MOZART, BEETHOVEN, AND TSCHAIKOVSKY: THEIR RICH HERITAGE OF MUSIC Rebecca Georgiades, M.A. California State University, San Bernardino, 1992 Statement of the Problem Classical music is a part of the mandated curriculum for the State of California and yet, current textbooks do not adequately address the subject of classical composers and their music. Old World musicians such as Wolfgang Mozart, Ludwig Beethoven, and Peter Tschaikovsky, made tremendous contributions to the storehouse of written music and influenced the style and form of music. The question this project will address is: How can classical composers and their music be integrated into the elementary curriculum? Specifically, how can the biographies and music of Mozart, Beethoven, and Tschaikovsky be taught effectively to fifth grade students? The purposes of this project are first to examine the literature regarding both the importance of music in personal development and the significance of the three aforementioned composers, and second, to develop a four week curriculum centering on the music and lives of Mozart, Beethoven, and Tschaikovsky.

Mozart, Beethoven, and Tschaikovsky: Their rich heritage of music

Addictive products—tobacco, alcohol, gambling, and the like—have been considered legitimate regulatory targets for millennia, a tradition into which both Founding-era and modern America comfortably fits. Expressive products—newspapers, books, movies, and video games—on the other hand, have been considered essentially immune from content-based regulation, thanks to the First Amendment. But what if the content of an expressive product makes it addictive? Which tradition must give in: the ancient ability of legislatures to protect society at large from the wide-ranging impacts of addiction, or the legal shield that has generated a thriving culture of artistic independence?

This Article is the first to explore the question of how the First Amendment should treat intentionally addictive speech. Social scientists indicate that certain behavioral addictions premised on compulsive use of expressive products—in particular, video games and pornography—are real dysfunctions of the brain, explainable in part by the intentional choices of developers and producers to create addictive products. And regulators are beginning to unsteadily lurch into action, without any evidence that they are taking the First Amendment into account. This Article proposes that, under current doctrine, any such regulation would need to satisfy strict scrutiny. It then argues for a departure and a recognition that intentionally addictive expression does not merit First Amendment coverage.

/pdf/addiction-and-expression-3rx3mta0t1.pdf

Katherine Binney Shippen

Papers

The heritage of music