Matching Items (806)
Filtering by
- Creators: Novak, Gail (Pianist)
ContributorsKierum, Caitlin (Contributor) / Novak, Gail (Pianist) (Performer) / Liang, Jack (Performer) / ASU Library. Music Library (Publisher)
Created2018-04-11
ContributorsLougheed, Julia (Performer) / Novak, Gail (Pianist) (Performer) / Bayer, Elizabeth Kennedy (Performer) / Clifton-Armenta, Tyler (Performer) / Park, Julie (Performer) / Javier de Alba, Francisco (Performer) / Vientos Dulces (Performer) / ASU Library. Music Library (Publisher)
Created2018-04-07
ContributorsCoffey, Brennan (Performer) / Novak, Gail (Pianist) (Performer) / ASU Library. Music Library (Publisher)
Created2021-04-26
ContributorsHolly, Sean (Performer) / Wright, Aaron (Performer) / Novak, Gail (Pianist) (Performer) / ASU Library. Music Library (Publisher)
Created2021-04-29
ContributorsBreeden, Katherine (Performer) / German, Lindsey (Performer) / Novak, Gail (Pianist) (Performer) / ASU Library. Music Library (Publisher)
Created2018-04-13
Description
ABSTRACT Many musicians, both amateur and professional alike, are continuously seeking to expand and explore their performance literature and repertory. Introducing new works into the standard repertory is an exciting endeavor for any active musician. Establishing connections, commissioning new works, and collaborating on performances can all work together toward the acceptance and success of a composer's music within an instrument community. For the flute, one such composer is Daniel Dorff (b. 1956). Dorff, a Philadelphia-based composer, has written for symphony orchestra, clarinet, contrabassoon, and others; however, his award-winning works for flute and piccolo are earning him much recognition. He has written works for such illustrious flutists as Mimi Stillman, Walfrid Kujala, and Gary Schocker; his flute works have been recorded by Laurel Zucker, Pamela Youngblood and Lois Bliss Herbine; and his pieces have been performed and premiered at each of the National Flute Association Conventions from 2004 to 2009. Despite this success, little has been written about Dorff's life, compositional style, and contributions to the flute repertory. In order to further promote the flute works of Daniel Dorff, the primary focus of this study is the creation of a compact disc recording of Dorff's most prominent works for flute: April Whirlwind, 9 Walks Down 7th Avenue, both for flute and piano, and Nocturne Caprice for solo flute. In support of this recording, the study also provides biographical information regarding Daniel Dorff, discusses his compositional methods and ideology, and presents background information, description, and performance notes for each piece. Interviews with Daniel Dorff regarding biographical and compositional details serve as the primary source for this document. Suggestions for the performance of the three flute works were gathered through interviews with prominent flutists who have studied and performed Dorff's pieces. Additional performance suggestions for Nocturne Caprice were gathered through a coaching session between the author and the composer. This project is meant to promote the flute works of Daniel Dorff and to help establish their role in the standard flute repertory.
ContributorsRich, Angela Marie (Contributor) / Novak, Gail (Pianist) (Performer) / Buck, Elizabeth Y (Thesis advisor) / Hill, Gary W. (Committee member) / Holbrook, Amy (Committee member) / Schuring, Martin (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2010
ContributorsBroome-Robinson, Julia (Performer) / Novak, Gail (Pianist) (Performer) / Glick, Philip (Performer) / Lynch, Paul (Performer) / Ryall, Blake (Performer) / ASU Library. Music Library (Publisher)
Created2018-10-19
Description
Alexis de Tocqueville concludes the second volume of his influential political work Democracy in America with a discussion of “What Kind of Despotism Democratic Nations have to Fear.” The phenomenon Tocqueville seeks to capture in his final chapters is often called “democratic” or “soft” despotism, and it is notably distinct from the traditional conception of despotism. The threat soft despotism represents to democracies is new to the world Tocqueville lived in, and as such, Tocqueville chose the word despotism to describe it because he felt no better word existed. So, to accurately describe the phenomenon that Tocqueville feared, he had to re-conceptualize despotism. When Tocqueville discusses soft despotism, he means a democratic state where people are incapable of being truly free. In examining this concretely, I have developed five criteria which capture all the characteristics of soft despotism: 1. The equality of conditions; 2. The destruction of social connection; 3. The creation of a centralized administrative state; 4. The fulfillment of base desires; and 5. The death of the political sphere. In “Defining Soft Despotism,” I offer explanations of what each of these five criteria means, and I discuss both how Tocqueville and later scholars view them. I offer my own understanding of each of these criteria framed in Tocqueville’s thought. Next, in “Understanding Soft Despotism,” I discuss what about soft despotism is so concerning to Tocqueville and focus on his belief that it fundamentally changes the people who live under it, depriving them of their humanity. Then, I discuss why Americans should be concerned today. Lastly, in “Measuring Soft Despotism,” I take data for each of the five criteria and examine them to see if they appear to match what Tocqueville envisioned a soft despotism would be like. In my assessment, I find that America today does not seem to be a soft despotism. America does not meet all five criteria I believe define a soft despotism. Instead, it appears America is only close to experiencing two of the five: the destruction of social connection, and the death of the political sphere. Despite these findings, there is still room for concern that America is heading towards becoming a soft despotism, or is perhaps headed in a different, but equally undesirable direction.
ContributorsBartlemay, Robert Charles (Author) / German, Zachary (Thesis director) / Carrese, Paul (Committee member) / Historical, Philosophical & Religious Studies (Contributor, Contributor) / School of Civic & Economic Thought and Leadership (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05
Description
Despite the reactionary Habsburg regime under Emperor Franz Joseph, forces within the government and leading intelligentsia proposed various reforms to solve the issue of ethnic discrimination across the Austro-Hungarian Empire, attempting to resolve the tensions that the Ausgleich of 1867 had further aggravated by the inclusion of Hungarians as a privileged class to the detriment of the remaining minorities. This paper will look at the Austro-Marxist and Federalist reformers and the ways in which their concepts, if implemented, could have saved the Empire from its downfall in 1918. Ultimately, neither the Austro-Marxist concept of a centralized system of universal rights across the borders of all nations within the existing empire nor the Federalist idea of a national territorial sovereignty allowing for a certain degree of individual autonomy managed to be adopted by the Allied victors of World War I. The myopic focus of the ‘Big Four’ on the German Empire blinded them to the intricate economic and political balance needed for peace in the Balkans. While France, Britain, and Italy exhibited a general lack of concern to the outcome in the Balkans, Wilson’s ‘self-determination’ doctrine is most responsible for creating the unsustainable, irredentist-driven states that the reform-minded intellectuals—Austro-Marxist or Federalist—most had sought to avoid. In addition to a discussion of the reform movements in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, this paper will explore the reforms’ strong similarities to the present struggles within the European Union, particularly the divide between Euro-federalists and Euro-sceptics. The crisis situation and reform efforts of the Austrian Empire from 1867 to 1914 reveal significant policy lessons applicable to the European Union as it navigates the current crossroads between further federal integration or a return to medieval disintegration.
ContributorsAppel, Michael Edwin (Author) / Niebuhr, Robert (Thesis director) / Carrese, Paul (Committee member) / Historical, Philosophical & Religious Studies (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor, Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / School of Civic & Economic Thought and Leadership (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-05
Description
Russian President Vladimir Putin is a revisionist leader seeking to restore Russia’s status as a great power and rival U.S. global dominance by constructing a multipolar world order at the expense of the United States. Putin’s aggressive tendencies are not limited to Europe and the former Soviet sphere as Putin has expanded his revisionist ambitions into other regional theaters, including the Middle East. Putin has pursued an active foreign policy in the Middle East, exploiting the volatile region plagued with a historical predisposition to great power competition as a crucial part of his revisionist grand strategy. Putin is a realist, and employs a ruthless strategy of pragmatic flexibility, capitalizing on historical relations between the Soviet Union and Middle Eastern regimes when possible, but is also skilled at adapting to new circumstances and developments, and exploiting them for Russia’s strategic benefit. Putin has engaged in heightened relations and involvement with Turkey, Iran, and Syria. In Turkey, Putin has taken advantage of that country’s central location and used Turkey as a hub for the expansion of the Russian energy industry, placing pressure on NATO and the European Union. Putin has opportunistically used Iran’s controversial nuclear program to Russia’s benefit by acting as Iran’s primary international sponsor and patron for its nuclear program, elevating Russia’s regional prestige as a rival to the United States, and countering American foreign policy objectives. Putin intervened decisively on behalf of the Assad regime in the Syrian civil war, thwarting U.S. calls for regime change in Damascus and forcefully asserting Russia as a formidable regional power with veto-authority in matters of global power dynamics at Washington’s expense. Putin’s achievements with Turkey, Iran, and Syria serve to complement his larger grand strategic objectives to rival the United States as a great power and to create a multipolar world order. Putin’s ruthless, opportunistic foreign policy poses significant challenges to U.S. foreign policy and endangers the liberal world order. Washington must come to terms with the threat posed by a revisionist Russia and adopt a more assertive policy toward Putin.
ContributorsMarch, Nicolas Robert (Author) / Drummond, Charles (Thesis director) / Carrese, Paul (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-05