given its context

LOVE is not a GAME

It’s been weeks and I’m just so struck by the fact that the whole theme of Sherlock throughout the years was…“The game is on!”. Sherlock using the distraction of his detective work as a substitute high, and honestly a way to keep himself at arms length from ‘humans’ and any emotional and/or romantic relationships of course.

And then there’s THE FINAL PROBLEM and in comes Eurus Holmes, setting up this game for Sherlock, and putting Molly Hooper’s life in danger, and during that call we get all this…

  • Is this one of your stupid games? No, it’s not a game.
  • I’m not an experiment, Sherlock. No, I know you’re not an experiment, you’re my friend, we’re friends.
  • You know why. No, I don’t know why.
  • Because it’s true, Sherlock. It’s always been true. Well if it’s true then just say it anyway.
  • Say it like you mean it. I love you. I love you. 

He spends the whole phone call worried and pleading and as soon as it’s done he tries to shut all that off and get back to the game so he says…”Eurus, I won, I won…I won, I saved Molly Hooper.

But then you have Eurus coming back with that EMOTIONAL CONTEXT speech and being like, HAHA NOPE, silly boy, you just lost, you proved yourself wrong, you have emotions, you do care.

And the writers had Eurus use Molly Hooper against Sherlock, like this, to facilitate this exact epiphany, (disproving everything he’s said over the years, that he’s not a hero, that he doesn’t have a heart) because MOLLY HOOPER does count, she matters the most, he loves her, and LOVE IS NOT A GAME.


anonymous asked:

Y'know what I'm about to say sounds real silly, but, since I found out about Khonjin being transgender; I have felt less dysphoric. Eased up on my self. First time I didn't feel shame about being a trans man. It's funny, given the context of the show n shit, but I'm hoping you understand. Seeing a trans character in ridiculous situations, not solely focusing on his identity, giving him a personality other than pure and perfect. pretty refreshing, man.

Don’t put yourself down, I get this lot I don’t think it’s silly at all. It’s really great that khonjin can help you accept yourself, even as a fictional character

You know, I’m just so glad that shows like Parks and Recreation and Brooklyn 99 exist? Yes, there are many ways in which each show could improve, but I am I always going to be a fan of the idea that there’s dignity and fulfillment to be found in working your ass off to be a good person, no matter what the world throws at you. 

And they don’t deny that it is work in many ways; how many times are Leslie or Peralta tempted to take a shortcut (and how many times does it backfire on them when they do?), but ultimately choose not to? Goodness is so often a choice, just like empathy, but these shows keep highlighting that it’s the right, if not the easy, thing to do. 

There are dark moments (more so in Brooklyn 99, which makes sense given its context), but it’s so peaceful and fulfilling to slip into worlds where the people in charge of protecting and caring for their communities actually care about those communities, and each other, in spite of being and because they’re flawed humans. They admit they’re wrong, they apologize, and they try to do better, every day. 

They’re shows founded on hope and love, and there’s never going to be enough of that. 

im seeing a lot of posts about safe mode but none of them mention this

this filtering option lets people flag posts that THEY think are sensitive

so its entirely possible that some mundane posts are only marked sensitive because of idiots throwing around flags

although given the context, its probably because tumblr has never worked properly

take this information how you will

pan-suga  asked:

Every time you abbreviate "Yoongi" to "YG" I think about YG Entertainment's CEO YG, and it's always so fucking hilarious given the contexts it's used in


and frick that’s some wild fanfiction.

Looks in the distance

Longs for it to exist somewhere


Imaizumi is used to the euphoria that hits at the end of races. He’s experienced enough to know that for the first few minutes even the greater considerations of victory or defeat fade into unimportance under the floating sense of physical bliss, exhausted muscles finally resting and oxygen-deprived thoughts going warm and hazy with the comfort. It’s a pleasant feeling, one that long ago lost the stress of unfamiliarity, and he would be more than happy to relax into it now that he’s completed his first Interhigh.

It seems unfair that he should be denied that comfort for such a minor reason.

It’s not a physical strain holding him back. He’s more than willing to collapse at the edge of the road just past the finish line, to gulp water and eat the handful of energy bars the other team members are offering him. But even as his skin aches pleasantly and his body goes light and weightless with the cessation of effort his mind is doubling back, returning over and over to who they left behind them on the course.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

What actually is fascism?

Fascism was a political ideology and philosophical movement from the early twentieth century which was formulated by Giovanni Gentile and Benito Mussolini. In some ways, it is a highly historicist school of thought, focused on being able to act in the moment defined by a particular historical context; on the other hand, it reduces history down to certain eternal and fundamental truths (these truths form what is referred to as Ur-Fascism). On the most basic level, Fascism believes in the spirit of struggle and the spirit of unity. It believes in the struggle for unity, and, most importantly that we are unified in struggle. It believes in unifying hierarchy, unity within the state, sacrifice out of loyalty, and the battle to grow the empire.

Fascism is grounded in a philosophy called Actual Idealism, which posits that ideas are actions that are engaged in the world instead of being separate from it. According to this philosophy, subjectivity is therefore not something that exists in itself, outside of reality, but is something that exists objectively in relation to the world around it. Gentile believed that when we engage in the act of thinking (and engage in the thinking that accompanies action), we’re not just thinking about thoughts, we’re understanding their relationship to the world. On the other hand, he believed that when referencing thoughts without really thinking about them, we are depriving our thoughts of their vitality and objectivity. There is some merit to the dialectical ability of Gentile to use the thesis of pensiero pensante (the act of thinking) to account for and synthesize pensiero pensato (static thought), though he only goes half way (yet too far half way) in synthesizing by claiming that “thinking accounts for the thought” without considering how “thoughts motivate thinking”. I agree with his synthesis of the subject and the object, but he seems to start with the subject as a causa sui and prima causa without considering that the self is created by and has to always deal with something other than itself, that it has external conditions which it cannot surpass (including its own existence). Gentile certainly considers that the self has to actively exist in relation to the object to be real, but he doesn’t consider that the object exists in relation to many subjects (like a monarch does), or that the subject comes from and exists within the object (thus the reason choices (and choice itself) aren’t totally independent and have their causes, consequences (which can be beyond our control), and circumstances or context). There is a simple reason as to why this is the case too, namely, because the subject isn’t the only thing that is active, it is subject to an objective condition of activity and chaos. Objectivity is active too, this is how it creates the creative subject. Actual idealism represents a deeper side of Fascism that I see the merit in, but don’t fully subscribe to. I’m more of a Hegelian, believing that there are truths which precede us, which account for our ability to engage, and which we can realize in our engagement. I don’t think our thoughts can ever be inactive, but I believe some can actively come to terms with the nature of our reality better than others. Already you can see the notion of struggle conveyed in the idea of thought as action and you can see the notion of unity conveyed by the subjects active engagement in its own objective existence. Fascism is often wrongly classified as an irrationalist philosophy, when it doesn’t believe things are fundamentally irrational, but reducible to action/activity/struggle. Joseph de Maistre was more of an “irrationalist” in his belief that reason was futile, even though he rationally reduces things down to a kind of dark, primal, yet holy violence that sanctifies the world with blood and order on a very foundational level.

Fascism is also a rejection of positivism, believing not only that facts follow from perspective (like Nietzsche and the phenomenologists), but that perspective is subordinate to higher laws (like Guenon and the traditionalists). For the Fascist, man is subordinate to thought and action as well as the deeds of great men throughout history. In some respect, Fascism maintains a degree of traditionalism in the way it values great civilizations from the past, on the other hand, Fascism understands the need to move forward and develop within the confines of certain established traditions. It might be fair to call Fascism one of the first Archeofuturist ideologies. Aesthetically, this is symbolized by its affinity towards both classicism (especially stripped classicism on an architectural level) and futurism.

Mussolini and Gentile were both initially influenced by Marx (believe it or not) and Hegel. I think they appreciated the dynamism of Marx’s ideas on class conflict and the materialist dialectic. Gentile clearly rejected Marx’s materialism for Hegel’s idealism, however, he didn’t totally abandon the idea of thinking and acting (if not struggling) in relation to a material world, he just also fully acknowledged that the material world could be changed and formed by our thoughts (Hegel certainly saw a relation between subject and object as well, however he is often contrasted as being more idealistic in relation to Marx’s materialism). While Marx emphasized base structural conditions in society, he clearly conceded to Gentile’s inclinations on some level, as Marx saw how values and concepts could change society and even changed society himself using said means (though he didn’t change it exactly according to his intentions). Mussolini was initially more of a Leninist than a Marxist, and I think where Gentile might’ve preferred Hegel’s corporatism to Marx’s communsm, Mussolini preferred Lenin’s socialism to Marx’s communism. Mussolini was eventually led to abandon Marx all together when reading Nietzsche helped to further fuel and inspire in him a sense of the need for great men and a master morality. The prominent Italian “Elitist School” also helped to edge Mussolini in this direction, Robert Michels and Vilfredo Pareto even praised and aligned themselves with Mussolini’s movement. Gaetano Mosca was a little more at odds with Fascism.

Mussolini was also inspired by another One-time-Marxist named Geroges Sorel, who was focused on the need for societal violence based on some sort of great and sacred myth. Sorel was initially fond of the myth of the struggle of the proletariat, but was later drawn to guild socialism and far-right (if not Fascistic) movements in France, particularly those related to Charles Maurras. Mussolini himself preferred the myth of a great roman empire to the struggle of the proletariat, and so Fascism was born (the Fasces is a symbol of a bundle of rods tied tightly together with an axe, a simple of domination and order in Rome (again, note the spirit of struggle and the spirit of unity)). Another point worth mentioning is that another huge influence was the nationalist Mazzini, who was also in favor of having a monarchical system in Italy (and yes, nationalistic monarchism/monarchistic nationalism is a thing (arguably absolutism gave birth to the modern nation-states), just look to Napoleon, Prussia, Greece, and many Arab nations from the turn of the century). It was in the tradition of Francesco Crispi (one of Mazzini’s associates) that Fascism based itself upon the maxim: “the monarchy unites us; the republic would divide us.” (though this monarchical influence would change near the end of the Italian Republic).

On a political level, Fascism was referred to as Corporative/Corporatist Syndicalism. Corporatism/Corporativism is an idea that touches upon where Fascism becomes Ur-Fascism. Contrary to what many Fascists say, corporatism does actually relate to corporations, but more importantly, it relates to the idea of a body politic (body is “corpus” in Latin). The body politic refers to the idea that society is organized like a body, with every part in its place, with higher and lower parts, and with a head to rule all the parts. Fascism doesn’t necessarily relate to the rule of highly privatized, joint-stock corporations (a better term for this might be corporatocracy), but Corporatism does, and so does Fascism by virtue of this point. You may wonder, “what society doesn’t have different roles and social hierarchy”, and the answer is: none. But some can accept the nature of roles and hierarchy better than others, if not see the benefits of such. Just as we seek to preserve our bodies, so too do some societies seek to preserve theirs. Other societies tear themselves apart, whether through middle class merchants killing the aristocratic heads or through plebs tearing down the merchants, if not the aristocrats. While some people see Fascism as a left-wing idelogy, it is precisely because it aligned with the idea of a hierarchical corporate state over any revolutionary ideologies (capitalism or communism), that Mussolini and Gentile both saw Fascism as Rightist.

Corporation was a term to designate a legally recognized, unified body of individuals (a corporate body) or an office consisting of one individual (a corporation sole (e.g. a monarch)). The term corporation can include the state itself, as was explicitly recognized in the roman empire. In addition to the corporate status of the state, after the roman empire, the predominant corporations in power were guilds within feudal societies. These were protective economic bodies that were put in place by feudal lords to ensure that there were roles for individuals and goods to supply those roles. This system was more about ensuring supply to maintain social functions than it was creating demand, given its context in an age of greater scarcity. As feudalism evolved into more centralized, imperialistic monarchism and mercantilism, the predominant corporations became large, monopolistic chartered and crowned corporations which often occupied colonial holdings. In some cases these corporations contributed to the decline of the guild system, in other cases the guild system was maintained (the latter is what defined the Cameralism of Prussia as distinct from Mercantilism). Either way, guilds and chartered corporations worked within the state. It wasn’t until Adam Smith that corporations became much more privatized.

Corporatism became popular in the 19th century, as a reaction to laissez faire economics. Adam Müller was the first to formulate the ideology, at which point it was also referred to as distributism. Müller looked to the guild corporatism of the middle ages as an ethical model for just distribution, and saw it as a system where the interests of the upper class were unified with the interests of the lower class. He engaged in a critique of Smith that was more instructive and compromising than it was critical. Hegel also formulated a model for Corporatism in his “Philosophy of the Right”, which was highly popular among the Protectionists of the Prussian School. The German sociologist, economist, and philosopher Othmar Spann largely represents a synthesis of the protectionists (like List), the mercantilists (like Colbert), and the guild corporatists (like Müller). Around the turn of the century, many other prominent corporatist thinkers emerged, including: H. P. Lovecraft (who praises guild corporatism), Oswald Spengler (in his Prussian Socialist ideology), Gottfried Feder, Major General J. F. C. Fuller, and Oswald Moseley. Austria, Portugal, and Ireland also had explicitly corporatist movements, some of which came into power. In addition to this, the Roman Catholic Church also favored Corporatism around the turn of the century (protestants came to favor it later on, in contrast to their supposed work ethic (that was a Weberian joke)).

In the U.S.A., Keynes’ model for industrial and corporate growth linked business and government together in a manner that embodied the body politic, and this was further substantiated by: FDR’s economic advisor being a huge Mussolini fanboy, Taylorism encouraging scientific management by an elite; and Fordism encouraging a more standardized, technological system over a more organic, free system. Keynes and Mussolini even “flirted” with one another, Mussolini praising Keynes’ critique of Laissez-Faire economics, and Keynes acknowledging Mussolini “had his wisdom teeth”. It was during this period in the U.S., that U.S. joint stock corporations became so powerful that they started to monopolize around the world, however, a lot of them killed each other off while competing, resulting in a system where people are more inclined to sell out or size down rather than continuously undercut competitors (IBM is a great example of this). One could say this corporatocratic competition caused a dying body politic, unlike in China, where a more mercantilist corporatist model is being followed. Northern Europe also started to adopt social corporatist systems around this time, which were influenced by a similar movement as Keynesianism referred to as the Stockholm school, one difference seeming to be that the Stockholm school seems to emphasize a more Statist model than Keynes, who primarily had the Anglo-Saxon model in mind.

In Fascist Italy, Mussolini started off his economic policy in a manner that would’ve shocked many corporatists. He started off by favoring laissez-faire, classically liberal economics. I believe this was in sync with his theory on how capitalism developed (he was right to think it started off chaotic and then consolidated/grew stronger more and more). I imagine Mussolini did this to see which companies could offer the best prices and the best quality while making the most money (this would determine which companies could operate the most efficiently when later-monopolized). He reduced taxes, there were actually  attempts to attract foreign investment (All foreign capital was exonerated of taxes) and establish trade agreements, and efforts were made to balance the budget and cut subsidies. In addition to all of this, Mussolini privatized health care. This was all in favor of what he dubbed heroic or dynamic capitalism and for the sake of productivism.

To contrast this, while Mussolini got rid of labour unions, he recreated them as corporate syndicates which were granted a considerable amount of power to control and regulate production practices, distribution, expansion and other factors with their members. These syndicate corporations were able to monopolize the representation of labour, and sought to maintain their power through fair representation. Each industry had it’s own syndicate corporation. These syndicates generally put measures forward that were more feasible for bigger monopolistic businesses than smaller businesses, and so a shift towards state-monopolization succeeded the shift towards privatization, corporatization, and syndicalism. Mussolini believed this phase of monopolization to be the second state of capitalism.

Due to all the speculation and excess wealth in wages, the Lira was faced with inflation and was loosing its value. To combat this, Mussolini restored the gold standard, which, although initially reducing real wage growth, was able to provide a solid platform for wages to grow. Mussolini would later re-introduce representative currency in a more productive (and profitable) economic environment.

Mussolini also started to cartelize a lot of the big monopolies (that had come out of growing private players and syndicate interests) within the CGII (Confederazione Generale dell'Industria Italiana). Just like Mussolini forced the labour unions to merge into corporative syndicates, he forced industrial monopolies to merge (we do the opposite with anti-trust laws today, though we still have monopolies all the same). Where the CGII represented a government-linked (though not fully state owned, albeit state controlled)) corporate monopoly over industry, the GCFSC (General Confederation of Fascist Syndical Corporations) represented a corporate monopoly over labour. To quote wiki, “Finally, the Industrial Reconstruction Institute (IRI) was formed in January 1933 and took control of the bank-owned companies, suddenly giving Italy the largest industrial sector in Europe which made use of government-linked companies (GLC). It saved at the end of 1933 the Hydroelectric Society of Piemont, which shares had fallen from 250 liras to 20 liras, while in September 1934, the Ansaldo trust was again reconstituted under the authority of the IRI, with a capital of 750 million liras“. Throughout most of the 30′s, Italy witnessed GDP growth, real wage growth, and an increase in the value of its currency. That being said, the economy had it’s faults. Not much capital went to investment goods and most of the economy was made up of the agricultural sector.

In Mussolini’s eyes, capitalism could go two ways for its final stage, the first is that it seeks to supply a uniform demand worldwide or that it turns to the State to restrict the merchants lust for power to the benefit of their own community (instead of enabling it at the expense of said community). To be fair, I think a worse risk than world-wide supply and demand is worldwide privatized lending. Had Fascism had even bigger, global monopolies at it’s disposal, who knows what that could do (in terms of reducing costs, prices, increasing profits, increasing income/wages, and creating general global stability). Ultimately, the Fascist economy could be classified as being somewhere in between a regulated market and a planned economy. Economics were subordinate to politics (namely the state), however, a unique economic model with vast potential still developed nonetheless.

While Fascism was limited to a particular place and time, it touched upon certain truths that inspired other similar regimes and truths which underlie every society, even our own. Proto-Fascism refers to political systems prior to the Fascist ideology which had fundamental similarities to it. Para-Fascist ideologies (ideologies influenced by Fascism) differ in terms of National spirit and certain particularities (race, cultural attitudes), Crypto-Fascist ideologies differ in terms of their ability to come to terms with the nature of the body politic, but Ur-Fascism forever recognizes the potential strength of the state and governing forces, through which Fascism actualizes itself on some level, again and again.

Excuse me I think I’m going to be screaming for a million years with Fox’s tweet showing his early Papyrus sketches because of a “brother named comic sans and a [blank] named [blank]” seems like pretty good indirect proof we’re talking about a “father named Gaster.”

Given the context of the quote that came before the blacked out text, it would make sense we’re still talking about family. The spacing of the first word which is blacked out could be something like ‘father.’ The fact we have the full listed named ‘comic sans,’ referring to a font, means that we could also have the context of another font being listed. The fact that something is blacked out means that there still has to be secrets he’s not sharing. Such as the biggest secret character of his game, W. D. Gaster.

I get that people love that miracles quote from The Pandorica Opens, but in context the whole point of that line is that the Doctor has never seen such a miracle and still hasn’t because Rory’s return is actually a trap. They’re beautiful words, sure, but also fairly empty.

Four ways Kanan found out that Hera could sing


It was like a flood had been let loose in Hera; since the arrival of their daughter - and since the sheer panic and worry and ohfuckohfuckohfuck had worn off - Kanan learned something new about his captain every day. Stories she had never shared before, told in a lilting whisper to the tiny bundle strapped to her chest as she finalised jump points. All of her favourite little things on Ryloth, snatches of happy memories that had been hidden for so long (save the rest for later, introduce her to the good before raising the bad). Hera’s r’s  rolling that little more, her vowels elongating as her native accent overrode her acquired outer rim accent.

Never moreso than when she sang. Hera sings. She sings. All this time, and Kanan never knew. She had hummed, in frustration or absentmindedly or chasing a nightmare. Singing was an entirely new development. Smoky and low, the ryl words pouring out and wrapping around him, filling the cockpit with specters of a lost world.

Kanan held her extra close that night, legs around his waist as they sat on their bunk. Determinedly but gently tickling her neck with his beard as he whispered for her to sing again, just for him. She will, but only if he’s the one to get up and see to the child when she wakes up in the night.


The intel had gotten to them too late, the camp already under attack as they sat, idly, waiting for the coordinates to be confirmed. Another blow to the straggling remnants of Ryloth, free no longer.

As the crew picked through the smouldering remains, a tearing gasping breath came from under the shredded remains of a crate. Hera scrabbled desperately, silently to reveal a Twi’lek woman, more ash than flesh. Unknown to her, but familiar mother cousin aunt. Taking care to avoid the charred flesh, Hera took the dying woman’s head in her lap. Too far gone, there was nothing that could be done. Gently stroking the base of her lekku as the crew watched on, Hera began to hum softly, faltering notes soon forming words soothing and sweet. A living piece of home in an alien place of death; she sang a song passed on by her mother and by her mother.

Before the second verse was done, the woman let out a final sigh. Gone.

That night, Kanan found Hera in the cockpit. Why should she sleep when there was so much work to be done? Together they sat in silence for the longest time, staring. Into the void of space, the silence deafening. Until, so low he’s not sure he’s sensing it or hearing it, she started to sing. The words sweeping and soothing, though he did not entirely understand it. When she sang her last, Hera squeezed Kanan’s hand and returned to sitting in comfortable, contemplative silence. Until the morning yells came from Zeb and Ezra’s room.


Ripped from dreams of gunfire and death and run, Kanan woke up to hands gently carding through his hair and a lullaby in his ear. It was just a nightmare, he’s fine, everyone’s fine, Master Billaba -  but no. The barely audible words were unknown to him; not basic - Ryl? Green hands soothing his aching head instead of brown.

He was lying face down on the sofa in the Ghost’s lounge. He didn’t remember getting there; he did remember a desperate need to drown the past. It didn’t work. It never worked. Hera, sitting on the floor next to him, met his eye with an understanding smile that didn’t reach her eyes. Her fingers faltered but she didn’t drop a note, continuing her song until he drifted back to an uneasy sleep.

They never spoke of the incident, but that was the last time Kanan passed out in a drunken stupour. (He would have taken Hera’s singing as a substitute to keep the nightmares at bay, but that probably would have been a breach of their agreement.)

(She sang for him again several years later.)


Peace and quiet reigned at last on the Ghost. Kanan had swept the rest of crew off to run errands, buy supplies. Hera had begged off, citing repairs that urgently needed her attention. Truthfully, she need to be alone. She loved her crew - her family - but there were times that she missed when the ship was her ship.

The tanks were full, water was hot and no squabbling queue to use the ‘fresher. She was going to indulge and luxuriate in a shower that lasted longer than five minutes. Stepping into the deliciously scalding water, it wasn’t long before the tension was seeping out of her bones and a song bubbling out of her lungs. Strong and wilful, the Ryl rolling from the bottom of her belly as she let loose as she hadn’t let herself in so long, reverberating through the fresher.

Skin beginning to wrinkle and  having sung through all of the loudest and most defiant songs that she could think of, she turned the cooling water off and stepped out of the stall. She must have nearly gone through the entire tank. Oops. Still humming - a bawdy cantina number that her father had once caught her singing and no she definitely didn’t know where she heard it or what it means honestly daddy - she moved to wrap a towel around herself. Brushing water from the length of her lekku, and coming face to face with a broadly grinning Jedi leaning against the ‘fresher door.

Before he could say whatever witty remark he had ready, she flung the damp towel at his face and retreated back into the shower stall, turning the water back on. Daring him to follow her into the cool water.


   Piano Concerto in A minor, Op. 54
     I. Allegro affetuoso
     II. Intermezzo: Andantino grazioso
     III. Rondo: Allegro vivace

Martha Argerich, piano
  Leipzig Gewandhausorchester
  Ricardo Chailly

As a critic on whose word much of musical Europe hung for a time, Schumann rarely wrote with any enthusiasm of the piano concertos popular in his own day. Those of Chopin and Mendelssohn were exceptions in Schumann’s view to the general trend of ersatz showpieces written by pianist-composers for the purpose of dazzling audiences with raw bravura at the expense of credible music. Schumann wrote a scathing review of a concerto by Kalkbrenner, whom he accused of filling in the orchestral parts as a perfunctory afterthought. On another occasion he opined that the piano concerto as a genre had gone totally neglected by composers of real genius and pure intent, and wondered aloud to himself who would rescue the princess from the tower. 

About a decade later, Schumann answered his own call. The A minor concerto was far from his first attempt at such a work; in fact it was his eighth, if we take his personal journals at face value. The first movement was originally intended to be a standalone Phantasie, and was performed as such as Clara; several years later, in 1845, at her insistence Schumann expanded the piece into a full concerto by slightly altering the first movement and then adding a light, lyrical intermezzo and a jubilant finale. 

Schumann could place extraordinary technical demands on a pianist, but his concerto is from a technical standpoint one of the less difficult standards of the Romantic repertoire. Given the context of its conception as an answer to bravura for its own sake, it is easy to see the purposefulness of this design. Though it does require a robust technique, an even more robust memory, and a sensitive approach to the sound quality and to phrasing, in the pianistic figuration it only just exceeds the Kinderszenen or Papillons in difficulty. Even the cadenza is not a bravura moment in the usual way, but serves as a musically intensified final bit of development of the first movement’s materials. 

It is a concerto for piano and orchestra, not for pianist and orchestra. There is some evidence that Clara was surprised by the subdued, refined character of this music written expressly for her. She had expected a torrent of virtuosity but received instead a lovingly crafted dialogue for piano and orchestra which must have seemed unusually rewarding to play. Few concertos for any instrument have been more historically influential than this one. Just as Schumann took Mozart and Beethoven for his models, so his own concerto informed the coming generations: we hear it immediately (perhaps too immediately) in Grieg’s A minor concerto, but also in those by Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff, and of course in Brahms. 

In fact, since most are accustomed to hearing these later, more famous concertos more often, it is easy to miss the startling originality of Schumann’s effort. 

The motivic connections between the concerto’s various themes are so tight and strong that the work borders on the monothematic. Its basis is of course Schumann’s Clara motive, only with the closing cadence so delayed (by an entire period) such that it seems Schumann is calling not “Clara,” but “Claaaaaara.” This is heard easily in the opening of the first movement, when the orchestra makes a first statment but the resolution does not come until the close of the pianist’s answer.

Furthermore, the concerto represents a turning point in Schumann’s personal journey as a composer: here he truly succeeds for the first time in grappling with a large form. He would write no further full-fledged piano concerto, though two more less ambitious concertate would follow in the coming years. 

Enjoy this classic performance by Argerich, by most accounts the contemporary owner of this particular concerto, in Leipzig where it was premiered a century and a half earlier. Argerich recently performed it in Los Angeles. Did any of you catch it? I wish I had.

  • me: this gay ship is canon
  • some asshole: um obviously it isn't, this het ship is way more canon
  • me: oh yeah why
  • them: because it just is, you know? it just is!
  • me: so what you're saying is you think heterosexual relationships are inherently more valid than homosexual relationships, even if the latter is much more plausible given the context of its series?
  • them: um... no... how Dare you accuse me of being a Homophobe..... I was born with glass bones and paper skin. Every morning I break my legs, and every afternoon I break my arms. At night, I lie awake in agony until my heart attacks put me to sleep.

really hate seeing these ‘what’s good’ memes in different fandoms tbh…….its really reducing nicki minaj’s response to nothing more than a meme & something to be laughed at as opposed to how impactful and important it really is, given who said it, its context, and Nicki standing up to herself in the face of the media and white women