Thank you. 

..A SHOW OF HANDS: A Cautionary Tale of Heroes in Exile..

It can be said that many people (myself included) tend to focus on the essay "Bootleg Romanticism" and there's something I get from it that I don't hear many people reiterating.

A lot of people take from that essay "I knew I was getting something better from that bad art than what everyone else said I would, now I don't feel so bad about it" and they leave it at that. The key point is that this is acceptable because it is the best available.

What I want to see is people genuinely taking this message to heart and creating things that traveled so far in the right dirrection that the flaws (and there are flaws) in the old romantics would seem unacceptable.

I'm past the point of accepting the best that happens to have been created at this point warts and all. I want something new and something better, nostalgia is anathema to this.

---Landon

Never mistake contempt for compassion, or power lust for ambition.

http://www.myspace.com/wickedlakes

Super Hero Babylon

And yet you cry that nobody engages you on the topic. Wow, Linz, way to go. Wow.

Yes, fair enough. My apologies. I stand by my point of view, of course, but I shouldn't have hammered you personally like that.

"May I suggest you already have it in the form of the various heroes of Romantic music and its offspring, but you would rather go with your headbanging caterwaulers on ineffable "neurological" grounds?"

You can suggest whatever you like on your forum. You'd be wrong, but go at it. But I don't recall a promise to respond to MUSIC OF THE GODS. Until I see a better explanation from you for cutting the gordion knot, I'm not going to bother with it, either. 

 "Those who don't get it - most Objectivists, it would seem - should simply shut the fuck up, while they enlighten themselves, and stop pretending to be at the vanguard of some cultural revolution when they are musically clueless and part of what should be revolted against."

 And yet you cry that nobody engages you on the topic. Wow, Linz, way to go. Wow.

...A SHOW OF HANDS: A Cautionary Tale of Heroes in Exile....

never pass up an opportunity to pass judgment on shit music. Point out how much it vexes you to have to listen to crap (if it does indeed vex you - and it should).

Case in point...

four weeks ago I was invited out on this luxury launch with a handful of people. I went and we cruised around the stunningly beautiful Hauraki Gulf. Emerald seas and warm blue skies surrounded us.... and then was totally ruined for me because the company I was with played hideous "house" music and rock from the 80's. I just couldn't tune it out... no one with a pair of ears could! It wasn't my boat of course so I was in that dilemma of wanting it my way, but having no rights other than that of a valued guest. I asked if there was any other music on board. There wasn't. Needless to say, I got back into port five hours later with a thumping headache. I should've taken my chances with the sharks and swam back.

The same bunch of people asked me out again last weekend. I said I'll only come if I can bring the music. There were the usual comments about me not possibly being serious, being so intense and fussy etc etc. I assured them I was serious. The captain took the issue up with me and said something like "I thought the conversation, food, wine and adventure would outshine the music." I told him as sweetly as I could that I could no more ignore the music than he could probably ignore the smell of someone trudging dog shit across his launch carpet. You should've seen the look he gave me.

Anyway, the upshot was that I said, "No thanks. If you guys want to have some decent company on your trips, you've gotta learn how to cater to decency and playing "The Cars" and "House" full tilt was indecent to me. Actually it felt abusive. Hated it when I was 15, sure as hell hate it at 38."

Can you believe they still want me to come out on the boat next time? I've been ordered to load up an ipod with music I like, but they've caveated it with "so long as there's something for everyone." Pfffft. Rachman is for everyone!! So is Mario!

Nyuk nyuk nyuk, I won I won!

Keep plugging Linz, one day you'll get that message through. You're certainly persistent.

 I find classical music and opera is all I listen to now, and I love it more and more, when in the past I've not been all that musical ... although I'm rather traitorously feeding the addiction via the Concert Program and BBC 3.

What we need is a "bringer of balance" between the Apollonian and Dionysian, an integration of reason and emotion, in order to bring about a culture of non-sacrificial. And then we will have ballads not of sacrificial heroes, but heroes as achievers who exist in the here-and-now as role models for life, not the afterlife

May I suggest you already have it in the form of the various heroes of Romantic music and its offspring, but you would rather go with your headbanging caterwaulers on ineffable "neurological" grounds? See, I'm still waiting for the reply to Music of the Gods that you promised. As it stands, I believe there is no such reply, and Objectivists must affirm the superiority of Romantic Music. Those who don't get it - most Objectivists, it would seem - should simply shut the fuck up, while they enlighten themselves, and stop pretending to be at the vanguard of some cultural revolution when they are musically clueless and part of what should be revolted against.

See my blog on Romanticism in the history of rock and pop.

...A SHOW OF HANDS: A Cautionary Tale of Heroes in Exile....

We are locked in battle with the drooling beast, and the beast is winning. It is one thing to fight Islamofascism, where the enemy at least partially shows his face. But how do you fight apathy in the face of tyranny? The enemy is everywhere and everyone.

That's my point, all right. And the apathy is exacerbated by pomowankery, especially in music, where the brain is deadened in precisely the manner described by Rand in The Romantic Manifesto. And it's not neurology (apart from the condition of tone-deafness); it's values. Note the use of the term "self-inducedly" in this quote:

"I am not willing to surrender the world to the jerky contortions of self-inducedly brainless bodies with empty eye sockets who perform in stinking basements the immemorial rituals of staving off terror, which are a dime a dozen in any jungle—and to the quavering witch doctors who call it 'art.'"

We are locked in battle with the drooling beast, and the beast is winning. It is one thing to fight Islamofascism, where the enemy at least partially shows his face. But how do you fight apathy in the face of tyranny? The enemy is everywhere and everyone.

Perigo is on the right track. If you want to inspire a revolution you need to inspire a good dose of absolutism across the board. 300 anyone?

...and do not misunderstand me...this is not me being 'difficult' ...it is simple logic....if a General Election was not turned into an auction, you would get sensible (and limited) Government.

The way to eliminate the auction aspect is to reduce the numbers able to vote....(Joe Six Pack and his neigbhbours, for instance)

http://www.nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

I agree with Eli, people obviously shouldn't be able to vote on another person's private property. And the less public property out there, the less of a need for all these votes. Voting is only legitimate on publicly owned issues... 

.....A SHOW OF HANDS: A Cautionary Tale of Heroes in Exile.....

I do not mean to be nitpicky...

but an obvious solution to our problems would be to simply disenfranchise all the but the 'best' people.

All people with a net worth less than $1 million not being able to vote would really get some capitalist, libertarian policies enacted.

(All a bit odd no one except me can see this...) 

http://www.nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

 Jim, I don't doubt what you say in the short term; my comment is broader in it's timeline...I'm thinking of ATLAS versus BRAVE NEW WORLD or 1984...where the statism eventually has an effect on technology's development, versus the latter two books, where everything continues with no effect on technology...hence ANTHEM... 

....A SHOW OF HANDS: A Cautionary Tale of Heroes in Exile......

Aaron,

I agree that a lot of nanotech is speculative. There are, however, a lot of interesting things like MEMs at a slightly larger scale that are already gaining traction. I'm especially interested in the interface between biotech and nanotechnology. Things like neural probe stimulation.New RNA interference technologies are also interesting.

Jim

Joe,

We live in a global world. If there are good ideas, the money comes from anywhere and everywhere. Intel's competitor, AMD, stayed afloat with large amounts of financing from the UAE.

I look at the housing price and banking run up as something that sucked up capital for something that was unproductive. The current headlines simply reflect that the 2003-2007 economic boom in the U.S. was largely illusory.

I look at this economic downturn as a good thing. The US banking system was largely funding crap for the last 4 years. So what if stupid money disappears? That money was stupid with or without the government. The government simply made them more greedy and more stupid.It's like the whining about Enron. Did those people really know what they were putting their money into?

The real tragedy is investment advisers that keep urging average Americans to invest in equities. People who can't read a balance sheet or understand a product pipeline or the business they are investing in have no business in the equities market. Before easy money policies came into vogue, average people could invest in CD's, money markets and other conservative investments for a stable, reasonable rate of return.

The investment advisers on Wall Street and in banking are too technologically ignorant to know what the high growth industries will be anyway, so why worry about them? Most of them were cozy with the government anyway. They made a deal with the devil and lost or looted as the case may be. I think we will be better off with funding coming from private equity, VC's in Silicon Valley and financial centers in London, Hong Kong, Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates.

The Silicon Valley VC's and financial people didn't go whining to the government for bailouts when the tech bust happened. They funded Google and a host of Web 2.0 companies, They invested in Apple.

Also, it's important to take a wider view about the global economy. If we do stupid things in the US, the innovation will happen in Israel, Russia, Taiwan, Japan, Sweden (in health care technologies), Switzerland (in banking and pharmaceuticals), Korea and Finland in cell phones, the Baltic states in e-commerce.

We are now in a de facto state of competing governments. If the government does something stupid, you can always buy cheaply, invest somewhere else or relocate. Over time, capital will flow to countries with governments with the best policies.

Jim

Let's just hope the tech and bio innovations aren't the next victims...if the government gets into banking, as they're discussing, what's to say the money for the research will be there? The domino effect could hit those fields as well...

James-
I'm not as keen on nanotech as you, but regardless agree there is still a hell of a lot of tech and bio innovation going on, it will continue real growth, and fortunately it hasn't been regulated to death. Thanks for the note of optimism!

Aaron

 Well, again, I know YOU know it's not-so-simple. I just don't know what "leading the charge" means in this context. It's almost akin, to me, to the political debate...if only people would accept it...but as Rand demonstrated in politics, to whom would you make your case without a larger educational campaign? I sometimes feel like there's a suggestion that simply HEARING the music is sufficient, and we both know it isn't the case.

(Especially because the "physiological" issues still haven't been answered fully, which you so conveniently sever like a Gordion knot in your link. It's not just a matter of values, but of neurology as well. I know, I know, we don't have to worry about differences between Brahms and Back to argue the superiority of Brahms to Slayer...but those issues don't simply go away by taking Slayer out of the picture...).  

....A SHOW OF HANDS: A Cautionary Tale of Heroes in Exile....

.... my case is not the simplistic one you describe Joe. I am really making a plea for Objectivists to take Rand's esthetics seriously and indeed to go one further than Rand herself in the area of music, as I argued in my essay. It is an ongoing mystery to me that so many Objectvists are content to wallow in the contemporary pomonihilist musical sewer when a) it is so horrible, and b) it is such an eloquent symptom of what Rand called the "cultural bankruptcy" of our time. Should we not be leading the charge? Not as an exercise in fascism but an invitation to rise? And would people so enlightened tolerate the frightening advances of government we've seen of late? (As opposed to morons in mosh pits who'll accept anything?)

I deliberately fired this latest salvo in the seemingly unrelated thread started by Andre to get folk thinking about connections that might not otherwise occur to them. Always trying to be helpful, you see.

All these gloom and doom scenarios... The real potential growth value in the economy is not the house of cards of the current economic system, but in the next wave of databases, genome analyzers and other bioinformatics instrumentation, nanotechnology applications and others. None of these technologies are regulated and the by the time the government figures out how, explosive exponential growth will already have occurred.

All of these terrific new technologies will sell to the global marketplace, not the US economy exclusively. Better still, these new technologies will have a material effect on lifespan.

The past seven years have been one of the highest periods of global economic growth ever: 2001-2007 averaged 4.7% annualized growth. This is second only behind 1971-1974 with 5.3%, another period where people in the US felt like the sky was falling.

There's another fallacy in all of this: a large part of the economy is devoted to things people really don't need. Shampoos, vacation homes, exotic video games, opulent furniture, outsized and priced first homes, large gas guzzling SUV's. As a capitalist, I want people to have these things, but they really aren't what make the economy go longterm. The best times for innovation are times like these because high-priced human talent becomes cheaper and high-tech entrepreneurs are able to create solid, sustainable business models.

If you want to know where our next economy is going to come from, look at companies like Illumina and Pacific Biosciences. There are also several nascent nanotechnology companies, Web 2.0 is already blossoming, next generation databases will allow supply chain improvements we can't even dream of yet.

So cheer up! The talent that was tied up in stodgy old investment banks and large corporate banks will migrate to private equity and high quality venture capital.

This will be a whole new world and I'm finding it more interesting by the minute.

Jim

I don't like to announce what I'm doing ahead of time, for a paranoid fear that it will jinx it and not get done...

 I am working on an essay that parallels your post, about heroes and romanticism in music. It's not an answer to your post, but you provided the glue that is making this essay gel. One problem I had with your post: Not your broadest abstraction, but in specifics, the problems of Romanticism itself, as defined by Rand. I know YOU know it, and you outlined your definition of Romantic music in your link, but this one short post, a suggestion that Romanticism is a panacea, just seems to simplistic on the surface..."If only Objectivists would embrace Romanticism...". Great idea, but ONLY if they first know the pitfalls involved: the Romanticist as Byronic, the ill-defined Romanticism of philosophy versus the Romanticism in literature (and I personally STILL think the definition of Romanticism in music needs work if it is to be linked to Rand's definition of Romanticism in literature; I don't disagree with you in spirit, but I still think more needs to be spelled out; as it is, most Romantic music falls in with the Byronic category of Romanticism.) 

 But if I were to put aside all these debates for now, and just simplified Romantic music to mean music that reflects volition and values, we'd still be presented with the fact that even philosophically..."misintegrated"? cultures and countries can embrace Romantic music. A fictional example: Alex's love of that "malevolent" Beethoven in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, to Nazi Germany's embrace of Wagner. 

(And let's not forget the quality issues, as Rand noted, first-rate naturalism can be better than fourth-rate Romanticism, although, to paraphrase Roark, "the latter must not be accepted as true Romanticism...). But Rand makes a good point: say Romantic music is accepted, but at what quality? "Popular fiction does not raise or answer abstract questions; it assumes that man knows what he needs to know in order to live, and it proceeds to show his adventures in living. The distinctive characteristic...is the absence of an explicitly ideational element, of the intent to convey intellectual information (or misinformation.) 

I'd submit, in that catagory, "I'll Walk With God." The music fits your defnition of Romanticism, and maybe the lyrics do, too...except that the ideological meaning suggests an uncritically accepted belief in God, even if benevolently so. You could also put Hugo in this category. What I mean is that the form (Romanticism) does not match the values chosen, allowing for contradictions. In the former, religion is celebrated, and in the other, socialism. 

 It's not enough just to say "Romanticism," because it's not enough just to say "values" and "volition." I'm sure this is not what YOU mean, but it can't be said enough, because this is WHY we have, in the O'ist culture, debates over Beethoven's malevolence and such. Listen, we have Slayer...we also have "Wind Beneath My Wings." A song about heroism. Sold more than Slayer ever will. But what of it? It's so vague...it could apply to anyone. All it says is "You carried me while I got the spotlight, you sacrificed for me, and I thank you." It celebrates a value, but it's adaptable by anyone to anyone, Rand could have said that about Frank, Hitler could have said that to the volk, and Obama can sing that to his nameless hordes. Rand again: “Popular literature is fiction that does not deal withabstract problems; it takes moral principles as the given, accepting certain generalized, common-senseideas and values at its base." But "common-sense values and conventional values are not the same thing...". Conventional values are "justified...on the basis of social conformity."

Romanticism is not enough without the "the RIGHT kind of values...It's only part. A sense of life is not a substitute for thinking...

....A SHOW OF HANDS: A Cautionary Tale of Heroes in Exile....

Kyrel: "...and previously considered art to be mostly a private affair. But you seem to agree with him -- which is also interesting.

For what it's worth, my favorite music has long been what radio stations call "top 40 party music." Don't know if this qualifies as Randian Romantic -- but I like what I like."

It is a little bit more complicated than that. An intellectual without the minimum of an art history course,without familiarity with great world literature, without a course in music history really suffers from a lobotomy--they are not working with a full deck.

These courses can all be easily taken as electives in College, or pursued privately in a rather short period of time. 

The arts have the unique nature in that they appeal on a profoundly personal level, yet,simultaneously, represent philosophies, and cultural identity. Only accepting art as a private subjective matter cuts you off from the bigger picture. 

A movement of individuality will never come about without a movement of art, literature, and music that reflect those values.

So, yes, I am in agreement with Lindsay on this, as I believe he slyly knows me to be.

Michael

www.michaelnewberry.com

(Kyrel, my apologies for hijacking this thread. I didn't intend to get on my soapbox, but Lindsay is not a keen interviewer for no reason, he has a particular way to goad people--and I didn't want to start a thread on this topic.)

Michael -- Not a prob! Lindsay's argument of "promote Romantic music; save the world" is interesting. I never thought of this before, and previously considered art to be mostly a private affair. But you seem to agree with him -- which is also interesting.

For what it's worth, my favorite music has long been what radio stations call "top 40 party music." Don't know if this qualifies as Randian Romantic -- but I like what I like.

Lindsay,

Not serious! Quite the contrary. Online it is hard to convey amusement, wickedness, goodwill, and hope when they are wrapped up into one smile.

I have a friend on visiting California once said: "If the people here worked as hard on their brains as they do on their bodies they would all be geniuses."

A similar thing can be said of entrepreneurs; if they worked as hard on their spirits as they do on their work, they would all be renaissance men. I think on last report Warren Buffet was seen dinning at McDonalds after arriving in a pick up truck, not exactly a world leader in taste.

Think about it. Why would anyone make a billion dollars to live like any other Joe on the fringe of the poverty line?

Speaking of cows, there are the billionaires that want to live well and buy Hirst's dead pickled cows packed into formaldehyde filled plastic showcases. Enshrining dead meat. A self portrait perhaps?

It seems to me that most people take their inner workings for granted, and float on a default mode, and never, never connect that art is the key to their spiritual well being. And that in turn enables the good not to be at the mercy of the bad.

(Kyrel, my apologies for hijacking this thread. I didn't intend to get on my soapbox, but Lindsay is not a keen interviewer for no reason, he has a particular way to goad people--and I didn't want to start a thread on this topic.)

Michael

www.michaelnewberry.com

I assume from the smiley face that your question is not serious. I wish it were. It seems impossible to get discussion of this topic, which is integral to SOLO itself, going, among Objectivists of all people.

But, to repeat myself further, if you're not part of the solution, you *are* the problem.) It would be one small step for Objectivists leading to a giant leap forward for mankind if they, the Objectivists, were to grasp and affirm the objective superiority of Romanticism in music. Because music is the ultimate sense-of-life barometer, Objectivism will not progress while it subscribes to musical subjectivism, relativism and egalitarianism. Such a view - or rather, the Randroid reluctance to repudiate it for fear of departing from the received wisdom - is part of the anal-retentiveness that makes so many Objectivists so unappetising. And if Objectivism, the philosophy of reason, doesn't progress, neither, in this age of anti-reason, will mankind.

 Are you saying that Romanticism holds the future well being of mankind? 

www.michaelnewberry.com

Socialism is the biggest threat to the western world.I think your right.   We need to form a resistance soon and help each other.  Ignorance is OK in Capitalism.    

That socialism is the biggest threat to the western world.
I wonder if "ignorance" fits into that statement somewhere, because it seems to go hand in hand with the sustenance of such?

... for the election process to be identified more widely as "American Airhead" and for a sufficient number of airheads to be jolted from their airheadery. Objectivists should be at the forefront of the jolting process, not making apologies for phenomena such as headbanging caterwauling that have helped induce the airheadery. (I know, I know, I'm repeating myself. But, to repeat myself further, if you're not part of the solution, you *are* the problem.) It would be one small step for Objectivists leading to a giant leap forward for mankind if they, the Objectivists, were to grasp and affirm the objective superiority of Romanticism in music. Because music is the ultimate sense-of-life barometer, Objectivism will not progress while it subscribes to musical subjectivism, relativism and egalitarianism. Such a view - or rather, the Randroid reluctance to repudiate it for fear of departing from the received wisdom - is part of the anal-retentiveness that makes so many Objectivists so unappetising. And if Objectivism, the philosophy of reason, doesn't progress, neither, in this age of anti-reason, will mankind.

Can't see it happening. Steady on to the next boom in 40-50 years and the bust to follow for another 15 thereafter.