# The Crazy Works of E.S. Capeditiea



## Capeditiea

Yes. So, Now first off... for now... http://www.capeditiea.zenseiderz.org/albums/ESC/

this is the temporary link to fetch my works... (i will edit when my friend who runs my website, finishes remaking it...)

This post's purpose is for me to blatantly express my works. As i feel they are worthy to show to the public. They are final. Each have a meaning, a reason for it to sound the way they do. (Other wise i wouldn't release it.) So if you are unable to sense the purpose of the work... that is fine. Just point out where i went wrong... and upon future works i will evolve. So no worries... now if you love them, sweet. :3

Regardless, I shall reinstate the fact, i am not looking for opinions or such. The most i request from you is to point out anything i have done incorrectly in the score. Don't judge how they sound, because it is how i want it to be.



Also, I have taken the advice from the ones who have given it to me. (so my first works will all be chamber music or something like that... the symphonic works i shall wait on till i have a better understanding for the instruments that i do not understand on composing for.

The next post will include more information on Op. 1.

PS. this will probably be edited a few times through out time...


----------



## Capeditiea

Op. 1 String Quartet No. 1 in F Minor
I: Adagio con moto assai 
II: Largo
III: Andante Rall. Lento
IV: Grave

As one may know, F Minor is notable for being a funeral lament or very depressive. So i wrote about an experience that i had back in 2006. That spanned the first five months, but has lived with me since.


----------



## Vasks

Capeditiea said:


> i am not looking for opinions or such. The most i request from you is to point out anything i have done incorrectly in the score. Don't judge how they sound, because it is how i want it to be.


Unfortunately, TalkClassical administration has already said that anybody can critique anything about anything posted, just no personal attacks.

My three comments of the first movement are (1) like I pointed out in your orchestral score, you write for each instrument almost exclusively within their 5-line staff. These instruments are more than capable of playing a far greater range than that which you use, (2) the string quartet medium thrives with almost all 4 players sounding together for great lengths of time. Your writing is mostly two parts at a time with an a few one and three. Except for two beats, never do all 4 sound at the same time. You essentially wrote a string trio.


----------



## Capeditiea

Vasks said:


> Unfortunately, TalkClassical administration has already said that anybody can critique anything about anything posted, just no personal attacks.
> 
> My three comments of the first movement are (1) like I pointed out in your orchestral score, you write for each instrument almost exclusively within their 5-line staff. These instruments are more than capable of playing a far greater range than that which you use, (2) the string quartet medium thrives with almost all 4 players sounding together for great lengths of time. Your writing is mostly two parts at a time with an a few one and three. Except for two beats, never do all 4 sound at the same time. You essentially wrote a string trio.


So i took the term "A conversation of instruments" too literally?


----------



## Vasks

(3) (LOL!! I left off #3!!) You don't have to show for the tempo "quarter note symbol equals an Italian tempo description" Leave off the "quarter note symbol equals"

(4) I know I said three things...I lied ;-). Your usage of slurs and phrase markings (the two are drawn the same way) is all mixed up. Unfortunately, it would take too many written words to explain it all, and even then it might not clarify adequately, so I won't even try.


----------



## Capeditiea

Vasks said:


> (3) (LOL!! I left off #3!!) You don't have to show for the tempo "quarter note symbol equals an Italian tempo description" Leave off the "quarter note symbol equals"
> 
> (4) I know I said three things...I lied ;-). Your usage of slurs and phrase markings (the two are drawn the same way) is all mixed up. Unfortunately, it would take too many written words to explain it all, and even then it might not clarify adequately, so I won't even try.


:O o my i didn't realize that i forgot to delete the quarter note equals.... in most of the markings. XD thank you for pointing that out...

as to number four... yeah, the slurs seem too crazy... but it started looking pretty.  so i got addicted to doing additional slurs for phrases as well. :3 But yes i understand (enough i think...) on the slur/phrase markings.

But this being said, the slurs/phrases being as they are, kinda a language in them selves... like the intensity of smoothness. 
There are a lot of pauses in the middle of measures, where a slur (not a phrase, occur) which i think can be omited. (but wasn't sure.)


----------



## dzc4627

You've succeeded in writing a string quartet that is both markedly bizarre and fundamentally uninteresting.

I listened to the whole sluggish first movement, and expected some relief in a contrasting mood. But alas, more ambivalent meandering follows with the second movement.

The Andante which follows sounded like a "Presto" in comparison.

After that I prepared myself for what would have to be some sort tour de force finale, to compensate for the lack of any tension or contrast in the rest of the piece thus far. Ya know, a nice Rondo finale to top things off.

What a _grave_ assumption that was on my part...

Are you writing this music solely for yourself? I can't imagine anyone enjoying it. That isn't even a remark made in mean spirits. I actually cannot imagine someone gaining anything from listening to this, other than a newfound appreciation for music with actual character and substance.


----------



## Capeditiea

dzc4627 said:


> Are you writing this music solely for yourself?


Yes and no. 
Yes, because this has a personal meaning that only my friends and family... and who ever read my book one. I mean what does Chamber Music represent? It is music for friends. Not much is usually appretiated by the general public. Rather it is more personal, that wouldn't be used to perform in large ensembles. (i will leave that to my concertos and symphonies.)

No, because certian folk will inevitably become interested, not every composer is known right away in their lifetime, so really i am influencing the next generations rather than this current one, because i feel disdainment from this current generation. SInce they lack the insight of creativity.

Music is and was never supposed to sound like Saint-Saens remixed. We have to come up with new avenues. New thought.

String Quartet No. 1 in F Minor. tells you how you see life. (Which is the double meaning.)

Again, What does the key F Minor represent?

Music doesn't always have to sound pleasing to the ears... for three reasons.
1. One can be explaining a certain emotion that relates to how you feel when you hear the specific part. 
2. To lead certain groups of people from wanting to continue listening to this. 
3.

For a more complex answer. 
One can only write inspirational music when it is about their own experiences.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

I don't hear any experience or much emotion at all in this. It lacks a certain degree of poignant sounds I feel is characteristic of chamber music... it feels like none of the instruments really shine. Perhaps try expanding upon the parts and including small, but effective moments to showcase each instrument in the quartet.


----------



## Capeditiea

E Cristobal Poveda said:


> I don't hear any experience or much emotion at all in this. It lacks a certain degree of poignant sounds I feel is characteristic of chamber music... it feels like none of the instruments really shine. Perhaps try expanding upon the parts and including small, but effective moments to showcase each instrument in the quartet.


...a computer can only do so much on the emotional factors.

But really the experience (not experience gained from so many years of composing... that i have done. I never said that.) is an occurance that happened in my life, that has changed my life. I don't think i mentioned the experience in previous posts... which i will not say what it is about. Just know that if i do say it it would make sense to the reasoning for how the composition is the way it is.)


----------



## Capeditiea

For future references please, keep this in mind. I am not going to dumb down my music for it to please someone's ears. Nor am I worried about if it gets played. I have something to say, and i am saying it. Regardless of what anyone thinks of it. I do not need to hear (or read) the fact that "o it sounds horrid," or "o my this is absolute crap." Instead, attempt to see the reason behind why this is going on. My compostitions require more thought. 

I have been through a bunch of critisism through out my life. So now, i simply just do it all for enjoyment of making something. NOT TO FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE MAINSTREAM! (i wonder if those words stay capitolized or not...) :3 

I understand completely why Sorabji went off and decided to shut himself in... 
I have a question for you all that have decided to reply to this... 
What are your thoughts on Xenakis, Zorn, Zappa, Sorabji, Messeian, Stravisnsky, Stockhausen?

This way i can find out how much value your opinions hold.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

Capeditiea said:


> For future references please, keep this in mind. I am not going to dumb down my music for it to please someone's ears. Nor am I worried about if it gets played. I have something to say, and i am saying it. Regardless of what anyone thinks of it. I do not need to hear (or read) the fact that "o it sounds horrid," or "o my this is absolute crap." Instead, attempt to see the reason behind why this is going on. My compostitions require more thought.
> 
> I have been through a bunch of critisism through out my life. So now, i simply just do it all for enjoyment of making something. NOT TO FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE MAINSTREAM! (i wonder if those words stay capitolized or not...) :3
> 
> I understand completely why Sorabji went off and decided to shut himself in...
> I have a question for you all that have decided to reply to this...
> What are your thoughts on Xenakis, Zorn, Zappa, Sorabji, Messeian, Stravisnsky, Stockhausen?
> 
> This way i can find out how much value your opinions hold.


Xenakis: Don't listen to him, offends my ears
Zorn: unfamilliar
Zappa: unfamilliar
Sorajbi: Haven't listened to many of their works, meh
Messeian: unfamilliar
Stravinsky: was decent in his earlier years, cannot listen to anything past Firebird
Stockhausen: While he isn't one of my favorite composers, I listen to him every now and then.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

Also, you can't expect someone to understand the emotions behind a piece if it is based on an event the listener has no idea about.

Without context, a listener bases their opinions solely on what is presented to them. If that upsets you, perhaps you shouldn't be sharing your works publicly if you cannot handle what the listeners have to say.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Capeditiea said:


> For future references please, keep this in mind. I am not going to dumb down my music for it to please someone's ears. Nor am I worried about if it gets played. I have something to say, and i am saying it. Regardless of what anyone thinks of it. I do not need to hear (or read) the fact that "o it sounds horrid," or "o my this is absolute crap." Instead, attempt to see the reason behind why this is going on. My compostitions require more thought.
> 
> I have been through a bunch of critisism through out my life. So now, i simply just do it all for enjoyment of making something. NOT TO FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE MAINSTREAM! (i wonder if those words stay capitolized or not...) :3
> 
> I understand completely why Sorabji went off and decided to shut himself in...
> I have a question for you all that have decided to reply to this...
> What are your thoughts on Xenakis, Zorn, Zappa, Sorabji, Messeian, Stravisnsky, Stockhausen?
> 
> This way i can find out how much value your opinions hold.


I've listened to pretty much all of Stravinsky, Stockhausen, and quite a bit of Xenakis, Messaien, Zappa, and some of Sorabji and Zorn, but your music is not similar. They all write chromatic and atonal music while the music you write is quite conventional from what I've seen of the scores, diatonic and is not actually difficult music, since it uses 7 tones.

What all those other composers did (except Zorn, who wasn't innovative in a real sense) was expand upon existing systems, rather than inventing their own music theory on a vaccuum, which will just end up exploring what's already been done by others down that path. The way to being original and non_mainstream is to be aware of existing conventions and going beyond in a different direction, rather than ignoring what is already out there and shutting yourself out. Those composers we're not appreciated but created stuff beyond their time that the public and critics rejected those differences.


----------



## Capeditiea

Phil loves classical said:


> Those composers were not appreciated but created stuff beyond their time that the public and critics rejected those differences.


...what i have planned all along. 
mine won't be notable for another hundred years... since i know many epochs of music... and know how it evolves. 

but the rest is simply what i have been saying all along... New Theory. Yes, it is completely new... but that doesn't mean it is from a vacuum... 
I am just pushing the evolution a bit faster than normal. which i no longer care if it is traditional or not... please read my original post. I said what i wanted here... I don't seek opinions. just watch things evolve. that is why i am starting over. 
Because y'all are too convectional towards my works. One work alone doesn't describe the things i have done.

I have composed more songs than Bach. (non-classical included.) I have also destroyed, thrown out, destroyed about 99% of my past works. (primarily non-classical) 
Do you know how long that took me?  7 years. yes only seven years of unending practice. Basically only taking time off to watch anime and to do other things. 
Y'all go on and say you have a bunch of experience... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHA! (do i look angry?) :O 
I sacrificed everything, friends, family, everything. Just so i can practice this... what reason was this? 
it was simply because i don't like humanity. I have to deal with their closed minded thoughts. Where they can only see in a two dimentional sense.

Sometimes there are folk who know how to make purposeful music that have a special meaning that only certain folk would understand. While others just go into some kinda strange behaviour and decide it sounds ugly. which is what my music is. Ugly.

You wouldn't go and spend your life with an ugly person in marrage unless you love their personality. But you would absolutely lust over the person who is sexy.

But to point out from that analogy, indeed it is simple, indeed it stays in the lines. but on the surface, i pointed out that it was an occurance in 2006. How many years ago was that? How many years ago did i say i spent practicing composing? What year would the first year really be?
https://www.reverbnation.com/denotingprogression

this is my first project... if you really wanna critisize anything critisize that.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Capeditiea said:


> ...what i have planned all along.
> mine won't be notable for another hundred years... since i know many epochs of music... and know how it evolves.
> 
> but the rest is simply what i have been saying all along... New Theory. Yes, it is completely new... but that doesn't mean it is from a vacuum...
> I am just pushing the evolution a bit faster than normal. which i no longer care if it is traditional or not... please read my original post. I said what i wanted here... I don't seek opinions. just watch things evolve. that is why i am starting over.
> Because y'all are too convectional towards my works. One work alone doesn't describe the things i have done.
> 
> I have composed more songs than Bach. (non-classical included.) I have also destroyed, thrown out, destroyed about 99% of my past works. (primarily non-classical)
> Do you know how long that took me?  7 years. yes only seven years of unending practice. Basically only taking time off to watch anime and to do other things.
> Y'all go on and say you have a bunch of experience... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHA! (do i look angry?) :O
> I sacrificed everything, friends, family, everything. Just so i can practice this... what reason was this?
> it was simply because i don't like humanity. I have to deal with their closed minded thoughts. Where they can only see in a two dimentional sense.
> 
> Sometimes there are folk who know how to make purposeful music that have a special meaning that only certain folk would understand. While others just go into some kinda strange behaviour and decide it sounds ugly. which is what my music is. Ugly.
> 
> You wouldn't go and spend your life with an ugly person in marrage unless you love their personality. But you would absolutely lust over the person who is sexy.
> 
> But to point out from that analogy, indeed it is simple, indeed it stays in the lines. but on the surface, i pointed out that it was an occurance in 2006. How many years ago was that? How many years ago did i say i spent practicing composing? What year would the first year really be?
> https://www.reverbnation.com/denotingprogression
> 
> this is my first project... if you really wanna critisize anything critisize that.


It's cool that you have a lot of conviction in your work.


----------



## Capeditiea

*nods, i have a really good idea on how most of you think. 

 no one is willing to critisize a work that was done many years ago. Thusly, this mean one thing in particular.  you are jealous. Plus some of you don't know how to read... Ever notice what i said in the first post? 

Secondly, i do mean what i said in the first post. 

I will not change my style nor my sound... just because you tell me IT SOUNDS HORRIBLE! or something along those lines. :3 

So, really are any of you gonna critisize my first works done, i think, late 2010... :3 i mean i have heard every form of critisism...  so want to take the challenge and see if you can find something over a hundred people may have missed? Highly unlikely. 

Secondly, if you want to get to my level of thought, which is obviously far more wide than yours. 
You cannot say that the influences i have should make me sound like them. No, quite the opposite. with dENOTING Progression, I had no knowledge what so ever on music theory. it was thanks to that when i started to learn it. 

Thirdly, I am not a satanist... i am a goddess... the gnosis goddess of art and creativity. 

this should make the first three measures of the second movement in String Quartet make a little more sense. Perhaps. I mean... what is the devil's chord? (it is spread through two of the instruments... can you not tell?) 

here i was thinking, maybe you all would notice these small fun things but naw, i was completely incorrect... 

In other news, i am about halfway through Op. 2. Using my own personal ideas. 

Again, i want only to know the discriptancies of the score... nothing more...


----------



## Phil loves classical

My view as in the ugly music thread in the main forum a little while ago, is ugly music can be interesting, which many just reject from the sound. A lot of the Serialists used techniques that is hard to be perceived by humans, although they can find some patterns to the sequences. 

My point before is that to claim you invent a new theory, mathematically based from what I recall, is not really new, because those serial techniques since the 60's were also new, independent of each other, and never been replicated. I don't see how anyone can be jealous of a serial technique, not matter how complex, in organizing the 7 notes of the scale. I could process some complex algorithm over 5, 7, or all 12 notes, and it wouldn't necessarily be distinguishable from being completely random.


----------



## Capeditiea

Phil loves classical said:


> My view as in the ugly music thread in the main forum a little while ago, is ugly music can be interesting, which many just reject from the sound. A lot of the Serialists used techniques that is hard to be perceived by humans, although they can find some patterns to the sequences.
> 
> My point before is that to claim you invent a new theory, mathematically based from what I recall, is not really new, because those serial techniques since the 60's were also new, independent of each other, and never been replicated. I don't see how anyone can be jealous of a serial technique, not matter how complex, in organizing the 7 notes of the scale. I could process some complex algorithm over 5, 7, or all 12 notes, and it wouldn't necessarily be distinguishable from being completely random.


Mine isn't random. :3 there is a technique that only has been used before by a few friends and musicians i know. Though each of ours have a different way of decerning the next note.

I don't use the serial method... though i have done a few songs in the non-classical music i have done, Which fit in with what i am trying to say in the song or album or work.

although it may seem aleotoric if you look at the different shifts. (which it kinda is, just not using dice or cards to discern the next note.

i shall use my name as an example.

CAPEDITIEA = 67 (Gematria of Nothing.) 
to understand the factors of this. 
N=0 
A=13
Z=-12

After deciding the first note to play, (for this example alone.) 
6+7=13 
1+3=4

So 67, 6, 7, 13, and 4 are the basis of everything for "Capeditiea."

With this we can simply have the amount of measures be 67. 
6 can be the starting key. which from middle C we can go up or down on the scale six keys (including Sharps and Flats) 
then from there, in the occurance of going the opposite direction the difference (so in this case 7-6=1) 
for the third note it would be the same direction as the first one, but with 7 instead.)
fourth note, would be 4 difference.

so the first four notes would be 
G-F-G#-E
or 
F-F#-E-A#

which is also possible using non-sharps and non-flats... 
which in this case it would be a little different. it would wrap instead. since sometimes they would become unplayable. in most occurances.

you are then with the start of the motif. 
How does one decide whether to use quavers, semiquavers, rests, etc? 
this is where the 13 number comes in. since the factor above only produced four notes, (which can end up being eight depending on if it becomes a three digit number.)

in this case, since motifs are usually short intros and often used as themes, so i go with how ever many digits the first number would be (in this case is 67. so that is 2 digits) 
how does one span a four note process into 13 notes? 
this is variable. 
so it would be F-F#-E-A--Ab-B#-F-G--F-G#-A-Cb--G
now how it is brought down to 2 bars... 
1/8-1/8-1/8-1/8-1/4 -- 1/8-1/8-1/8-1/8 1/8 r 1/8-1/16-1/16 (which this is just an example... but you get the idea.)

After the motif is developed. you can end up doing many other enumerations using gematria, or other already used techniques, used by others. This way you can start evolving the idea of what the original intent of the song is about.

(i purposefully didn't give all the steps because that would take too long... but you get the basic idea.)


----------



## Phil loves classical

That is in fact a form of serial technique. It is not random, but based on the algorithm you gave, you can generate a series, which don't follow the harmonic sequences, which are the only ones that the ear can detect. Any algorithm, not matter how complex, will get reduced by the ear. In a harmonic sense it is really the same as random.


----------



## Capeditiea

Phil loves classical said:


> That is in fact a form of serial technique. It is not random, but based on the algorithm you gave, you can generate a series, which don't follow the harmonic sequences, which are the only ones that the ear can detect. Any algorithm, not matter how complex, will get reduced by the ear. In a harmonic sense it is really the same as random.


...maybe i do use a form of the serial technique... lol

but at least you know why i state i am inspired through the ones. :3 i don't ever have to sound like them... i am not attempting that.  
though i cannot state that what i have done has never been done before... 
just the theory i use is one i came up since i began composing. (so far it has worked in my favour.) 
With the scores, folk can see the simplicity of making something inspiring. Which will spark their creativity if they let my music take part in their lives. 

:3 because given the fact of this. none of my works will ever sound the same if played. I leave it to the performers to express how they see the music. In a very interesting light. While computers don't do a justice for how emphatic the performer would feel if they sence the ghost melodies that appear after constant practice.

a song can feel totally different just by how the performer feels. 
a phrase that is really simple can sound really amazing. 
a note can sound beautiful just by it's self.

coming at my music a certain way, ends up being a horrid experience. Come at it like you would by any notable composer. :3 once you do, then one may experience something different entirely.  but come at my music ennui. it becomes bland. that is how much influence i have with the music. (as simple as it seems.)

try this exersize.  when i finish my Op. 2 Yearning for the World of Music.

with the title it's self, it gives a very clear hint on the emotion to effect the music. Yearning. 
there are a few possibilities of what it is about.

I will give a little story to give a little more hint as to what i was thinking while composing... (because this may open the eyes to some.)

:3 (i may also split the work into 2 seperate works, but have the same title... but be titled Op. 2A and Op. 2B (because it fits properly. plus it is nearing an hour long after having 11 movements. :O)


----------



## Capeditiea

http://www.capeditiea.zenseiderz.org/albums/ESC/

Op. 2 Yearning for the World of Music is out. :3 i am simply curious this time as to what y'all have to say about this work....

(the story is with the titles in a way.)


----------



## Capeditiea

Yearn, long, hanker, pine all mean to feel a powerful desire for something. Yearn stresses the depth and passionateness of a desire: to yearn to get away and begin a new life; to yearn desperately for recognition. Long implies a wholehearted desire for something that is or seems unattainable: to long to relive one's childhood; to long for the warmth of summer. Hanker suggests a restless or incessant craving to fulfill some urge or desire: to hanker for a promotion; to hanker after fame and fortune. Pine adds the notion of physical or emotional suffering as a result of the real or apparent hopelessness of one's desire: to pine for one's native land; to pine for a lost love.

from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/yearn?s=t


----------



## Phil loves classical

Capeditiea said:


> http://www.capeditiea.zenseiderz.org/albums/ESC/
> 
> Op. 2 Yearning for the World of Music is out. :3 i am simply curious this time as to what y'all have to say about this work....
> 
> (the story is with the titles in a way.)


From where we left off on the symphony, you stated you use a certain algorithm or methodology to get the 4 notes for a motif. The building around the motif is not serial though, from what I noticed. So it would likely be judged based on the development around the motif.

With the speed you came out with the string quartet and now this work, I'm wondering how much time you spend on a page writing? Is this work Serial partially? I don't quite hear how the harmony fits together as a whole, although there are a few moments hear and there my ear finds something interesting. Based on your explanation of your music. I would take it to be postmodern. It doesn't follow counterpoint.


----------



## Capeditiea

Phil loves classical said:


> From where we left off on the symphony, you stated you use a certain algorithm or methodology to get the 4 notes for a motif. The building around the motif is not serial though, from what I noticed. So it would likely be judged based on the development around the motif.
> 
> With the speed you came out with the string quartet and now this work, I'm wondering how much time you spend on a page writing? Is this work Serial partially? I don't quite hear how the harmony fits together as a whole, although there are a few moments hear and there my ear finds something interesting. Based on your explanation of your music. I would take it to be postmodern. It doesn't follow counterpoint.


Well, the time thing... is kinda funny in this scenario. (i will not say till someone figures it out...)  adds a bit of a mystery. but i could say i have been working on these since the start of the year... (just not in this dezign.) :3 but that is probably an obvious hint.

:3 but you see the definition, and the story behind the work correct? (now imagine why i didn't use much counterpoint... why i decded to not be harmonious... (read my previous two comments... it grants a lot of what to expect in the work...

a few things to ponder while listening and sight reading... 
1. does a one sided relationship seem harmonious? Where the crush sees the one who has a crush on them as a monster... 
2. later on they finally have enough courage to ask them out... but they say no... how would a delusional person react? 
3. finally, they end up snaping...

(kinda reflects the responces i had early in a psychological manner.)

remember every thing i do is planned. :3

--edited to add,

to top it off. Remember, i would call something an etude only if i know i would have troubles playing it my self. (in keyboard compositions.


----------



## Capeditiea

Op. 3 Piano Trio in D Major is now up...


----------



## Capeditiea

Phil loves classical said:


> With the speed you came out with the string quartet and now this work, I'm wondering how much time you spend on a page writing?


:3 i timed my self with the Op. 3 

for the first movement which took the longest... (which i suspect would be average time...) 
2-3 pages per day. (with the exeption of the last few, i had to go back to it after composing the second movement.)

for the second movement... i finished it in one day. (because if i spent too much time, it would have been over thought and i want an unconfortable feeling. mixed with uneasiness.) while played with melancholy.

for the third. This took two days, since it is rondo and recapulations.

though the idea of Op. 3 is quite an old idea as well... (back in 2009, it is about a lady who has a similar personality as what is being put off in this. She was an amazing person. Who helped me in my time of need. She had bipolar, and would invoke certain uneasy feelings when she had one of her episodes which lasted anywhere from 10-15 minutes before she calmed down and started crying. Then she would perk up and joke about it.) 
She granted me a way of seeing life in a different aspect.)

Her main goal in life (which could never happen in a realistic sense) was to make a program, charity, or something like that, simply to out reach people with music.

(i cannot remember the name she wanted to use, but it would have been subtitled that. which will end up being changed to that subtitle.)


----------

