Archangel Michael

Also called Michael the Taxiarch. A taxiarch is used in the Greek language to mean “brigadier,” or a commander of a company. In Greek Orthodoxy, it refers to the Archangels Michael or Gabriel as leaders of the heavenly hosts.

Michael is an archangel & warrior of God in Christianity, Islam, & Judaism. The earliest surviving mentions of his name are in the 2nd or 3rd centuries BC Jewish works, often but not always apocalyptic. In these works, he’s the chief of the angels & archangels. He’s the guardian prince of Israel & is responsible for the care of the people of Israel.

Christianity conserved nearly all of Jewish traditions concerning him. He’s mentioned explicitly in Revelation 12:7-12, where he does battle with Satan, & in the Epistle of Jude, where the archangel & the devil have an argument over the body of Moses.

The Book of Enoch lists Michael as 1 of 7 archangels. The remaining names are: Uriel, Raguel, Raphael, Sariel, Gabriel, & Remiel. He’s mentioned again in the last chapters of the Book of Daniel, a Jewish apocalypse composed in the 2nd century BC, in which a man clothed in linen tells Daniel that he & “Michael, your prince” are engaged in a battle with the “prince of Persia,” after which, at the end-time, “Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise.”

Enoch was instrumental in establishing the pre-eminent place of Michael among the angels & archangels. In later Jewish works, he’s said to be their chief, mediating the Torah, & standing at the right hand of the throne of God.

In the traditions of the Qumran community, he defends, or leads, the people of God in the end-time battle. In other writings, he’s responsible for the care of Israel & acts as commander of the heavenly armies. He’s Israel’s advocate, contesting Satan’s claim to the body of Moses.

He intercedes between God & humanity & serves as High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary. (So would this make him Aaron’s equal? We’re sincerely asking. Let us know your take in the comments.) He accompanies the souls of the righteous dead to Paradise.

The 7 archangels (or 4, as traditions differ, but always include Michael) were associated with the branches of the menorah, the sacred 7-branched lamp stand in the Temple, as the 7 spirits before the throne of God. This is reflected in the Book of Revelation 4:5. Michael is mentioned explicitly in Revelation 12:7-12, where he does battle with Satan & casts him out of heaven so that he no longer has that exclusive access to God as accuser (his former role in the Old Testament).

Satan’s fall at the coming of Jesus marks the separation of the New Testament from Judaism. In Luke 22:31, Jesus tells Peter that Satan has asked God for permission to “sift” the disciples, the goal being to accuse them. But the accusation by Jesus, who thus takes on the role played by angels, & especially by Michael, in Judaism.

Michael is mentioned by anem for the 2nd time in the Epistle of Jude, which is an impassioned plea for the believers to engage in battle against the incursion of the error. In verses 9-10, the author denounces the heretics by contrasting them with the archangel Michael, who, in disputing with Satan over the body of Moses.

According to rabbinic tradition, Michael acted as the advocate of Israel. Sometimes he had to fight with the princes of other nations (Daniel 10:13), & particularly with the angel Samael, Israel’s accuser. Their hostility dates from the time Samael was thrown from heaven & tried to drag Michael down with him, requiring God’s intervention.

The rabbis declare that Michael came into his role as defender at the time of the biblical patriarchs. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said Michael rescued Abraham from the furnace into which he’d been thrown by Nimrod. Some say he was the “one that had escaped” (Genesis 14:13), who told Abraham that Lot had been taken captive & who protected Sarah from defilement by Abimelech.

Michael prevented Isaac’s being sacrificed by his dad by substituting a ram in his place. He saved Jacob, while still in his mom’s womb, from death at the hands of Samuel. Michael later prevented Laban from hurting Jacob. The midrash Exodus Rabbah holds that Michael exercised his function as an advocate of Israel at the time of the Exodus & destroyed Sennacherib’s army.

Epiphanius of Salamis (circa 310-circa 320-403), in his Coptic-Arabic Hexaemeron, referred to Michael as a replacement of Satan. Accordingly, after Satan fell, Michael was appointed to the function Satan served when he was still 1 of the noble angels.

A painting of Michael slaying a serpent became a major art piece at the Michaelion after Constantine defeated Licinius near there in 324. This contributed to the standard iconography that developed of Michael as a warrior saint slaying a dragon. The Michaelion was a magnificent church & in time became a model for hundreds of other churches in Eastern Christianity.

In the 4th century, St. Basil the Great’s homily, De Angelis, St. Michael over all the angels. He was called “Archangel” because he heralds other angels, the title archangelos applied to him in Jude 1:9. The angelology of Pseudo-Dionysius, which was widely read as of the 6th century, gave Michael a rank in the hierarchy of angels.

Later, in the 13th century, others such as Bonventure believed him to be Prince of the Seraphim, the 1st of the 9 angelic orders. According to Thomas Aquinas, Michael is the Prince of the last & lowest choir, the Angels.

Catholics often refer to Michael as “Holy Michael, the Archangel” or “St. Michael.” He’s generally referred to in Christian liturgies as “St. Michael,” as in the Litany of the Saints. In a shortened archangel, is mentioned by name, omitting Saints Gabriel & Raphael.

In Roman Catholic teachings, St. Michael has 4 main roles or offices. His 1st role is the leader of the Army of God & the leader of celestial forces in triumphing over the powers of Hell. He’s viewed as the angelic model for the virtues of the “spiritual warrior,” his conflict with evil taken as “the battle within.”

The 2nd & 3rd roles of Michael in Catholic teachings deal with death. In his 2nd role, he’s the angel of death, carrying the souls of Christians to Heaven. In his 3rd role, he weighs souls on his perfectly balanced scales. The scales are a common object he holds in art.

In his 4th role, St. Michael, the special patron of the Chosen People in the Old Testament, is also Guardian of the Church. St. Michael was revered by the military orders of knights during the Middle Ages. The names of villages around the Bay of Biscay reflect this history.

The Eastern Orthodox give Michael the title Archistrategos, or “Supreme Commander of the Heavenly Hosts.” The Eastern Orthodox pray to their guardian angels & above all, to Michael & Gabriel. The Eastern Orthodox have always had a strong devotion to angels. In modern times, they’re referred to by the term “Bodiless Powers.” Several feasts dedicated to Archangel Michael are celebrated by the Eastern Orthodox throughout the year.

In Russia, many monasteries, cathedrals, courts, & merchant churches are dedicated to the Chief Commander Michael. Most Russian cities have a church or chapel dedicated to the archangel Michael. In Ukraine, the archangel Michael is the patron saint of Kyiv. He became popular from the time of Prince Vsevolod of Kyivan Rus’.

While in the Serbian Orthodox Church, St. Sava has a special role as the establisher of its autocephaly & largest Belgrade church devoted to him, the capital Belgrade’s Orthodox cathedral, the see church of the patriarch, is devoted to Michael.

The place of Michael in the Coptic Church of Alexandra is as a saintly intercessor. He’s the 1 who presents to God the prayers of the just, who accompanies the souls of the dead to Heaven, who defeats the devil. He’s celebrated liturgically on the 12th of each Coptic month.

In Alexandria, a church was dedicated to him in the early 4th century on the 12th of the month of Paoni. The 12th month of Hathor is the celebration of Michael’s appointment in Heaven, where Michael became the chief of the angels.

Seventh-Day Adventists believe that “Michael” is but 1 of many titles applied to the pre-existent Christ, or Son of God. According to Adventist theology, Michael was/is considered the “Eternal Word,” & the 1 by whom all things were created. The Word was then born, incarnated as Jesus.

They believe that the name “Michael” signifies “One Who Is Like God” & that, as the “Archangel” or “chief or head of the angels,” he led the angels; thus, the statement in Revelation 12:7-9 refers to Jesus as Michael.

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Michael is another name for Jesus in Heaven, in His pre-human & post-resurrection existence. They say the definite article in Jude 9 identifies Michael as the only archangel. They consider Michael to be synonymous with Christ, described in 1 Thessalonians 4:16: “with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, & with the sound of the trumpet.”

They believe the prominent roles assigned to Michael in Daniel 12:1, Revelation 12:7, Revelation 16, & Revelation 19:14 are identical to Jesus’ roles, being the 1 chosen to lead God’s people & as the only 1 who “stands up,” identifying the 2 as the same spirit being.

Because they identify Michael with Jesus, he’s considered the 1st & greatest of all God’s heavenly “sons,” God’s chief messenger, who takes the lead in vindicating God’s sovereignty, sanctifying his name, fighting the wicked forces of Satan & protecting God’s covenant people on earth. Jehovah’s Witnesses also identify Michael with the “Angel of the Lord” who led & protected the Israelites in the wilderness.

Members of the Mormon Church believe that Michael is Adam (of Adam & Eve fame), the Ancient of Days (Daniel 7), a prince, & the patriarch of the human family. They also hold that Michael assisted Jehovah (the pre-mortal form of Jesus) in the creation of the world under the direction of God the Father (Elohim). Under the direction of the Father, Michael also cast Satan out of Heaven.

In Islam, Mika’il (Michael) is 1 of 4 archangels along with Jibril (Gabriel, whom he’s often paired with), Israfil (trumpeter angel) & ‘Azra’il (angel of death). In other Islamic literature, Michael is associated with mercy. He asks God for forgiveness for humans & is 1 of the 1st angels who obeyed God’s orders to bow before Adam.

From the tears of Michael, angels of mercy are created as his helpers. Like Gabriel, with whom he’s often mentioned together, Michael is also a messenger. While Gabriel delivers messages from Heaven to humans, Michael delivers messages to the angelic world.

As the angel to execute God’s providence, he’s also associated with natural phenomena & causes rain upon the lands. Unlike Christian traditions, Michael is rarely shown as a warrior-angel, with a few references to the Battle of Badr by Suyuti as an exception.

The Miraj literature on occasion mentions both Gabriel & Michael as 2 angels who showed Muhammad Paradise & Hell. He’s mentioned in Shia supplication (Dua), reportedly handed down by the 6th Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq, in the prayers for blessings for the Bearers of the Throne.

The figures of Michael & Gabriel/Jibril serve as dual pillars of angelology. While they show up in the same texts, their “personalities” & mythological roles are distinct. Michael is the celestial soldier & protector. While Gabriel is the bridge between the divine mind & the human ear.

The name Michael (Mikha’el) translates from Hebrew as a rhetorical question: “Who is like God?” This name is actually a battle cry used during the primordial war in Heaven.

In the Book of Daniel, Michael is described as the “Great Prince” who stands guard over the people of Israel. Jewish Midrash expands on this. It suggests that Michael is the high priest of the Heavenly Temple. When other nations’ guardian angels argue against Israel, Michael acts as the defense in the celestial courtroom. Because after all, God is the judge of all.

Michael’s most iconic role comes from the Book of Revelation. Here, he leads an army of God against the Dragon (a.k.a. Satan). He’s almost always dressed in Roman/Medieval armor, standing over a defeated demon/dragon, holding a spear/sword.

In Catholic traditions, Michael has a secondary role as the Psychopomp. A Psychopomp is a conductor or a guide of souls. The 1 who “weighs” souls at the moment of death. This is why he’s sometimes shown with scales.

In Islamic tradition, Mikail (Michael) is 1 of 4 archangels. While Jibril feeds the soul (through revelation), Mikail is the Angel of Sustenance. He’s responsible for the forces of nature, specifically rain & lightning. Legends say he’s so moved by the majesty of God that he hasn’t smiled since the creation of Hell.

In the United States, Michael is the patron saint of paratroopers, police officers, & the military.

In the General Roman Calendar, the Anglican Calendar of Saints, & the Lutheran Calendar of Saints, Michael’s feast day is Michaelmas Day (September 29). The day is also the feast day of St. Gabriel & Raphael, in the General Roman Calendar & the Feast of St. Michael & All Angels in the Church of England.

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, St. Michael’s principal feast day is November 8. November 21, if they’re using the Gregorian calendar. Honoring him along with the rest of the “Bodiless Powers of Heaven” (angels) as their Supreme Commander, & the Miracle at Chonae is celebrated on September 6.

In the Coptic Orthodox Church, the main feast day is on 12 Hathor (between November 9 & December 9) & 12 Paoni (between June 8 & July 7). He is celebrated liturgically on the 12th of each Coptic month.

On April 7, the Oriental Orthodox Church commemorates the deliverance of the prophet Jeremiah from prison by Michael.

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

Or enter a custom amount.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Is It From the Birds? Stephen Sondheim Asked the Right Question About Music and Then Preferred Not to Hear the Answer

In November of 1997, Stephen Sondheim sat in his Manhattan townhouse with Mark Eden Horowitz, a senior music specialist from the Library of Congress, and said something extraordinary. Not extraordinary in the way that most Sondheim quotes are extraordinary, which is to say technically precise and laced with a craftsman’s impatience for imprecision. Extraordinary because it was none of those things. It was, instead, the sound of a man who had spent his entire adult life inside music admitting that the existence of music itself was something he could not explain.

A Concordance for Future Scholars

The moment circulates now as a sixty-second clip on social media, stripped of its original context, which was a three-day filmed interview session in which Horowitz, with Sondheim’s manuscripts spread before them, asked the composer to walk through his compositional process show by show. The interviews were intended as a concordance for future scholars. They were the opposite of a talk-show appearance. No audience. No applause. No performance. Just Sondheim, seated alone, head slightly bowed, speaking to the table as much as to Horowitz, working something out in real time.

A transcript of the interview clip follows.

Here is what he said:

Music is a magical art. I don’t know how the human mind ever got to it, because everything else is somehow representational and literal, including painting, but not music. How did that happen? Is it from the birds? What is that from? How do we make music? I can understand vaguely how man learned to speak, because he had to communicate things, but what is this? How did man learn to whistle?

I mean, you know, how do we, and where does the 12-tone scale come from? And blah, blah, blah. And I’m ill-educated this way, so you could probably answer, but it seems to me miraculous. To me, it’s as mysterious as astrology, but unlike astrology, completely believable.

That final line is perfectly constructed. The setup is slow, exploratory, uncharacteristically loose in its syntax, and the payoff lands with the timing of a man who has spent fifty years placing stress on the right syllable. He knows where the laugh is, even in a room with one other person and a camera crew. The performance of the punchline does not cancel the sincerity of the question, though. Both things are happening at once: Sondheim is bewildered, and he is shaping his bewilderment into a deliverable thought. That is what writers do. It does not make the bewilderment false.

Auditory Cheesecake

The question Sondheim is asking is real. It is also old. Darwin raised it in The Descent of Man in 1871, speculating that music might have preceded language as a mechanism for sexual selection, the way birdsong functions in mate attraction. That hypothesis has never been conclusively confirmed or refuted. In the century and a half since, the evolutionary origins of music have generated an extraordinary volume of competing theories and almost no consensus.

Steven Pinker, the cognitive psychologist, famously dismissed music in 1997 (the same year Sondheim was speaking to Horowitz) as “auditory cheesecake,” a byproduct of neural systems that evolved for language processing, spatial reasoning, and emotional regulation. Music, in Pinker’s account, is a pleasure technology that exploits pre-existing cognitive architecture without having been selected for independently. It is, in his framing, an accident of evolution that happens to feel important.

That position was immediately and rightly challenged. The ethnomusicologist John Blacking had argued decades earlier that music-making is a universal human competence, not a specialized talent, and that its presence in every known human culture suggests something more than parasitic exploitation of other cognitive systems. Aniruddh Patel, working at the intersection of neuroscience and music cognition, demonstrated that music and language share neural resources but are not identical processes, and that musical training reshapes the brain in ways that pure language exposure does not. If music were merely cheesecake, it would not leave structural traces in neural architecture.

More recent work has proposed that music is adaptive in its own right: it facilitates infant bonding (lullabies are cross-culturally universal), it coordinates group movement (work songs, military cadence, ritual drumming), it signals coalition membership, and it regulates emotion in ways that have direct survival implications. The anthropologist Joseph Jordania has argued that early hominid group singing and rhythmic movement served a defensive function, producing a coordinated display that deterred predators. Whether or not one accepts that specific mechanism, the broader point stands: music does things in human social life that are not easily explained as side effects of language processing.

So when Sondheim asks “How did that happen? Is it from the birds?” he is asking a question to which the honest scientific answer, even now, is: we do not know for certain. The question is legitimate. What is less legitimate is the framework he wraps around it.

The Option of Representation

“Everything else is somehow representational and literal, including painting, but not music.”

This is wrong, and it is wrong in a way that a man of Sondheim’s cultural literacy should have caught. Painting is not inherently representational. The entire history of abstraction in visual art, stretching from Kandinsky’s first non-objective watercolors in 1910 through Mondrian’s grids, Rothko’s color fields, Agnes Martin’s trembling pencil lines, and the whole of Abstract Expressionism, demonstrates that painting can operate on precisely the same non-referential plane that Sondheim claims is unique to music. When you stand in front of a Rothko and feel something move in your chest, you are not decoding a representation. You are responding to organized color, proportion, and scale in a way that is structurally identical to responding to organized sound. Neither the painting nor the chord “means” anything in the propositional sense. Both produce experience without reference.

Sondheim, who loved puzzles and who approached problems with a logician’s temperament, is drawing a boundary here that does not hold. His category error is instructive, though, because it reveals what he actually means. He does not really mean that painting is always literal. He means that painting can be literal, that it has the option of representation, and that this option gives it an explicable origin story: early humans needed to record what they saw, so they drew on cave walls. Language has a similar origin story: early humans needed to coordinate hunting and warn each other of danger, so they developed vocalizations that referred to things in the shared environment. Music, in Sondheim’s framing, has no such origin story. It does not point at anything. It does not carry survival-critical information. It simply exists, and everyone responds to it, and nobody knows why.

This version of the argument has problems, too. Language is not purely functional. If language existed only to communicate propositional content, poetry would not exist. Lullabies would not exist. Glossolalia would not exist. The musical qualities of speech itself (prosody, rhythm, pitch contour, the rise at the end of a question, the drop at the end of a declaration) are not informational features. They are expressive features, and they sit on a continuum with music rather than on the opposite side of a clean divide. The boundary between speech and song is blurry in practice, and several researchers (including the musicologist Steven Brown) have proposed that music and language descended from a common proto-expressive system that only later differentiated into separate streams. If that model is correct, then Sondheim’s framing of language-as-communication versus music-as-mystery is not a real opposition. It is a retrospective illusion created by looking at two branches of the same tree and asking why one of them has leaves.

You Cannot Fact-Check a Melody

Strip away the sloppy premises, though, and something solid remains. Music’s relationship to meaning is unlike language’s relationship to meaning, and this asymmetry is a structural feature of the two systems, not a romantic invention of composers protecting their guild secrets.

A sentence can be true or false. “The cat is on the mat” is either an accurate description of a state of affairs or it is not. A chord cannot be true or false. A C minor triad is not making a claim about the world. It is not referring to anything outside itself. You cannot fact-check a melody. Music operates in a domain where the very concept of reference, which is foundational to how language generates meaning, does not apply.

Music produces meaning anyway. Not propositional meaning, not the kind that can be paraphrased or translated into another form without loss, but experiential meaning: the sense that something has been communicated, that you have understood something that was not said. When the bassoon opens Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring in that strained high register, you feel physical unease. When Sondheim’s own score for Sweeney Todd drops that Bernard Herrmann chord into the orchestration, the audience’s bodies register dread before their minds process the harmonic information. These are real effects with real neurological substrates. The amygdala responds to certain dissonant intervals. Rhythmic entrainment synchronizes motor cortex activity across listeners. The dopaminergic system fires in anticipation of harmonic resolution. The mechanisms are increasingly describable. The description does not dissolve the mystery, because knowing that dopamine is released when a suspended chord resolves does not explain why organized sound produces subjective experience in the first place. It only pushes the question back one level.

Sondheim’s question, the one underneath his stated question, was not really “where does the 12-tone scale come from?” That question has a technical answer. The equal temperament system is a mathematical compromise that divides the octave into twelve logarithmically equal intervals to permit modulation between keys, and it became standard in Western music through a series of practical and aesthetic decisions between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. His actual question was: why does organized sound produce emotion in the absence of reference? Why do human beings, across every culture and every period of recorded history, take vibrations in the air and arrange them into patterns that make other human beings feel things?

That question remains open. The evolutionary accounts explain why music might be useful, but they do not explain why it feels the way it feels. The neuroscientific accounts map the brain activity that corresponds to musical experience, but they do not explain why that brain activity is accompanied by subjective experience at all, which is the hard problem of consciousness wearing a musical costume. The acoustic accounts describe the physics of the overtone series and the mathematical relationships between frequencies, but they do not explain why a minor third sounds sad to Western ears, or whether it sounds sad to ears trained in other tonal systems, or what “sounding sad” even means at the level of physical vibration.

The Puzzle Without a Solution

Sondheim was not, I think, being coy when he asked these questions. He was not performing the standard artist-as-mystic routine, in which the creator claims special access to forces that ordinary mortals cannot comprehend. He spent his entire career attacking that posture. He told interviewers that his college professor Robert Barrow had cured him of the belief that inspiration descended from above, that the revelation of understanding what a leading tone does and what a diatonic scale is had shown him that composition was “something worked out,” not something received. He called art “an attempt to bring order out of chaos” and compared songwriting to solving crossword puzzles. No one in the history of American musical theater was more committed to demystifying the process of making music.

That history is what makes this moment so unusual. Here is a man who demystified everything about how music is made, admitting that the bare fact of music’s existence remains mysterious to him. He cracked every local puzzle. He understood voice leading, harmonic substitution, the precise relationship between syllabic stress and melodic contour, the dramaturgical function of a vamp, the architecture of a twelve-bar modulation. He knew how to build the thing. He did not know why the thing existed to be built.

And he had been asking, in one form or another, for over thirty years. “How did man learn to whistle?” is not an idle example. In 1964, Sondheim opened Anyone Can Whistle with a song built on the same question, given to a character named Fay Apple who cannot do the thing everyone else finds natural. “Anyone can whistle, that’s what they say, easy,” the lyric begins, and then turns: “So someone tell me why can’t I?” The song is not about whistling. It is about the gap between capacities that appear universal and the lived experience of finding them impossible. Fay cannot let go, cannot be spontaneous, cannot perform the act that “anyone” supposedly can. In 1964, Sondheim wrote that question as dramatic psychology, embedded in a character’s specific anguish. In 1997, sitting with Horowitz, the character is gone, the dramatic frame is gone, and the question has become his own. He is no longer writing through someone else. He is asking it as himself, without the protective apparatus of fiction. The altitude has changed: Fay Apple’s question was why she, individually, could not access something innate; Sondheim’s 1997 question is why the innate thing exists at all. But it is the same bewilderment, carried forward three decades, stripped of costume and orchestration.

The “blah, blah, blah” is the tell. That is not Sondheim’s diction. He was a man who chose every word with a jeweler’s attention to weight and setting. Here, the precision abandons him. He is gesturing toward a set of questions he knows he cannot pursue with the rigor he would demand of himself. He is waving off his own inquiry, not out of boredom, but because he recognizes that he lacks the equipment to follow it. “I’m ill-educated this way, so you could probably answer” is simultaneously self-deprecating and self-protective: it acknowledges the gap in his knowledge while declining to fill it. He does not want the answer. He wants the question to remain a question. The inexplicability of music flatters the art form he gave his life to, and the alternative, a fully mechanistic explanation of music as an emergent property of neural computation and evolutionary pressure, would feel reductive to him even if it were true.

That preference for mystery over explanation is recognizable in many brilliant practitioners. A carpenter who builds flawless joints does not need to understand the molecular structure of wood. A poet who writes devastating lines does not need a theory of phonaesthetics. Sondheim composed at the highest level for more than half a century, and his inability to explain why music exists did not impair his ability to make it. The question was, for him, an object of wonder rather than a research problem. He held it up to the light, turned it over, admired its opacity, and set it back down.

The rest of us are allowed to pick it up again.

Norco Range - High gloss red belly black snake scales/ Black logos

https://maderad.com/snake-bike

#Bike #Bikes #Motorcycle #Motorcycles #Bicycle #Bicycles #Fedibikes #Fahrradbubble #Bikepacking #Biketravel #Biking #Travel #TravelPhotography #Photography #Lifestyle #Traveling #Snake #Reptiles #Scales

I'm trying to better understand the differences in musical scales and modes again and came across this great video that plays a Mozart sonata and a Bach toccata in different scales/modes and shows you how the sound changes. The ET system is really crazy, but only in the sense that it tries to wrangle the complexity of nature into a single clean continuous system. So, maybe it's not really crazy, but nature is!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBeyDkoyiWA

#Scales #Modes #Music #Mozart #Bach

Definitely UPDATED Guitar Trainer!

Now with DISCUSSION and other improvements!

https://training.statecollegeguitarlessons.site/

#Guitar #modes, #chords, and #PENTATONIC #scales #trainer with accompanying #Piano #keyboard #guide, plus #discussion #forum.

UPDATED!

Now with DISCUSSION and other improvements!

https://training.statecollegeguitarlessons.site/

#Guitar #modes, #chords, and #PENTATONIC #scales #trainer with accompanying #Piano #keyboard #guide, plus #discussion #forum.

I designed a purple dragon girl.
(Commission for Rekcut89)

 #nude #nsfw #smallbreasts #dragongirl #gijinka #wings #tail #horns #scales #tired #oc #commission

#Development #Guides
Building typographic scales in CSS · Get ready for :heading(), sibling-index(), and pow()! https://ilo.im/16apaw

_____
#ModernCSS #Scales #Typography #Layouts #DesignSystems #Design #WebDesign #WebDev #Frontend #CSS