Ran into Chris (lin) and Rochelle and a seventh grader bass person from Orchestra.
And I saw Eric! Air-ick!
He was the "only one not wearing jeans" lololol.
Bbbbut i thought Eric was in Advanced already!
Haha. Palin Building. Anonymous has entered the Palin Building. lolpwnt
21 comments:
What branch was this?
The only one that matters rawr.
Or that anyone at Foothills takes, at any rate.
PASADENA!
Piano. Everyone knows how to play piano but me! I feel like an outlier. An anomaly! I've never seen anyone from Foothills at my violin tests, but I don't really take them anymore. I think it's a waste of time. I have to PROVE I'm competent? Who am I proving it TO? I don't think I've ever seen anyone I know at recitals and similar events, but again, I haven't performed publicly by myself (excluding - auditions - ) for at least two years. And I prefer it. Anonymity suits me.
Lulz this sounds like some kind of diary entry. *Shudders.
CM tests, really,
are for noobs.
-cry-
Well Eric was there!
Except he's like pro amongst noobs, I guess.
Here is how I rate musicians.
Class 3 is formed of amateurs, those who don't really care and don't really try. They do not become future musicians.
Class 2 is formed of people who, while not "naturals," practice or at least have some talent. If they become future musicians, they probably become 2nds or 1sts, but never professional soloists or concert masters/mistresses.
Class 1 is formed of those who are "naturals," those who practice and have the "music gene," as I call it, or the gene that grants musical proficiency and skill. Class 1 people who become musicians are the concert masters/mistresses and professional soloists.
I guess I'm Class 2.
We all know who's Class 1 here.
That's not what she means by a "natural".
She means playing naturally, musically.
TERMINOLOGY FAIL.
I never mentioned names.
Difficulty of becoming a musician is not the issue here. It makes no difference. I was only stating some of my theories and observations. To say that people who are "naturals" and become musicians naturally become better than others who are not "naturals" is a reasonable hypothesis, is it not?
What makes you the expert on interpreting what others say? Isn't everyone entitled to his/her own interpretation anyway?
And to me, saying "being a natural..." means being a natural, like a noun? Not playing naturally, like an adjective?
"To say that people who are "naturals" and become musicians naturally become better than others who are not "naturals" is a reasonable hypothesis, is it not?"
IT IS NOT !!!!~!`11`!`1
Read my comment Bill.
READ THE WHOLE THING.
Now say your third comment again.
Sure, then. You're also entitled to your own opinions. I often find that rage inhibits logical thinking, however...
Yeah...why? To rub in the fact that to me, you make no sense?
/facepalm.
I'm out of this.
Take over for me, Spaz.
Okay, you aren't getting the point here.
DID YOU READ MY COMMENT?
And it doesn't matter what your interpretation is, this isn't the bloody Bible. Someone is shoving the interpretation in your FACE.
So now admitting being wrong is bad as well, and merits a facepalm. Okay, for the sake of keeping up a - relatively friendly - relationship, fine. I concede the issue, although I still don't understand why.
How come when Spaz and Kat both have 5 votes, its 55% each?
Very carefully.
When you have a blawg, you'll know.
I'd show you the chat logs but I'm still not sure how Google Talk works yet.
I will never have a blog, or a Myspace, or anything similar. And let's not spark another debate over this?
Post a Comment