don’t know they can fly either.” This might be an example of the Logical Fallacy: Argument from Ignorance. Something must not be true because the person cannot understand or comprehend it. It was identified as flawed logic over two thousand years ago, yet it is the preferred fallacy many people use in debates online and in forum discussions. I think most people really don’t realize they’re doing it until it’s pointed out to them. So here’s some reference information. I see the Argument from Ignorance being posted “Ad Nauseum” in creation vs. evolution debates (can you guess which camp is usually the one posting it?).
What is a logical fallacy?
A “fallacy” is a mistake, and a “logical” fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. There are, of course, other types of mistake than mistakes in reasoning. For instance, factual mistakes are sometimes referred to as “fallacies”. However, the Fallacy Files is specifically concerned, not with factual errors, but with logical ones.
In logic, the term “fallacy” is used in two related, but distinct ways. For example:
1. “Argumentum ad Hominem is a fallacy.”
2. “Your argument is a fallacy.”
In 1, what is called a “fallacy” is a type of argument, so that a “fallacy” in this sense is a type of mistaken reasoning. In 2, it is a specific argument that is said to be a “fallacy”, so that in this sense a “fallacy” is an argument which uses bad reasoning.
Clearly, these two senses are related: in 2, the argument may be called a “fallacy” because it is an instance of Argumentum ad Hominem, or some other type of fallacy. In order to keep these two senses distinct, I restrict the term “fallacy” to the first sense. For me, a fallacy is always a kind of argument.
For the second sense, I will say that a specific argument “commits” a fallacy, or is “fallacious”. So, in my terminology, 2 above commits a category mistake, for there is no way that your specific argument could be a fallacy. I would say, instead:
3. “Your argument commits a fallacy. It’s fallacious.”
However, not just any type of mistake in reasoning counts as a logical fallacy. To be a fallacy, a type of reasoning must be potentially deceptive, it must be likely to fool at least some of the people some of the time. Moreover, in order for a fallacy to be worth identifying and naming, it must be a common type of logical error.
History
Aristotle was both the first formal logician—codifying the rules of correct reasoning—and the first informal logician—cataloging types of incorrect reasoning, namely, fallacies. He was both the first to name types of logical error, and the first to group them into categories. The result is his book On Sophistical Refutations.
However, Aristotle’s teacher, Plato, deserves credit for being the first philosopher to collect examples of bad reasoning, which is an important preliminary piece of field work before naming and cataloging. Plato’s “Euthydemus” preserves a collection of fallacious arguments in dialogue form, putting the perhaps exaggerated examples into the mouths of two sophists. For this reason, fallacious arguments are sometimes called “sophisms” and bad reasoning “sophistry”. Aristotle refers to a few of these examples as instances of his named fallacies.
In the centuries since Plato and Aristotle, many great philosophers and logicians have contributed to fallacy studies, among them John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham, and Arthur Schopenhauer.
Why study fallacies?
Why study how to reason incorrectly; why not just study how to reason correctly? There are two reasons:
1. Even if you could count on reasoning correctly 100% of the time, you cannot count on others doing so. In logical self-defense, you need to be able to spot poor reasoning, and—more importantly—to understand it. To be able to correct others’ mistakes, or to refute them convincingly, you need to understand why they are wrong.
2. Studying formal logic and the rules of correct reasoning is like having a road map that shows how to get from point A to point B. However, even the best navigators sometimes get lost, and it helps if the roads that go nowhere are clearly labeled “DEAD END”, “WRONG WAY”, or “DO NOT ENTER”.
Dead End Sign
That is what fallacy studies is all about: marking the wrong turns that reasoners are likely to take. Thus, studying fallacies is no substitute for studying the positive principles of good reasoning—learning to navigate through logical space, so to speak. You would not set out on a trip without a road map, hoping to rely upon the “DEAD END” signs to get to your destination. Similarly, the Fallacy Files are no replacement for the study of formal and informal logic, only a supplement.
The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam (“appeal to ignorance”) or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.
The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.
Both arguments commonly share this structure: a person regards the lack of evidence for one view as constituting evidence or proof that another view is true. The types of fallacies discussed in this article should not be confused with the reductio ad absurdum method of argument, in which a valid logical contradiction of the form “A and not A” is used to disprove a premise.
* “The solar system must be younger than a million years because even if the sun was made of solid coal and oxygen it would have burned up within that time at the rate it generates heat.” (An argument from ignorance, from 19th Century encyclopedias, based on the assumption that because there was no known means at that time of producing heat more efficient than coal, this logically put a limit on the Sun’s possible age. In fact in the 20th Century with the discovery of radioactivity and nuclear fusion, the sun’s age was more correctly dated at many billions of years old instead. The ‘ignorance’ in this case was the omission of considering whether there might be a more efficient generator of heat that has not yet been discovered, which had not been taken into account.)
* “If polar bears are (the) dominant (predator) in the Arctic, then there would seem to have been no need for them to evolve a white-coloured form of camouflage.” In his book Probability of God, Anglican Bishop Hugh William Montefiore casts doubt on neo-Darwinian evolution with that statement. This argument from lack of imagination was famously dismissed by the evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins in his book The Blind Watchmaker, who wrote that if the writer had thought to imagine a black polar bear trying to sneak up on a seal in the arctic, he would see the evolutionary value of such fur.
LIST OF LOGICAL FALLACIES
o argumentum ad antiquitatem
o argumentum ad hominem
o argumentum ad ignorantiam
o argumentum ad logicam
o argumentum ad misericordiam
o argumentum ad nauseam
o argumentum ad numerum
o argumentum ad populum
o argumentum ad verecundiam
o circulus in demonstrando
o complex question
o dicto simpliciter
o naturalistic fallacy
o nature, appeal to
o non sequitur
o petitio principii
o post hoc ergo propter hoc
o red herring
o slippery slope
o straw man
o tu quoque
