it's kind of weird that you'd try and separate electronic music from music theory in the context of high school music. when i took electronic music design in grade 12 - which was in 1999 - one of the assignments in the course was to write a voice-leading arrangement for a beatles song using a program called finale, which is a scorewriting program, and there was a music theory exam as an entrance requirement to the course. i wrote an arrangement to something, which is a harrison track on abbey road. when i took electronic music design at carleton university in 2006, i used the opportunity to generate a better sounding recording of a piano sonata i had written into a scorewriter years earlier.

electronic music design isn't possible to engage in without a solid foundation in music theory, as using the software competently requires understanding how to read and write music, as that is how the software operates. midi is a system that transmits information about scored music; you need a score to use midi.

there's consequently not actually much of a difference in what's being taught. a basic music education using a midi keyboard would still require learning how to read music and apply music theory, you'd just be learning it in the context of the software that uses and in most cases requires that knowledge as a basic starting point.

i do two primary things as a musician. i am a guitarist, first, and that is what people want to see me as. but, when i write a piece of music, 90% of it is written as a score using written music, which is then played back using sequencers. that includes the drums (usually) and any synthesizer parts, but also includes parts written for orchestra, like string and horn parts. if i didn't know how to read music or didn't know anything about music theory, i wouldn't understand how to use the music software that generates the notes.

in that sense, it's actually more important to know basic music theory skills in the modern world of electronic music design than it was in a jazz or rock based world, where you didn't really actually need to know anything about music theory, you just had to have a good ear and be able to wing it. you can't improvise on a laptop in the same way as you can on a saxophone, you have to actually have some idea of what you're doing.

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/rci/en/news/2129782/for-some-canadian-students-music-class-also-means-turntables-and-midi-controllers

mr. singh certainly has every right in the world to dress and look like a goof if he wants to. that's up to him, that's his right.

and, as a voter, i have every right to tell him i could never vote for somebody of faith for prime minister, and that he clearly wants to take the country in the exact opposite direction that i do, even if i might think some of his policies are less bad than the other guy.

and herein lies the problem: anybody else could take advantage of this situation, but singh can't and the ndp could actually lose seats in an election they should be winning outright.

i mean, if we're actually talking about singh for pm, we have to ask the basic question: why does the guy look like a complete idiot? why does he have a beard down to his knees?

he's not the guy from come together.

no - he thinks he has a magic beard. that's the actual reason. it's like the story of samson in the bible. the facial hair gives him magic powers.

as a voter, how am i expected to react to that truth, when this guy tells me he wants to be prime minister? why wouldn't i just vote for a conservative christian? what's the difference?

the ndp should have planned for this scenario where they ought to be poised for a major breakthrough, but it almost seems as though they didn't, as though they intended to just be a hopeless protest party forever, and almost intentionally designed themselves out of power.

no you can't actually vote for singh for prime minister. just fucking look at the guy. it's a non-starter.

so, now what, then?

liberals at 16%?

canadians have a longstanding hobson's choice. we don't like these guys. at all. we don't have a better option, either

the unseriousness of jagmeet singh as a major political candidate - the guy looks like some kind of barbaric clown that arrived in canada via a doctor who time warp from some time in the dark ages - has, in truth, kept trudeau floating for years. if the ndp could just find somebody electable to run for prime minister that looks like he belongs to this millennia, the liberals would already be out of power by now. but, when placed with a choice between the incompetent trudeau and this creepy looking weirdo terrorist guy singh, who is just not a serious candidate due to his appearance, canadians are left stuck. that's a big part of the reason you're seeing the conservatives running at over 40%, but it's not a serious vote projection, it's a reflection of frustration with the options.

what you might see is an election with extremely low turnout, and what liberals are going to struggle with is going to be trying to get people to vote at all.

there is, however, one thing that should be taken seriously, and it's what the bloc are polling at. ontarians are not likely to swing hard for either the conservatives or the ndp and if the outcome is in the end very bad it will be because we just don't vote at all. conversely, if quebeckers are threatening to swing hard to the bloc, they probably actually will, and that could completely wipe the liberals out.

if the bloc are really running over 10% nationwide, christy clark (who i think is a more serious candidate than chrystia freeland) might want to forget about running for liberal leader and instead consider crossing the floor to the conservative party.

what do i think of h1-b visas?

i'm not american. i'm not going to analyze this in much detail. but, i've read my orwell, and it's remarkable how he's the rudimentary writer that keeps giving. some immigrants are more american than others.

but, watch this, too. they're right.

hey, i didn't see this coming like they did.

kind of nailed it.