Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- Resource Type: Text
Description
The end of the nineteenth century was an exhilarating and revolutionary era for the flute. This period is the Second Golden Age of the flute, when players and teachers associated with the Paris Conservatory developed what would be considered the birth of the modern flute school. In addition, the founding in 1871 of the Société Nationale de Musique by Camille Saint-Saëns (1835-1921) and Romain Bussine (1830-1899) made possible the promotion of contemporary French composers. The founding of the Société des Instruments à Vent by Paul Taffanel (1844-1908) in 1879 also invigorated a new era of chamber music for wind instruments. Within this groundbreaking environment, Mélanie Hélène Bonis (pen name Mel Bonis) entered the Paris Conservatory in 1876, under the tutelage of César Franck (1822-1890). Many flutists are dismayed by the scarcity of repertoire for the instrument in the Romantic and post-Romantic traditions; they make up for this absence by borrowing the violin sonatas of Gabriel Fauré (1845-1924) and Franck. The flute and piano works of Mel Bonis help to fill this void with music composed originally for flute. Bonis was a prolific composer with over 300 works to her credit, but her works for flute and piano have not been researched or professionally recorded in the United States before the present study. Although virtually unknown today in the American flute community, Bonis's music received much acclaim from her contemporaries and deserves a prominent place in the flutist's repertoire. After a brief biographical introduction, this document examines Mel Bonis's musical style and describes in detail her six works for flute and piano while also offering performance suggestions.
ContributorsDaum, Jenna Elyse (Author) / Buck, Elizabeth (Thesis advisor) / Holbrook, Amy (Committee member) / Micklich, Albie (Committee member) / Schuring, Martin (Committee member) / Norton, Kay (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
Arizona’s Dram Shop Statute, specifically ARS 4-311, was enacted in 1986 to hold liquor licensees financially responsible for any injuries or deaths that arise from the service and consumption of alcohol by customers of their establishment. The intent of such policies was to mitigate instances of driving under the influence of alcohol. However, evidence shows that such statutes have little to no effect on incidents of drunk driving in the State of Arizona, yet are detrimental to the viability of local restaurants and bars. The full liability that businesses in this industry face has an adverse effect on the following:
• The ability of establishments to obtain and maintain insurance coverage
• Limits the number of insurance carriers in Arizona, which increases the cost of such coverage.
• Expensive insurance directly affects business profitability:
o restricting their ability to make capital purchases
o limiting their ability to make local investments
o reduces state income tax revenue
o the need to reduce their staff or close their doors completely
o less money that any local business can bring to their bottom line is less money that they are able to
o reinvest in their community, their city, and in their state
In an effort to reduce the burdens imposed on Arizona’s restaurant and bar industry, I propose legislative changes to Arizona Revised Statute 4-311. These legislative changes would not only aid these small businesses in their efforts to be profitable and serve their communities, but would be beneficial to local cities and the State of Arizona alike. I would propose the following:
• Place a burden of proof on the plaintiff that a customer was served in an “obviously intoxicated” state as defined in A.R.S 4-311 (D), diminishing the ability to file suits based solely on the driver’s BAC of .08 or above.
• Strike all claims with basis on “known or should have known” judge made and judge applied common law standard that has not been incorporated in to the Arizona Dram Shop Statutes through legislation.
With these changes to Arizona Dram Shop Statutes, local restaurants and bars could contribute not only to their local economies, but also to support deterrence of the crime through a .5% tax on liquor sales generated through the sale of such in a liquor licensed establishment. This tax would amount to approximately $27* million dollars annually for the State of Arizona. This additional tax revenue would go directly to their local police departments to specifically fund increased efforts to deter instances of drunk driving. This deterrence could be achieved through increased police presence, hiring and training officers in the specialty of detecting drunk drivers, and/or conducting additional sobriety checkpoints throughout the state. Currently, a few other states (MD 9%, MN 2.5%, ND 7%, D.C 10%) have implemented a small tax on retail sales of liquor in addition to the various excise tax imposed at the wholesale and/or manufacturing level.
• The ability of establishments to obtain and maintain insurance coverage
• Limits the number of insurance carriers in Arizona, which increases the cost of such coverage.
• Expensive insurance directly affects business profitability:
o restricting their ability to make capital purchases
o limiting their ability to make local investments
o reduces state income tax revenue
o the need to reduce their staff or close their doors completely
o less money that any local business can bring to their bottom line is less money that they are able to
o reinvest in their community, their city, and in their state
In an effort to reduce the burdens imposed on Arizona’s restaurant and bar industry, I propose legislative changes to Arizona Revised Statute 4-311. These legislative changes would not only aid these small businesses in their efforts to be profitable and serve their communities, but would be beneficial to local cities and the State of Arizona alike. I would propose the following:
• Place a burden of proof on the plaintiff that a customer was served in an “obviously intoxicated” state as defined in A.R.S 4-311 (D), diminishing the ability to file suits based solely on the driver’s BAC of .08 or above.
• Strike all claims with basis on “known or should have known” judge made and judge applied common law standard that has not been incorporated in to the Arizona Dram Shop Statutes through legislation.
With these changes to Arizona Dram Shop Statutes, local restaurants and bars could contribute not only to their local economies, but also to support deterrence of the crime through a .5% tax on liquor sales generated through the sale of such in a liquor licensed establishment. This tax would amount to approximately $27* million dollars annually for the State of Arizona. This additional tax revenue would go directly to their local police departments to specifically fund increased efforts to deter instances of drunk driving. This deterrence could be achieved through increased police presence, hiring and training officers in the specialty of detecting drunk drivers, and/or conducting additional sobriety checkpoints throughout the state. Currently, a few other states (MD 9%, MN 2.5%, ND 7%, D.C 10%) have implemented a small tax on retail sales of liquor in addition to the various excise tax imposed at the wholesale and/or manufacturing level.
ContributorsRutten, Lori Ann (Author) / Novak, Shawn (Thesis director) / Herbert, Anne (Committee member) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12