The Rebirth Of American Musical Theatre Essay example -- essays resear

Two great writers of American musical theatre, Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II, had one idea in common. They wanted to present to the American public a new and revolutionary musical that would stand out above the rest. They wanted to make an impact on the societies of the era. They wanted to be creative and do something that was considered rebellious. When they finally combined their ideas together they created an American masterpiece in musical theatre: Oklahoma!. It was the first Rodgers and Hammerstein collaboration, starting the most successful creative partnership in the history of American musical theatre. According to Joseph Swain in his book The Broadway Musical: A Critical and Musical Survey, there are a number of reasons why a particular work of art might be considered a milestone in the history in its genre. It might introduce innovations of technique and style so convincing that they may become extremely influential. It might attract such wide acclaim that it cannot be ignored by the artists who come after, even if the acclaimed fame eventually fades with time. It could stand as the first work of an important series. Or perhaps, it sets a new standard of artistry. (73) For whatever factors that influenced the writers to create the works they did, they produced some of the most successful and incredibly influential works of musical theatre in their time. In the years before Oklahoma! was created, Broadway was dying. New and refreshing musicals were a rare occasion and when an artist tried to create something that he hoped his audience would like, he was sadly disappointed. Broadway was suffering from a lack of what it was revered for: astounding plays and musicals. Its time of glamour and glitz was almost forgotten, and was in need of being saved. That is why Oklahoma! is considered a rebirth of the American musical theatre at the time. It brought Broadway back to life, filling theatre seats with enthusiastic audiences who embraced the changes of this new theatre musical with open arms and made it a legend. Oklahoma! set new standards for classic American theatre by introducing new techniques of presenting the musical to the audience, introducing a new genre of music into the theatre, and strayed away from the usual classic form and structure of a musical that audiences had grown used to. It was a time of change, a time of excitement ,... ...ve musical that riveted audiences and even continues to attract audiences all over the world to this day. Although Oklahoma! premiered some 40 years ago, and its style of music and dance have grown old with the passing of time, it still demands respect for its combination and imaginative ideas that revolutionized the musical industry at the time. Rodgers and Hammerstein were the dominate force in musical comedy in the 1940's and 50's. Even their flops had notable songs. Several of their shows became successful films. Oklahoma!'s importance in opening a new era in the American Musical Theatre will never be challenged. It has become an American classic that society will forever treasure for its beautiful integration of song and dance. Works Cited Bordman, Gerald. American Musical Comedy. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1986. ---. American Musical Theater: A Chronicle. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1986. Ewen, David. American Musical Theater. New York: Henry Holt, 1959. ---. The Story of America’s Musical Theater. New York: Chilton, 1968. Green, Stanley. The World of Musical Comedy. Washington, DC: Da Capo, 1980. Swain, Joseph P. The Broadway Musical: A Critical and Musical Survey. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1990.

King Devanampiyatissa Essay

During the reign of king Asoka of india,Srilanka was ruled by king Tissa who was the second son of kung Muthaseeva. King Asoka and King Tissa were very close friends. Kung Tissa sent delegation to meet kingAsoka with several gifts. The leader of that group was Prince Maha Aritta who was the nephew of King Tissa. This delegation was ceremoniously received by Emperor Asoka. This delegation spent about 5 months in India. King Asoka sent back alarge collection of precious onaments required in a coronation as a gift. It consisted of swords and valuable ornaments. Also the following message was sent: â€Å"I have surrended myself to the triple gem. Oh my friend, you too submit yourself to the triple gem.† The King was very much pleased with the message the envoys brought back. He held a second coronation with ornaments King Asoka had sent. Also the King waz given an honorary title â€Å"Devanampiya† that was used by Mourya rulers ti which Emperor Asoka belonged. From that day king Tissa was called â€Å"Devanampiyatissa† The most important outcone of the friendship of the two kingswas the introduction of Buddism to Srilanka. King Asoka sent several missions to preach buddism to this country. Mihindu Thera who was the son of kung Asoka brought Buddism to Srilanka after 3rd Dharma Sangayana Along with Mihindu Thera came Arhat Thera named Ittiya, Uttiya, Sambala,Baddadala anf Sumana a young monk and Bhanduka on a pposon full moon day at Mihinthale. Mihindu Thera preached the † Chulla Hattipadopama Suthraya† to king and his group . Upon listening to the sermon the king and the people readily embraced Buddism and surrendered to the triple gem.

How Contextualism Can Be Used to Disregard Skepticism

Contextualism today, is defined as the truth of a particular knowledge ascription dependent on the context in which that truth is uttered. Over the past century and decades there have been many great debates between philosopher’s over contextualism and how it can be used to disregard Skepticism. I agree with Cohen’s defense of Contextualism in regard’s to both how he answers Skepticism and Conee’s objections. Cohen starts off his defense of Contextualism by first explaining the skeptical paradox. The skeptical paradox here is the paradox that Cohen sees between Skepticism and Contextualism Cohen argues that he does see conflict in the paradox, as all the terms can be true dependent on the context in which it is used. The skeptical†¦show more content†¦This brings Cohen to the question the fact that in our minds already determining that such strict skeptical standards don’t exist is incorrect as in most cases they can. In essence they are intuitive judgments, and we can control those judgments. Consequently, this leads Cohen to state that we as individuals do not know whether our intuitive skeptical judgments are made on correct/false inquiries about skeptical claims. Cohen describes that even if there is such a correct theory that our skeptical judgments are correct the question still to be asked/answered is why we have those intuitions and where such intuitions stem from. It is only then according to Cohen that we may find a rational answer as a resolution to that paradox. This argument put forth by Cohen takes into account the varied applications that we don’t see in everyday common sense claims. The fact that Cohen believes that stricter standards can still be applied shows to us that it doesn’t depend on the claim and that almost every claim can be with held to that higher standard of knowledge. To already presume something to a have lower knowledge standard is something that could be changed when brought into conversation with individuals who question matter inherently before it can be passed down as knowledge. In simpler words it doesn’t matter what the claim is a stricter skeptical standard can always be applied. Another objectionShow MoreRelatedHerbert Spencer Essay13142 Words   |  53 Pageselaborated in two major works, Descriptive Sociology (published in 17 volumes, 1873-1934) and The Study of Sociology (1873). Spencer was particularly influential in the United States until the turn of the century. According to William Graham Sumner, who used The Study of Sociology as a text in the first sociology course offered in an American university, it was Spencers work which established sociology as a separate, legitimate field in its own right. Spencers demand that historians present the natural