Hopefully this works as an example x
There is no denying the fact that the government has to take care of several pressing issues such as poverty, unemployment and illiteracy. This is particularly true in the case of developing countries. However, this does not mean that the government should not spend money on arts.
Art represents a country and its heritage. Take, for instance, the case of India. The country is famous for its exquisitely sculpted monuments, temples and palaces. They were the handiwork of artists of the bygone era. Even today, the temples and monuments at Konark, Rajasthan and Madurai attract tens of thousands of local and international tourists. They showcase the rich cultural history of the country and elevate its status. If the kings of those times had not patronised art and artists we would not have these monuments to show off now. Not only the monuments but other forms of art like dance and music also need to be preserved for future generations. Otherwise, we will lose touch with our roots.
Government funding is crucial for the existence of arts. Art itself does not generate much revenue and hence artists, especially the lesser-known ones, have to struggle to make a living. This deters many of them from pursuing art as a profession. The only way to kindle their passion is to provide them financial assistance. By doing so, the government can not only protect its artists from starvation but also preserve his cultural legacy. Spending money on arts is also a way of generating money and creating employment. For example, if the government conducts art festivals and exhibitions, they will attract a lot of visitors and return the investment. Such events also provide employment to a number of people. Thus, it is evident that spending on arts is not a waste of resources.
To conclude, it is important for the government to invest in various social and economic welfare schemes. Likewise, it is equally important to invest in arts.
Answer:
I'll go listen to them rn :3
Explanation:
I always need new songs to listen to Lol
answer:
B) yellow is a bright color, and it catches the eye of the veiwer
Martin Luther had great impact on the worship and musical life of early Lutheranism. He was an accomplished musician, a singer, a lute player, and one who knew much of the music and many of the musicians of his day. He wrote to support the adequate funding of church music, the musical education of children in the schools, and the musical education of pastors and teachers. He wrote new hymns as well as "corrected and improved" older hymns. He composed at least one short polyphonic motet, "Non moriar sed vivam" ("I shall not die, but live"). When it came to worship and the liturgy, he continued the basic pattern and tradition of the medieval Mass with two exceptions. He deleted the Canon of the Mass and the prayers at the Offertory. Luther's basic approach was to retain whatever past traditions were not contrary to his understand of the Gospel. Luther advocated certain new reforms that included the use of vernacular congregational song as an integral part of the liturgy, the importance of the sermon, and communion in both kinds. Throughout all his liturgical and musical reforms, Luther always sought to demonstrate the continuity and unity of the reforming movement with the church catholic. The Reformation was born when Renaissance polyphony was the prevailing musical style. It is exemplified in the music of Dufay and Binchois and culminated in the music of Heinrich Isaac and the renowned Josquin Desprez. This style was characterized by imitative pholyphony. It usually was based on the foundation of Gregorianmelodies normally found in the tenor part. This musical style, with words associated with melodies, reflected Luther's understanding that the Word of the Gospel was to be presented simply and preoclaimed musically in an objective fashion and not to be "interpreted" <u>Carl Shalk</u>The turbulent days of the church of the early Reformation and its dire struggle with the Roman Catholic church were past. The Reformation made worshipers aware of the "Priesthood of All Believers." In the 17th century, people in the Lutheran congregations continued to participate actively in worship. More congregations now had printed hymnals. Composers wrote music that built upon the old traditions, but also incorporated the new styles that were emerging. Settings of Gospel motets gave people the opportunity to conitinue to hear the Word in traditional polyphonic settings called the "first practice." Instruments and voices of the choir and congregation joined in stimulating settings of chorales. Congregations often sang stanzas in alternation with choral and instrumenal stanzas. Magnificent polychoral settings of chorales and Psalms were written for several choirs of voices and instruments. The organ continued to introduce congregational and liturgical song. The chorale prelude grew in importance as a vehicle to introduce chorale singing. As time passed, organs began to accompany congregational song. Under the influence of developments in the madrigal and opera, concerted music of the "second practice" became a part of church music. The basso continuo and monody were adapted to compositions for worship. The organ and instruments assumed new roles in concerted writing. Choral music and congregational song changed, reflecting a new emphasis on personal peity and the expressive capability of concerted music. Four masters of Lutheran church music provided leadership for a growing and vigorous practice. early in the century, Michael Praetorius wrote splendid chorale arrangements and polychoral settings for voices and instruments. Johann Hermann Schein wrote in the old polyphonic style, but also developed the scared madrigal in the concerted style. Samuel Scheidt was the first great Lutheran organist and composer. Heinrich Schütz, the most renowned composer of his time, contributed masterworks in all styles of sacred vocal music.Carlos Messerli The 18th Century... This was an age of uneven support and recognition for
