About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 12:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is going to be hard.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 1:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Okay I began to feel bad for not saying something more enthusiastic.  Good to see you in charge of this, Joe.  Sounds interesting.

Post 2

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 1:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nothing like setting one's sights high. Congrats, Joe. As I wished you privately, good premises & good luck!

Linz
(Edited by Lindsay Perigo
on 10/14, 1:51am)


Post 3

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 3:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This announcement made my very happy.

Rock on, Joe.

It's get-down time.

Michael


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 3:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is so great, Joe.

Good luck, congratulations and
SHINE ON!!!


Post 5

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 4:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is a good idea. There is much to discuss here. I'd like to make a contribution right now. For anyone interested in learning a heck of a lot about Beethoven's symphonies there is a lecture series by a Robert Greenberg available through The Teaching Company. The lectures are for musicians/composers and I can't recommend it enough if you like Beethoven's music.

Rand said that Beethoven had a malevolent or dark sense of life. I can see where she is coming from but it's worth travelling through that darkness to see what's on the other side.

Professor Greenberg is great. He could lecture about a ham sandwich and I'd buy it. 


Post 6

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 6:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, everyone.
Daniel, yes, it's going to be hard, but we do these things not because they are easy...

Lance, you will get your chance, Beethoven will play a major part in this. I'll explain to you a bit more later.

MSK, I see a great deal of overlap in music and psychology, so I psycho Solo and Music can get along...



Post 7

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 6:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What is your favorite color?  Why is your favorite superior to other hues?

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 7:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Perhaps this can do as a start on the detailing...

It is my contention that the first of the Arts was music. It evolved from the developmental consequences of sound being used to mark territories, and for courting - both activities involved with acquiring and retaining a mate. It has long been noted among the observations of animals - birds in particular, where the songs given forth are often complex and unique to the individuals involved. It has also been noted among the primates - especially the orangutan, where its displays of howlings go much beyond mere coutring the upcoming nuptials, but a continuing afterwards, not just as signalings to outsiders of a territory to refrain from, but as an added inducement to continuedness with the chosen mate. Moreover, this is echoed with the female, who joins in - indeed who sets up refraining choruses which play off those of the male's. In each of these examples, the vocalizations are evolved into a measure of complexity such that the tones evoke specific emotional responses - and this is where music comes in. Music is first and formost melody, with the tones used being an extension to those of the forebearers in regards to the vocalizations evoking specific emotional responses. It is an extension of a means of communicating - in this case in line with the developing of cognition, such that the experiences of a not-present is thus being vocalized, not initially with other than just the soundings [words came later] evoking particular emotions familiar at the time thru the same process of evolving as was with, for instance, the orangutan, but being emitted as a form of remembrance, utilizing the same soundings which were originally used at the times of the events first evoking them. Being observant beings, no question, these were embellished thru observations of sounds emitted by such as birds, which widened the repertoire as such. Rhythm, then, was added as a means of providing cadence, enhancing the vocal experience.



It is in this way that the first direction of rhythm went - an overlaying into the beginning of music, starting with percussional efforts from beating sticks, clapping, and so forth, eventuating into xylophone-like instruments made from mammoth bones. From there, it would be discovering tones from blowing thru assorted reeds or hollow bones [aligning them of sorts to the tones already produced by the vocalizations], eventuating the flute and pan pipes from assorted lengths of the reeds or bones, to discovering that various holes in a bone produced different tones. When, after hunters discovered the bow, which made a great advance over the throwing of the spear, an idle hunter one time might have 'twanged' it [or even more possible, a child having gotten hold of one 'twanged' it], thereby discovering the tone-making from it, as well as noticing that if the length of the gut is different, different tones resulted, thereby eventuating the rudiments of what became the lyre. At this time as well, tones from the instruments also did some substituting for the vocals, carrying the melody into the instruments themselves - especially if there was perceived a similarity in how they sounded to those doing the vocalizating.

 

 


Post 9

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 3:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert Davison: Blue. Because I said so. :P

Actually, a color is more akin to a tone, and one could not say that a tone in itself has moral value. The use of the tones is what counts.

Robert Malcolm: You've got the idea, looking forward to exploring these ideas in the forum.

Robert Palmer: You're gonna have to face it, you're addicted to love.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 7:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe, I wish you a "Ha Ha Ha, Ho Ho Ho and a couple of tra la la's" worth of good luck and good times with your new endeavor.

I fully support your efforts...unless you start singing the praises of Tony Orlando. Then I will have to disassociate myself from you. :)

"Light my way."


Post 11

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 7:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I don't even know a single word to his songs. And the Dawns hold no interest for me, either.
BTW, were Tony Orlando and John Stossel separated at birth?

Post 12

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 7:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe-

I don't know enough about music(theoretically) to dance the tra-la-la's or the fugue's but I'm looking forward to tagging along in here and learning.  Congrats.


Post 13

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 7:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Jodi, and don't sweat it; I have no idea what a tra la la is! I can't even do the hokey pokey!

Post 14

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 8:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

Have you listened to Conor Oberst/Bright Eyes?  Totally lost for philosophy, but I love his music.  He will be at, actually, the Academy of Music here in Philadelphia in November.

My favorites:
The Center Of The World
Haligh, Haligh, Haligh
Something Vague
Lover I don't have to love
A Poetic Retelling of an unfortunate seduction
... and Do You Feel at Home, Commander Venus (Conor at like 14 or 16)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 8:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Just to add more to the pile, here's what was written in my last section, regarding music...

       Contemplation takes many forms, from the sometimes "lead me by the nose" approach of literature and - emotionally - sometimes music, to the "slam" effects of paintings and sculptures, with a lot of sublimity in between.  All, however, as works of Art, are united in their intelligibility.
        What, for instance, is intelligible about music?
         As Rand pointed out, we gain our knowledge thru the use of concepts - that is, by means of abstractions.  But our cognition, however, begins with the ability to perceive.  "Art brings man's concepts to the perceptual level of his consciousness and allows him to grasp them directly, as if they were percepts," she added. This means that a work of Art takes the abstractions of metaphysics and makes them into specifics - the concretes.  Now, concretes are usually thought of in terms of entities - yet Rand, writing in her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, has said that concretes subsume not only entities, but attributes, actions, and relationships.  To me, this includes situations as well - what, I would say, in terms of music, as emotional situations.  This brings me to conclude that Rand did indeed make an error in assuming that Helmholtz's use of sensations meant that music is auditorilly experienced as sensations, not percepts.  But, as David Kelley pointed out in his Evidence of the Senses, all sounds are properly to be regarded as percepts, as he goes on to explain their feature as being an attribute of specifics in an auditory context.  The harmonic sounds, as tones, then get integrated in to what is called a melody, the fundamental aspect of music.
         Aside from her misdirected misunderstanding of the sensation/perception issue of musical experience, there are two criticisms of her view of music I also find a need to address.  The first is that she premised the essence of music as being mathematical.  The easiest way to respond to such a criticism is to remember that she defined mathematics as the science of measurement - and also to remember that a sheet of music, any music, is a sheet full of measurement.  Yes, there are often aspects of music that gives texture to the music, put the measurement into contexts - but the bottom line is that music is an expression of auditory stimulus according to mathematical means.  It is on that basis, the fundamental level, that she expressed the way music is involved in one's sense of life and was concerned with.
         The other criticism leveled at her music theory is the one she really didn't give a satisfactory answer to - what is the re-presentational aspect of music that corresponds to reality?  I suspect part of the problem in giving a good answer to this was her sensation/perception mis-understanding aspect of how the mind hears music.  But, if one were to re-translate her sensation mistaken observations and put them into perceptual concretes, it seems a much more integrated and noncontradictory view emerges.
         While I am primarily an artist, tho I also sculpt, I also am an avid listener of serious music.  One thing I've observed is that for the most of human history, music was in accompaniment with song and dance.  It wasn't until about 300 years ago or so that secular music really made its mark, and music started being played for its own sake.  But, for the time music was connected with voice especially, and dance, there was never a questioin about its expressive meanings.  This is to say there was no problem as to what aspect of reality music's meaning referred to, music's emotional respondings.  The question would only arise when music per se was involved.  Yet, as far as I am concerned, it seems a false problem, as the same set of pitch, beat, tone, etc. that music makes use of when accompanying vocals should elicit the same response emotionally when not accompanying vocals, when the music stands on its own.  This is clearly noted in such instances as laments, or songs of joy, or the emotions of solemnity, or the gaiety of dance.  Music, as such, is a very abstract Art, and in expressing what it is and does in a form similar to the definition of Art, I would have to say that music selects and stylizes certain important or meaningful aural experiences, making use of certain configurations which best express those qualities, drawing out the relative emotional responses - abstracting, as it were, to better the perception.
         Even when one deals with music beyond a single instrument or small group of instruments, as, say, the expressiveness of an orchestra, where far greater variety of tones and emotional derivations can be achieved, note that there is still a co-respondant to singing - the violins, which are analogous to the vocal, whether singly as in a violin concerto, or groupwise as if a choral, as they are arranged in the orchestra itself.  In any case, it is clear there is intelligibility, a definite "re-presentation of..." in music, and a definite reference to "...some aspect of reality."


Post 16

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 9:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert wrote:
"There was no problem as to what aspect of reality music's meaning referred to, music's emotional respondings. The question would only arise when music per se was involved. Yet, as far as I am concerned, it seems a false problem, as the same set of pitch, beat, tone, etc. that music makes use of when accompanying vocals should elicit the same response emotionally when not accompanying vocals, when the music stands on its own."

I am glad you mentioned this, because I am aware of the idea that the whole idea of Rand's question may be unneeded. Should the problem be false, then we deal with that as it becomes evident. I do encourage debate on the issue, but rational, purposeful debate that has a goal, instead of arguments that simply fade away due to lack of consensus. Hopefully different avenues will be explored and verified through demonstrable means.

" But, if one were to re-translate her sensation mistaken observations and put them into perceptual concretes, it seems a much more integrated and noncontradictory view emerges."

I believe Roger Bissell has addressed this issue, and it's our good fortune that we have him here at SOLO to discuss his work, especially given his give-and take with Torres and Khamhi, the authors of WHAT ART IS: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand. (It's a shame Jeff Riggenbach flaked out on us, as he also took part in that symposium.) We also have Robert Campbell who has written on The Cognitive Revolution and Psychology, and many other talents to "exploit."



Post 17

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 9:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sorry Kurt, I have not...

Post 18

Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 5:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Just a few days ago I dusted-off The Romantic Manifesto for a re-read. Perfect timing this then. I look forward to watching and where possible, contributing.


Post 19

Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 6:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Glad to know some of my thoughts seem to be in sync with some of the experts - as said, am an artist, a renderer and sometime sculptor, so this was merely a side issue to get across the idea that her fundamental premises hold true to all of the "Fine Arts" arena, not just literature...

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.