I think you're right on Joe. Western "tonal" music had its birth towards the end of the Renaissance and climaxed in the 19th Century. That pretty much parallels the course of modern (rational) civilization. A course which at any given time is driven by the underlying predominant philosophy.

To address Linz's point that the greatest music of western civilization has already been composed 100+ years ago: As a kid I often wondered why there weren't any Beethovens, Bachs, or Mozarts running around composing today. It stands to reason that because there's umpteen more people in the world today there should be umpteen more Bachs and Beethovens running around. So why were all the greats born hundreds of years ago? I'm sure the answer is philosophical. I doubt it's just pure coincidence that every great (and I mean great!) composer in history just happened to be born before the 20th Century. To be fair, there are many composers alive today who's music I thoroughly enjoy. But I don't categorize them with any of the "three B's" or the like.

Linz (on Slipknot and Rach): "Both can innovate—innovation is not the issue. Life is."

On this, I agree. Nazis were innovative surgeons...and this makes your point absolutely clear, and does cut through my wonderings and explorations of the topic. The innovations will follow the function. Without abandoning my exploration of innovation, I would like to highlight what you just said.

Though I still am a bit naive enough to feel that it's somewhat redundant on an Objectivist forum to have to do so...even if I know better at this point.

The problem you write about, Linz, comes in many forms, and it's not always as explicit as an admiration for Slipknot. Being shouted down on the old SOLO forum for "destroying the magic" by attempting an understanding of the nature of music was an eye-opener. What was even more disturbing was the lack of defense. That went beyond any horror of a Slipknot song. It was a prime example of an anti-reason, anti-industrial, anti-life mind at work. "Don't ask questions, don't think, just accept on faith, just accept music as a gift from the gods. Never question whether that god is a devil in disguise. Don't think. Don't ask me to think about what I listen you." And when the music stops flowing, and the world goes silent..."brother, you asked for it."

Music is NOT magic.
Music is NOT a gift from the gods.
It is a man-made process. It requires thought, and work, and understanding.
"Emotions be damned!"

I wasn't familiar with the Liszt piece myself, so I got it on iTunes. This would be a good experiment for anyone interested with an iTunes account and 99 cents to spare...if you haven't heard the piece, check it out and see what assessment you make, based on the music alone. Is it life-affirming, isn't it, and why or why not?

My own assessment: I can "imagine" a struggle because, objectively, the music is "wavy" in its use of scales and dissonance, and I can hear the triumph in the resolution, the chords become less dissonant and the notes drift upward and stay there. Physically, I FELT seasick during the "stormy section" and was "relieved" towards the end. (Actually, for me, this passage was the equivilant of "cauterwauling.") The musical suggestion at the end is not peaceful, or quiet as if the person was "relieved" of fear, but suggestive in the tone and manner of the playing and notes that we started from one point and ended HIGHER than the point we left. Those are all PHYSICAL sensations that suggest a context. There is something more going on, though, besides mere physical sensations, it's integrated to suggest that context. If the music had started out with that ascending feeling, then descended into that stormy, wavy pattern, then ended with dissonant low chords, then something about it would not seem to be so "life-affirming," but tragic.

Rand: "Liszt's 'St. Francis Walking on the Waters' was inspired by a specific legend, but what it conveys is a passionately dedicated struggle and triumph-by whom and in the name of what, is for each individual listener to supply."
"Passionately dedicated struggle and triumph" is life-affirming.

Linz: "Passionately dedicated struggle and triumph" is life-affirming."

There I think Rand was speaking somewhat loosely...the composition supposedly conveys the passionate dedicated struggle...but if we didn't know the title, or the composer, or the context, I wonder if there would be variations in the assessment of what's being conveyed...Here are some questions for anyone following: originally, I thought Rand might have been contradicting herself by claiming that the music conveys this, as opposed to the listener projecting it, but no...she argues elsewhere that it is, somehow, in the music. Question: can instrumental music inherently posess qualities such as life-affirmation?

Then there's the issue of content of assessment of what's life affirming: "Music conveys the same categories of emotions to listeners who hold widely divergent views of life. As a rule, men agree on whether a given piece of music is gay or sad or violent or solemn. But even though, in a generalized way, they experience the same emotions in response to the same music, there are radical differeneces in how they appraise this experience-i.e., how they feel about these feelings."

Rand talks about her "thematic apperception test" : "I made the following experiment: I asked a group of guests to listen to a recorded piece of music, then describe what image, action or event it evoked in their minds spontaneously and inspirationally, without conscious devising or thought...the resulting descriptions varied in concrete details, in clarity, in imaginative color, but all had grasped the same basic emotion-with eloquent differences of appraisal." She describes the range of reactions to the same pieces as "I felt exalted because this music is so light-heartedly happy,' and "I felt irritated because this music is so light-heartedly happy, and, therefore, superficial."

Going back to the Liszt piece, I can feel the struggle and ascension in the piece. But it's up to me to provide the context that makes it "life-affirming." And this is where things get interesting. Depending on my philosophy, sense of life, both conscious and unconscious, etc, I could imagine a variety of imagery to explain this music. I could paint a picture of a heroic traveler setting out on a stormy sea and arriving to shore safely. But who is this traveler? If I'm Liszt, I'm thinking of St. Francis, who survives by the grace of God. If I am Homer, I might here Ullyses defying the god Poseidon and going through several years of struggle, only to emerge triumphant. If I am Ayn Rand, I might here a brave viking defying the King and the Priest and using his skill and courage, obeying nature to command it. Which of these is life-affirming? They all suggest triumph, but what is the nature of the triumph? If I am a Christian, I might hear St. Francis struggle and rise; I may just as well, based on my premises, imagine him struggling on Earth and ascending to Heaven where he is rewarded. This would be affirming, but not "life-affirming," it would be "afterlife affirming." If I was earth-oriented and wrote a piece about St. Francis, I might have him sail, struggle, depict his praying to God for help, and ultimately "drown." This would be life-affirming in the sense that if one ignores this world, there will be no where to ascend.
(An example from THE FOUNTAINHEAD bears my point: witness the reaction to Roark's Stoddard Temple, which does not rise like a cathedral, but stays low to the ground...life affirming or blasphemy? Depends on who you ask. All you can say about the building objectively is that one rises and one stays low to the ground...)

So how can we objectively say what is life-affirming music? Rand said we couldn't make that judgement, not because it was impossible, but because we didn't yet know the workings to make that judgement. This is why I think it's important to study the relation between form and content.

You've answered yourself, inadvertently I think. You ask—"Is it valid to call for life-affirming content in music?"

You quote Ayn: "Liszt's 'St. Francis Walking on the Waters' was inspired by a specific legend, but what it conveys is a passionately dedicated struggle and triumph-by whom and in the name of what, is for each individual listener to supply."

"Passionately dedicated struggle and triumph" is life-affirming. Supplying the concretes is what's over to each listener. Of course, implicitly at least, there's a life-affirming philosophy behind the life-affirming music. Who would say otherwise? How does that justify any claim that life-negating music (and its conscientiously ugly, headbanging genres) is life-affirming?! There's no form/substance or medium/message dichotomy.

Slipknot are life-negating (by their own admission); Rach is life-affirming. Both can innovate—innovation is not the issue. Life is.

Linz

Linz: "For me, the issue of innovation is one of content rather than of form. The potential for content-innovation is limitless. Our battle is to promote content that is life-affirming."

This has been stuck in my head for a bit, and I wasn't sure why, but I think I know now...I mentioned "the medium is the message" bit before (which is another topic for another thread....but I've been thinking about THAT "bromide"...it's a household phrase, but is it valid, or "pomo-wanking?" Definately worth looking into...) In this case, the medium is the arrangement of tones, not lyrics, so there is no "definate," concrete content to speak of. So is it valid to call for "life-affirming" content in music?

Referencing Rand's ROMANTIC MANIFESTO: "Music cannot tell a story, it cannot deal with concretes, it cannot convey a specific existential phenomenon, such as a peaceful countryside or a stormy sea. The theme of a composition entitled 'Spring Song' is not spring, but the emotions which spring evoked in the composer. Even concepts which, intellectually, belong to a complex level of abstraction, such as 'peace,' 'revolution,' 'religion,' are too specific, too concrete to be expressed in music. All that music can do with such themes is convey the emotions of serenity, or defiance, or exaltation. Liszt's 'St. Francis Walking on the Waters' was inspired by a specific legend, but what it conveys is a passionately dedicated struggle and triumph-by whom and in the name of what, is for each individual listener to supply."

I'd go farther than Rand and say that music communicates emotions through means of MOTION. Emotions and motion, motivation...etc. I'd say that the music is...well, not "content" free, but limited to sensations? Not "good" or "bad" or "sad" or whatever, but of sensational content, like "fast," "slow," "intense," "static," etc. And all those things require context to become "life-affirming." (Which is why I'm stuck about the idea of "Romantic" music, not love songs, but romantic in the Randian sense of "volition" versus "naturalism." (Though in terms of composition, it's clear to me: To be a "classicist" is to be a "naturalist," bound by pre-determined forms that one must not violate versus "fantasias," "rhapsodies," and "variations on a theme." ) One has to project their own version of things on instrumental (non-programmatic) music, so in essence, it's not the promotion of "life-affirming music" that is essential, but the promotion of "life affirming philosophy" to provide context for the music. Like Rand says, it's up to the individual listener to supply the "dedicated struggle and triumph."

Pete, sorry your post got lost in the tiff. It's definitely worth a constructive response.

Pete: "Jazz and blues have added an improvisational aspect of music is one the great innovations of the past century in my view. I feel that improvisation has yet to be fully explored.
It is true that performers in Western classical music are given some melodic license (cadenzas for example), but by and large they are required to "stick to the script" to fully realize the composers vision.
Improvisation offers the opportunity for performers to reinterpret a piece of music continually. A group of skilled improvise rs playing together can establish a true musical dialogue. However, without structural constraints, improvised music runs the risk of being meaningless noodling.
I believe the next great innovations in music will come from musicians who can further integrate rich complex structures and organization of classical music with the "in the moment" uniqueness of improvisation.”

There are a few things I’d like to comment on:

Robert Jourdain goes into this topic in MUSIC, THE BRAIN, and ECSTASY:

“ There is nothing extraordinary about improvisation. We all improvise constantly, but in words, not tones.” Yet, if improv were the key to innovation, we’d all be innovators, yet we’re not. Jourdain explains that improv does not contribute heavily to compositions with “deep structure.” “…[I]provisation can proceed by association from moment to moment, free of any preconceived form, as is the case of ‘free jazz.’ Deep structure is inevitable lacking in this style…Yet even in its apparent chaos, ‘free’ improvisation is constrained….Much of what is ‘new’ follows pathways that have worked in the past. Like all music, it is largely ready-to-play. It cannot be otherwise, for even a well-prepared mind can work only so quickly.

• The classic line about classical music being “stiff” and and lacking spontaneity is partly due to the “lack of improv.” It’s also often used in support of “the noble savage” theory, that the white man has grown too academic and theoretical (though a ring of truth is lent to this when Rand talks about how scientists like “Robert Stadler” argue for pure science with no real-world application) while the primitive natives are “more spontaneous” and “in tune with nature.” There’s also a saying that goes “Marines don’t plan, they improvise.” But there is the tradeoff of spontaneity for long-term planning, or what Phil Coates calls “long chain thinking.” Anything that develops beyond short-term goals with have to require a plan. You don’t see architects “improvising” a skyscraper.

• In addition to the “noble savage” defense, there is also an element of “second-handedness” involved in the improv argument, born of a Communist ideology. Communists argue that “bourgeoisie” institutions like the orchestra are a product of an hierarchal approach that stifles the workers (the workers being the musicians and the composer being the “factory owner.” The composer has, in reality, applied his logic and will to bring the piece into fruition, while the individual musicians are more like technicians, whose performance depends on the product of the composer’s mind. Of course, we can’t have that, say the proletariat, and argue for the technicians to run the factory via “improvisation.” The other example is seen in THE FOUNTAINHEAD, when other architects want to “express themselves” as well on another man’s work.

• Because of the need for planning in complex endeavors, it’s safe to say that most innovations will require the same. It requires more than a mindless spewing of random notes, or “noodling,” as you rightfully call it. The exact reference escapes me, but Rand had commented somewhere, in response to a question similar to our discussion, that “thinking in pictures” is not the same as full-fledged thought. Not that it’s wrong, but more is required for a fully conscious understanding.

• Improvisation usually brings to mind “blues” jamming or “jazz”, often a repetitive vamp while the soloist spews forth a string of notes. This is less “spontaneous” then it seems, because those riffs are usually standard issue for the genre, requiring that the musicians have studied the existing script, even if it’s not formally written out, as in classical. If innovation requires new abstractions, it’s hard to say where the new innovation is in such jams.

• The idea of “improv” as self-expression. All art is, in a sense, born of improv, the way that most conversation is “improvised.” (And when it’s not, we can usually tell: “You sound like you’re reading from a script.”) The innovation comes in when a new abstraction is presented, or as a vehicle for that new abstraction.

None of this is meant to disparage improvisation; it’s a vital tool in the artist’s arsenal. No great works of art were created from a “paint-by-numbers” approach; it requires a mind that is not afraid to experiment and stretch out. And Jourdain rightfully notes that as performance, "improvisation can be a marvel-a conjuction of physical technique, musical understanding, and creative flair."

But it only really works for the mind that is ready for it. Jourdain touches on improv by composers, and the image of savant composers. But usually those composers lose their gift, and never having understood the process to begin with, cannot continue. He writes that “A brain simply can’t generate effective deep structures quickly enough. Rather, composers mine their improvisations for ideas and then develop the ideas methodically. For them, improvisation at an instrument at an instrument is merely an extension of the improvisations they spawn through auditory imagery all day long.”

Thanks, I don't know why, but, rarely at least, there's a post that doesn't have the edit option.

I've edited that for you. Don't know why you couldn't. Ross? Julian?

There is something out there!! That's my whole point!! It's there, but no fucker gets it or is interested in learning. That's why I've gone insane, long since!!!!

You were the first, of course, as always.

> I'm completely insane. I thought that was common knowledge [Linz]

Well, no matter how obvious a thing may be, there will always be people who haven't caught on to it yet

I hope there's hope, because I'm just a thread away from cynicism. I need to believe there's something out there.

And that should have read "I can't wait until the world is converted." Can't edit for some reason.

I think there's room for hope, too. Except every second Tuesday, as I said.

Then again, another reason to humor me, as Jason has just reminded me, is that I'm completely insane. I thought that was common knowledge, but evidently some need it pointed out.

Loony Linz

Now I think we're getting somewhere...I think I see the problem...I don't refer to the diatonic scale as a form, but as a tool...I think of the forms created with that tool (i.e., sonatas, arias, rounds, symphonies, ballads, etc.) Pop songs that stretch the conventional verse/chord/verse structures, things of that nature. Technology wise, I think of the methods of playback where a passage can be played faster than humanly possible, and the possibilities in the hands of composers who no longer need rely on union musicians (or drunk musicians, or tempermental musicians, or imcompetent musicians, etc.).

Linz: "For me, the issue of innovation is one of content rather than of form."

AHHHHHH. Ok. I have the questions about "the medium being the message:" How do we determine content without lyrics? The old debate about meaning in instrumental music, where the form will be the content. But I agree, that the "potential for content-innovation is limitless." And with the technology in the hands of so many, free of record-company dictates and the need to pander to the lowest common denominator, I think we're in a great time of potential. While there certainly is a "culture war," I still like to think there's room to have hope. I can't wait until the world is converted.

Of course it's worth your time, silly goose. I for one always read your posts with avid interest. And this is not about everyone being required to like tiddlywink and Lanza. I myself find tiddlywink a complete yawn. Along with country and western, for that matter. But these are not malevolent. For me, the issue of innovation is one of content rather than of form. The potential for content-innovation is limitless. Our battle is to promote content that is life-affirming. But there is no call to go outside the form, mainly the diatonic scale, and I don't see how it would be possible in any event. John Cage did. We call that silence or noise, but not music.

And yes, once in a while I get exasperated at the large numbers of folk who like crap, especially headbanging crap, and don't "get" quality. Every second Tuesday. So humor me. You won't die from it.

Linz

The question is, is it worth my time?

Linz:"Brainstorming about the future of music by folk who can't respond to the greatness of the past is a waste of time, and impossible anyway."

And brainstorming about the future of music who can't look past their pet sounds to the possibilities of the future is also a waste of time.

Linz: "As I've said before, we're never going to get beyond the diatonic scale, nor should we try to. "

That may be true, but there are other innovations. The scale is a tool, not the end in itself.

Linz: "And folk whose wheels are spun by headbanging, and who are deaf to the exaltation of the Romantics, have to be spiritually dead. "

Argument from intimidation, and a strawman, since that's not the point of this thread, nor was anyone even talking about headbanging. Your obsession with this shows more about yourself than it does the headbangers.

Linz: "There's nothing of value they could contribute. The "counterpoint to the cacophony" is already here, in abundance. But no fucker gets it, let alone is capable of building on it....
Call that arrogance or esthetic fascism on my part if you will. I call it the truth, leaving aside folk I've inadvertently left out (and no doubt there are many I don't know about). Because it is. Objectivism is morbidly bereft of folk who understand and feel "the total passion for the total height" in music."

Passion, KASS, it comes in many forms, not all of it Romantic. Some downright evil people have plenty of passion and KASS. But it also comes in many forms among the good, and not all will be attracted to tiddlywink and Lanza. Different strokes. But just as you will snarl when you're integrity is called into question, don't be surprised when others do the same.

Linz: "One of the reasons I set up SOLO was to find more. Slim pickings so far, I have to say."

I have no problem with you looking to start a Lanza fan club, more power to ya. I've found a lot of your cheerleading inspirational. But this thread, and my intent, was not to live in the past, but imagine tomorrow. That doesn't require throwing out the past, but it does require the willingness to venture forth, and often, a deviation into unknown territory.
And I don't see how anyone can contribute to innovation in the atmosphere you've set forth in your post. And as much as I like you, I think we are working towards something different, or at least towards the same thing through different means.

Jason says:

Phil, I don't think something like this can be done. The list of great music from the late 18th century to the early 20th century is so deep that you really just need to jump in and start out somewhere. Lindsay and I (and anyone else) would tell you to start at entirely different places. What we tell you might work for you, or it might turn you off. Jeff Riggenbach made a good suggestion a while back on one of my "The Great Symphonies" threads. He suggested listening to a good classical radio station. Write down the stuff that appeals to you right away, buy some recordings and then move on from there... You can't approach classical music via any "greatest hits" list.

Phil, that's absolutely right. Explore. Find something that grabs YOU, something that makes you shout, "Yes! This is me!" Take it from there. Jason would probably start you with a Sibelius symphony; I couldn't imagine a less auspicious launching ground! Be open to the possibility that the whole genre may be forever alien to you. If so, don't try to force the issue. No biggie. Just means you're irredeemably depraved. Didn't we know that already?

Linz

"A "listening list" has to be the "A list" though. Impeccable choices. Top ten pieces ever (else your judgment won't be respected if there are too many misses among the hits). Not an "audiopedia". Smiling"

Phil, I don't think something like this can be done. The list of great music from the late 18th century to the early 20th century is so deep that you really just need to jump in and start out somewhere. Lindsay and I (and anyone else) would tell you to start at entirely different places. What we tell you might work for you, or it might turn you off.

Jeff Riggenbach made a good suggestion a while back on one of my "The Great Symphonies" threads. He suggested listening to a good classical radio station. Write down the stuff that appeals to you right away, buy some recordings and then move on from there... You can't approach classical music via any "greatest hits" list.

- Jason

Jason D. Quintana is not associated with the Ayn Rand Institute -- neither as a writer nor as a speaker.

Don't be a daft flouncer. You've got oodles to contribute. I'll respond to Phil's points later today.

Lenny-Linz

> after your "long chain" thread, that most rap music is not logically composed, but "sampled" soundbite after soundbite. [Joe]

Ah! Good connection between the two threads: Makes me realize that as a long-chain person, one of the psychoepistemological things I resent about rap is not just the malevolence but the staccato 'choppiness' of the mental process. A series of unrelated? sound bites. Even a short, not very complex, pop or c&w song, a good one!, has a flow, a theme, a beginning/middle/end. If any rap has that, I've never been able to follow it.

> Right now, that nihilistic crap isn't worth our time. On this thread, we can take a break from that... [Joe]

I agree.

> Objectivism is morbidly bereft of folk who understand and feel "the total passion for the total height" in music. [Linz]

You (and others you mentioned) may have to educate us then in music (I don't mind and I don't consider it patronizing or the like if someone knows more in a certain area...and can explain clearly).

So many Objectivists have the total passion for the total height in *other areas* than music...So you can build on that and extend toward music?

Ne c'est pas?

A *not too long and highly selective 'best of the best' listening list* is a good idea, since you can't 'explain' great music; people have to hear it. [Yes, I know, I and we need to listen to Lanza...first??...and if I find him in one of those music stores where you can put on headphones and give him a try, I will since both you and Kilbourne rave about him.]

A "listening list" has to be the "A list" though. Impeccable choices. Top ten pieces ever (else your judgment won't be respected if there are too many misses among the hits). Not an "audiopedia".

I've got nothing more to contribute here. Linz, you got Peikoff beat by a mile.

Right now, we have a choice to focus our thinking on the potentials and possibilities. Right now, that nihilistic crap isn't worth our time. On this thread, we can take a break from that and brainstorm on what we'd like to see develop musically in the future. Let us gather our ammunition to form a counterpoint to the cacaphony.

Brainstorming about the future of music by folk who can't respond to the greatness of the past is a waste of time, and impossible anyway. As I've said before, we're never going to get beyond the diatonic scale, nor should we try to. And folk whose wheels are spun by headbanging, and who are deaf to the exaltation of the Romantics, have to be spiritually dead. There's nothing of value they could contribute. The "counterpoint to the cacophony" is already here, in abundance. But no fucker gets it, let alone is capable of building on it. About the only other Objectivists I've encountered who really have a clue musically are Ed Cline, Daniel Walden, Jason, Marcus, Derek McGovern and, dare I say, Robert Bidinotto, James Kilbourne and Ed Hudgins. Call that arrogance or esthetic fascism on my part if you will. I call it the truth, leaving aside folk I've inadvertently left out (and no doubt there are many I don't know about). Because it is. Objectivism is morbidly bereft of folk who understand and feel "the total passion for the total height" in music. One of the reasons I set up SOLO was to find more. Slim pickings so far, I have to say.

Linz

Rick (or anyone), are you familiar with Alvin Toffler's THE THIRD WAVE? Could prove fruitful for generating ideas here...

Happens I'm reading 'Future Shock' at the moment. Pretty boring. Don't see anything about WAVE.

This can be taken two ways: which innovation will rise above the others in merit or which innovation will become more accepted by the masses

What we're interested in (and what I mean) is what will be 'accepted by the masses'. What will we do?

Now that we've gotten the obligatory "railing" against the bad stuff out of the way, any thoughts on innovation?

You can't get away from 'the spirit of the age' if you hope to answer that question.

'Great nations write their autobiographies in three manuscripts, the book of their deeds, the book of their words and the book of their art. Not one of these books can be understood unless we read the two others, but of the three the only trustworthy one is the last.'

Now that we've gotten the obligatory "railing" against the bad stuff out of the way, any thoughts on innovation?

To be fair to Linz, it's too often necessary to be the proverbial "flyswatter" (or, in the case of the kids who beat the teacher over the iPod, something a bit more painful.) But right now, I've under the influence of THE EARLY AYN RAND:

“…a story written specifically to project pure ‘benevolent universe,’ should be written as though all problems have already been answered and all big issues solved, and now there is nothing to focus on but man acting in the world and succeeding¬–nothing but unobstructed excitement, romance, adventure.”

or

“The capacity for unclouded enjoyment…does not belong to irresponsible fools…to be able to laugh like that is the end result of the most profound, most solemn thinking.”

Right now, we have a choice to focus our thinking on the potentials and possibilities. Right now, that nihilistic crap isn't worth our time. On this thread, we can take a break from that and brainstorm on what we'd like to see develop musically in the future. Let us gather our ammunition to form a counterpoint to the cacaphony.

Linz has a point. When Bill Clinton was being interviewed during his first Presidential bid, he wasn't asked who he thought more relevant between Cage and Stockhausen, but which was more relevant between rap and heavy metal. "Rap," he answered in a heartbeat.

Compositionally speaking....well, sampling has a higher profile than the 12-tone row today. Actually, Phil, you may appreciate this, after your "long chain" thread, that most rap music is not logically composed, but "sampled" soundbite after soundbite. There have been moments of cleverness, sure, the same way a composer may have "quoted" other composers....but for the most part, it's a second-hand sample over someone else's beat.

This is not just "rhetoric" on my part. With rap and kindred headbanging, which is indeed ubiquitous, the bottom of the barrel has surely been scraped. What could conceivably be worse? Yes, to answer someone's question, Cage, Glass and his ilk are disgusting, but who takes them seriously aside from a few silly pseuds and poseurs? Certainly one can't categorise their bilge as "classical" or "serious" music. Rap is now universal, and bespeaks the triumph of nihilism. At the moment. Of course, where there's human life, there's hope. And, sub-human rappers notwithstanding, there's still human life on earth.

Linz

Phil: "...every third car that drives by, especially in the poorer neighborhoods, seems to be playing and especially the adolescents are listening to is mindless thudding, car-rattling jungle beat and extremely hostile slap-in-the-face "rap" music. It seems to be everywhere lately. And that is certainly the most nihilistic music I'm aware of. Is that the experience of others?"

Why don't we ask the students who broke a Philadelphia teacher's neck what they were playing on the iPod that he confiscated during class?

> you've never bothered to look into the musical masterpieces

?? I didn't put it that strongly - I've listened to Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, and the most famous composers, etc. I just said I don't think I'm nearly as knowledgeable or have listened as widely as Linz or Joe.

[ No offense, Jason , but being misquoted is a pet peeve of mine on these boards, since it leads to extra posts to clarify what was already said with precision. ]

I mostly agree with Lindsay about the general quality of modern music though I listen to a lot of stuff that he would get freaked out about. I also don't buy into his "mankind is scraping the bottom of the barrel" rhetoric. The issue for me is not the quality of the music that the masses are listening to. A lot of this music is really fun.

The issue for me is the fact that I don't see anything (beyond the occasional film score) that is worthy of being compared to some of the rare, great masterpieces of the previous few centuries. Far worse then any of the fun pop and rock music is the crap that is passed off as the modern equivalent of classical music. The artsy, avante garde stuff is usually just pretentious, annoying noise. I'll take popular music over that stuff any day of the week.

I don't believe that this is a symptom of some dire philosophical bankruptcy in the culture. Great innovations have simply moved on to different (mostly non art) fields of endeavor, but as a fan of music I hope to be inspired by some new musical movement at some point in my lifetime. I don't need another Mahler Symphony. I hope that this new music is something different from what I have experienced before.

- Jason

(Phil, I am surprised you've never bothered to look into the musical masterpieces. A bit of effort toward understanding great music pays off a lot.)

Jason D. Quintana is not associated with the Ayn Rand Institute -- neither as a writer nor as a speaker.

> several generations before him there was a swag of Webbers—Romberg, Kern, Friml, Lehar and the like— all arguably much superior. It's not that these genres are obsolete; it's that the Romanticism at their core is "uncool." That's because mankind as a whole is scraping the bottom of the nihilist barrel. [Linz]

I'm not anywhere near as knowledgeable about music as you (Linz) and Joe (for example, I've never even -heard- of Romberg, Kern, Friml, Lehar...weren't they the backup band playing while Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg address? ).

However -- just as we live in a mixed economy and people and intellectuals are a mix of Aristotelian and anti-Aristotelian leanings -- contemporary music I've run across is not purely or overall "nihilistic". It is "mixed":

On the one hand, country and western music is alive and healthy, melodic with often well-written and clever lyrics. And I just saw a richly satisfying movie "Music and Lyrics" with sentimental and romantic song-writing (and taking a swipe at both phony, pretentious music of the Britney like pop star of the time and at negative, pretentious, 'hip' trends as represented by the first lyrics writer in the film prior to the Drew Barrymore character). Popular movies, unless they are trying to be 'ghetto' feature melodic, sentimental, upbeat popular music.

Often drawing from the enormously influential music that was written and popular during the "golden age" of pop and rock and roll of the fifties through early sixties. And that is just as prevalent a part of the -current- music scene as some of the more evanescent stuff. And of course there is Andrew Lloyd Webber...

But on the other hand, what every third car that drives by, especially in the poorer neighborhoods, seems to be playing and especially the adolescents are listening to is mindless thudding, car-rattling jungle beat and extremely hostile slap-in-the-face "rap" music. It seems to be everywhere lately. And that is certainly the most nihilistic music I'm aware of. Is that the experience of others?

Perhaps Linz's point about what is being -written now- and what is -trendy- as opposed to lingering influences from the fifties and earlier is apt. But it is very hard to see what today's trend is overall or that it is purely or exclusively nihilistic (as in the c&w example - the most popular music that exists today.)

I've often felt the "black", totally dark portrayal of a collapsing culture all around us of Rand and taken up by many Objectivists is and was **enormously overstated**. I -know- that it is overstated in a number of other fields; I'm just not as "widely-listened" in music. (Certainly, assessing an entire culture or how it is trending is a hugely complex subject and requires a great deal of 'cultural literacy'...)

I know that most people here aren't practicing musicians and may be hesitant to contribute, thinking they have nothing to offer on the topic of musical innovation, but think of this example from THE FOUNTAINHEAD: Roger Enright was constantly spoonfed what he was told he needed or what was innovative, but it didn't work with him. He wasn't an architect, of course...but he knew what he liked, and needed, and when he saw Roark's ideas, it clicked. The same in music. The "masses" are told what to listen to this week and next (as my old boss at Tower said, "We are the tastemakers of Philadelphia..."). But are you going to get innovations from people catering to the common denominator?

We are in a great position, due to home based recording technology, that anyone can now be a patron like Roger Enright (money may be an issue, but maybe I'm naive in thinking that sometimes artistic connections can go beyond money, if on a personal level). What I mean is that we are not bound by Clive Davis or Richard Branson telling us who's hot, musicians are self-producing and promoting unstoppably, and innovative artists who may not meet the needs of the lowest common denominator can bypass the asskissing, schmoozing, wheeling dealing that have held back music for so long...

So, you may only be able to play the radio...but what would you like to hear, were you Roger Enright? Or, will you know it when you hear it? At any rate, the responsibility to find music you find innovative is now on you. We don't have to wait to be told by Sony-Columbia-Dreamworks contingent.

Rick: "The endless possibilities are a brainstormer's trivial pleasure. But which innovation will rise above the rest and be the new state of our art? That is that nut wot wont crack easy."

This can be taken two ways: which innovation will rise above the others in merit or which innovation will become more accepted by the masses. Alvin Toffler's THIRD WAVE addresses this in regards to innovation (which Rick touched on with his "no more mainstream" comment)"

From Wikipedia:
Toffler writes: "The Second Wave Society is industrial and based on mass production, mass distribution, mass consumption, mass education, mass media, mass recreation, mass entertainment, and weapons of mass destruction. You combine those things with standardization, centralization, concentration, and synchronization, and you wind up with a style of organization we call bureaucracy."
Third Wave is the post-industrial society. Toffler would also add that since late 1950s most countries are moving away from a Second Wave Society into what he would call a Third Wave Society. He coined lots of words to describe it and mentions names invented by other people, like the Information Age, which predicted demassification, diversity, knowledge-based production, and the acceleration of change."

Mass-production may have been an innovation in itself, but does mass marketing lend itself to innovation if the target is selling the most to the least common denominator? (VHS vs Beta, anyone?). Is it valid to say that most musical innovations came to be under the patronage system of the past, and that a shift in technology will lead back to such a patronage system where musicians are paid by individuals to compose? My basis for this argument is Roger Enright's actions in THE FOUNTAINHEAD, when his needs could not be met by the mass architects and recruited Howard Roark...today, a musician (or architect) is not necessarily bound to the big studios or firms, and have the advantage of personal technology.

I’m not familiar with the works of Shoenberg, Pete, but I’m sure he isn’t a patch on the genius of John Cage. When I was a youngster I caught him performing one of his masterpieces on black and white TV, the composition he declared his all-time favourite: 4’33” (”four minutes, thirty-three seconds”)

I found this description of it in a tribute entitled ”The Sounds of Silence”, which is a masterwork in itself:

”Most music is trivialized by attempts to describe it. ("The melody is announced by the flutes...") That's not a problem with 4'33". Here's how one performance went: A tuxedoed performer came on stage, sat at a grand piano, opened the lid, occasionally turned some music pages but otherwise sat as quietly as possible for 4 minutes and 33 seconds, then rose, bowed and left. And that was it.”

The version I saw was in three movements (I know what you're thinking) where Cage himself, armed with a stopwatch, sat quietly next to a pretty-faced page-turner (know what you're thinking), carefully and deliberately dividing up his score thrice - silently opening and closing the piano lid between each set. Unfortunately our country only had one channel at the time or I would've switched; “Country Calendar” or “The Dog Show” would have had infinitely more life in them.

Wikipedia has an interesting footnote to 4’33”: John Cage's publishers later sued Mike Batt for having created a track on his album, Classical Graffiti, with one minute of silence. The track was named "A One Minute Silence" and credited to John Cage. An out of court settlement was reached, with Batt paying a six-figure sum to the John Cage Trust.

I know what you're thinking...

Rick: "If capitalism continues there is reason to believe that we will continue to experience massive Schopenhaurian fractionalisation into more and more wonderful subcultures. Whatever you want to consume and there will be the product, and the 'scene', and the community to share it. The concept of 'mainstream' as we know it has numbered days."

Rick (or anyone), are you familiar with Alvin Toffler's THE THIRD WAVE? Could prove fruitful for generating ideas here...

Linz,

If your upset about the output from today's classical music, doesn't the blame lie ultimately with today's conservatory/classically trained world of musicians? These people are generally not doing the work they're doing because it's seen as "cool" in a pop culture sense. Quite the contrary. The problem is they've embraced heroes such as John Cage and Arnold Shoenberg.

Journey vs. Destination...

In other words, we need to use our imaginations in this matter. Isn't that the key to innovation, and art, the ability to see not what is, but what could be? Yes, it's hard to do, most innovations are.

Au contraire, mon ami. The endless possibilities are a brainstormer's trivial pleasure. But which innovation will rise above the rest and be the new state of our art? That is that nut wot wont crack easy.

It's not that these genres are obsolete; it's that the Romanticism at their core is "uncool."

Not so sure about that. But if I say any more I might have to defend it, and I don't want that.

Here's an interesting example, in addition to Linz's example of the state of the symphony, that some may not have considered, of how pervasive the problem is...when you speak of Romanticism vs. nihilism, the immediate image is one of satanic headbangers or gangbanging rappers versus classical music and opera...but we can see it also in the "orthodox" of the blues and folk music. When rock musicians started experimenting with large-scale compositions and modern technology, besides the response of punk in opposition to greater technique, there was also a cry of foul against the "corruption" of the blues, considered "pure," by the taint of the influence of white classically-trained old-world music. Artists like Eric Clapton quit projects in search of a more pure expression. Artists like Bruce Springsteen went on to the folk music of Woody Guthrie. And musicians embraced "world music", meaning an emphasis on African rhythms in search of the pure. What they all had in common was was Rand wrote about in "Global Balkanization," tribalism through language and music. How tribes would war over a minor note change in an established pattern of sound. Sheesh. It's an anti-industrial sort that tries to suppress innovation in music, first through religious persecution (Plato advocated censorship of music), the myth of "the devil's triangle" (tritone) in music, up to the current day where the blues and world music orthodoxy shun innovative artists and reward the chic artists with trite "lifetime achievement awards" for copying every blues formula created. The awards go not to the best composer, but the one conservative who maintains the status quo, and celebrates the "common man."

Lester Bangs, you bastard.

Fair enough, Linz. What you write is a good reminder of what Rand saw as the abandonment of innovation in the humanities and the migration to the sciences due to philosophy. The philosophical premises are certainly behind the innovation. Like you say, as long as humans are here, there will be innovations, but only with an appropriate philosphy.

It's a philosophical battle played out, in this instance, in the realm of music.

I agree, Linz, but isn't that a philosophical rather than specifically musical battle?

... the issue is not innovation vs. stagnation, it's Romanticism vs. nihilism, values vs. anti-values. Innovation will take care of itself as long as there are human beings on this earth. The diatonic scale, which gives music its bearings and sets it apart from mere noise and which makes possible infinite permutations of melody and harmony, has been around for aeons. The issue for me is why has the greatest music been written as opposed to is being written now? Is there a (legitimate) genre in which this is not the case? In my sphere of interest I can't think of a contemporary symphony that compares to the greats that have been discussed here, most at least a hundred years old. Ditto opera. Operetta? Well, Andrew Lloyd Webber has written some gorgeous melodies, but several generations before him there was a swag of Webbers—Romberg, Kern, Friml, Lehar and the like— all arguably much superior. It's not that these genres are obsolete; it's that the Romanticism at their core is "uncool." That's because mankind as a whole is scraping the bottom of the nihilist barrel. The current "cool" genres represent humanity-turned-sub-human writ large. Vast hordes of esthetically/emotionally lobotomised youngsters retain the physical form of human beings but spiritually are hollow, leering gargoyles. That's the issue for me.

Linz

Rick: "Our art will reflect our civilisation so, to me, your question asks for a vision of our future society."

This sounds like an article in itself, Rick...

"Living in the 60s, how could we see Lennon and McCartney comming? Only, if at all, by looking at society and seeing what art forms and expressions were necessasary for the times. But this is very hard to do. And the Beatles, even in the early days, didn't find it easy getting signed. That's why the genius known as the entreprener can get so wealthy, or so poor. George Martin finally signed the Beatles but at the time he didn't think they were any good!"

In other words, we need to use our imaginations in this matter. Isn't that the key to innovation, and art, the ability to see not what is, but what could be? Yes, it's hard to do, most innovations are.

Well, that's the interesting thing about posing this question to non-musicians. Most musicians are simply technicians, they can play and follow directions, but that doesn't mean that they are visionaries, and may be too bound by the rules (and the dictates of the masses, in whatever form and genre.) A non-musician may be able to bring in something to the discussion that could prove key. What's required is not primarily musical skill, but musical vision. And I'd like to see people challenge themselves on their own terms, look at how they currently listen to music, and wonder if there's not something more they could be hearing...exercise the imagination...

Ross, I have no quarrel with that, you explained it perfectly. My point is that Dagny was still, in essence, a "good guy." I should have said conflict between allies vs. enemies.

...my point was that to have drama you must have conflict. Galt & Dagny may have been in conflict over the proper way to answer the looters, but it had nothing to do with good versus good. Dagny was behaving, with regard to the looters, irrationally. It wasn't Galt that changed his mind, it was Dagny. And it was changed by Galt. The conflict was between the complete egoist in Galt and the flawed egoist in Dagny who unwittingly indulged in self-sacrifice to the benefit of the looters.

Incidentally, in dramatic theory, conflict doesn't have to exist only between individuals, it can exist in many ways, including within oneself. All of the producer characters in AS went through the same internal conflict, brought to a climax by the motor-stopping skills of Galt.

Further, Objectivism, stripped bare, is about a grand resolution of that conflict within men and Man. Rand couched it in many terms--the mind-body, the producer-looter, the individual-collective--but it all amounts to the same thing.

Any thoughts or ideas?

Our art will reflect our civilisation so, to me, your question asks for a vision of our future society.

If capitalism continues there is reason to believe that we will continue to experience massive Schopenhaurian fractionalisation into more and more wonderful subcultures. Whatever you want to consume and there will be the product, and the 'scene', and the community to share it. The concept of 'mainstream' as we know it has numbered days.

Living in the 60s, how could we see Lennon and McCartney comming? Only, if at all, by looking at society and seeing what art forms and expressions were necessasary for the times. But this is very hard to do. And the Beatles, even in the early days, didn't find it easy getting signed. That's why the genius known as the entreprener can get so wealthy, or so poor. George Martin finally signed the Beatles but at the time he didn't think they were any good!

Jazz and blues have added an improvisational aspect of music is one the great innovations of the past century in my view. I feel that improvisation has yet to be fully explored.

It is true that performers in Western classical music are given some melodic license (cadenzas for example), but by and large they are required to "stick to the script" to fully realize the composers vision.

Improvisation offers the opportunity for performers to reinterpret a piece of music continually. A group of skilled improvisors playing together can establish a true musical dialogue. However, without structural constraints, improvised music runs the risk of being meaningless noodling.

I believe the next great innovations in music will come from musicians who can further integrate rich complex structures and organization of classical music with the "in the moment" uniqueness of improvisation.

But I'll clarify what I meant: that the more interesting drama comes from conflicts more developed than black hat/white hat of a cartoon nature. There is a good/bad conflict in the battle between Dagny and Galt, but of a more developed variety. Notice that the battle in THE FOUNTAINHEAD was Dominique/Wynand againt Roark, and not so much Roark/Toohey (" I don't think of you.") The most interesting battle in ATLAS was not Galt v. James Taggart or Mr. Thompson, but the battle between Dagny and Galt because the conflict was maximized between two people with visions of good but differing means, and the passion between them created more conflict than, say, Galt and Lillian Reardon! Anyway, I don't dispute that drama is conflict, I'm just of the belief that conflict of the examples I cited are more interesting, and thus better. So nah.

"The reason being is that the best drama comes in battles not between good and evil (i.e., Roark v. Toohey), but between good versus good (i.e., Dagny and Galt.)"

Crap.

Drama is conflict. That is, drama is another word for--is synonymous with--conflict. Without conflict there is no drama. When it comes to the dramatic, Good & Gooder=Dumb & Dumber.