Rand's Romantic Artistic Tastes
Steve M.
Romantic music is illogical, boring, and, frankly, I perceive it as
"mystical," and I am completely at a loss as to why Rand obsessed over
symphonies, Tchaikovsky, and Rachmaninov (who is more impressionist but
still might be considered romantic in the specific definition of the term,
not the time period).
Romantic music is what might be, soaring upward, what might be, personal
triumph, but overall: what is not. I mean, you've got Mussorgsky righting
about witches, all sorts of things. Also, it should be pointed out that the
late romantic era gave birth to folksy music: Dvorak's slavonic dances;
Barber's folk music; Bruch, endless down-homey kind of things.
Myself, I am partial to music of the late Baroque era: Vivaldi, Bach,
Handel, Corelli, Telemann.... This is the height of the Age of
Enlightenment, and the music shows it: it is precise, clear, consonant--as
opposed to romantic dissonance--VERY ORDERED, and entertaining. Bach,
actually could get very romantic at times--see his some of his fugues in
minor keys, or the harpsichord concerto in d-. But the thing is, Rand, who
was obsessed with "rationality," likes romantic music. I just don't
understand it. She's such a fan of Aristotle - but despises Mozart, whose
style is termed Rococo because of its revival of ancient Greek forms:
symmetry, climax, and such....
Romantic music to me, seems more mystic than rational, to use her own
terminology.
jddescr...@my-deja.com
"Steve M." <Clig...@aol.com> wrote:
> I am completely clueless as to why Rand enjoys Romantic music. To me,
> Romantic music is illogical, boring, and, frankly, I perceive it as
> "mystical," and I am completely at a loss as to why Rand obsessed over
> symphonies, Tchaikovsky, and Rachmaninov (who is more impressionist
but
> still might be considered romantic in the specific definition of the
term,
> not the time period).
>
> Romantic music is what might be, soaring upward, what might be,
personal
> triumph, but overall: what is not. I mean, you've got Mussorgsky
righting
> about witches, all sorts of things. Also, it should be pointed out
that the
> late romantic era gave birth to folksy music: Dvorak's slavonic
dances;
> Barber's folk music; Bruch, endless down-homey kind of things.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You may be placing too much emphasis on the name of the
Ayn Rand Theory [ART] formal philosophy; Objectivism. Of
course she emphasizes rational thought but the philosophy
goal is to help us achieve personal happiness on this earth,
NOW! As such, the personal subjective aspects of happiness
are even more important as a bottom line to ART than the
objective truth on which everything rests as a foundation.
Her personal music likes/loves/feelings/emotions encompassed
the particular classical as you mention but also the light
hearted tinkley happy "popcorn" or tiddley-wink music.
She had good home memories of classical triumphant music as
well as the trivial. She wrote about the ideals of free people
at the pinnacles of free people production of real wealth and
happiness and near those pinnacles there are a many infinity
of rooms for personal, SOULfull [Self Ownership of yoUr Life
full] likes and loves which vary with memories and experiences
and expectations [observe/analyize/decide]. Everyone is unique
in this aspect and only the weirdest of extremes [like loving
truly random noise] are nonhuman or socialist perversions.
She called her theory ROMANTIC - REALISM and it corresponds to an
exciting balance between the new technology and the long learned
happy sounds[ideas]. If you look for strict thought and calculation
you will always be disappointed. Think of all her ART works where
the NEW exciting powerful ideas for free people betterment and growth
is emphasized. It's about the rational ownership of the NEW "miracle"
technologies! Very high tech, exciting realism! It's why so many of
the new science types like the Ayn Rand pnilosophy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> Myself, I am partial to music of the late Baroque era: Vivaldi, Bach,
> Handel, Corelli, Telemann.... This is the height of the Age of
> Enlightenment, and the music shows it: it is precise, clear,
consonant--as
> opposed to romantic dissonance--VERY ORDERED, and entertaining. Bach,
> actually could get very romantic at times--see his some of his fugues
in
> minor keys, or the harpsichord concerto in d-. But the thing is,
Rand, who
> was obsessed with "rationality," likes romantic music. I just don't
> understand it. She's such a fan of Aristotle - but despises Mozart,
whose
> style is termed Rococo because of its revival of ancient Greek forms:
> symmetry, climax, and such....
>
> Romantic music to me, seems more mystic than rational, to use her own
> terminology.
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The romantic attitude ; things are good, the glass is half
full and getting fuller [positive thoughts about life and
pride in people and products] can drift over into fantasy
and the socialist mysticism/magic of the Plato/Kant/Chompsky
line where the socialist master or the king's men "creates"
the truth as they go along rather than objective reality but
this is a caution we have to deal with in all life happiness
issues. It's certainly possible to analyize our sound likes
to our learned experiences as you do [including note clusters]
but the variety of individuality of subjective tastes is
gigantic amongst the free people similar to their histories.
Good seeing. JD
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Steve M.
Another thing I noticed, which really strikes a sour note:
During the middle ages through the beginning of the rennaissance, you have
homophony: One voice, or many voices acting together. Through time,
counterpoint got more and more used, reaching its pinnacle with JS Bach.
Counterpoint is many voices going against each other but still working
together, several melodies struggling and fighting but still fitting into
the overall song: the fugue. This gave birth to the Concerto, a form of
music which usually had one--or several--solo instruments, playing in
contrast to the accompanying orchestra. Their was much counterpoint here,
and the soloist is kind of individualistic. The concerto was popular
through the rococo period, but during the rococo (aka classical period of
classical music: mozart, haydn, etc) the symphony was developed.
This is what gets me--the symphony consists largely of homophony: all the
voices move together, in one single melody or one harmony. This to me is
collectivism in music... There is only one voice on the melody, and all the
rest is harmony, or there is all one melody. Polyphony--different voices
doing different things; counterpoint--faded out of existence, until
Mendelssohn's Bach revival.
To me, the symphony represents everyone doing one thing at once, and I am
very perplexed to Rand's taste.
jddescr...@my-deja.com
You don't seem willing to allow for diverse likes/tastes.
I like western ballads and have no interest in your
complex multi-instrument technical accomplishments with sound.
I like the simple clear sentimental meanings and since I
don't play any instruments I don't marvel at the wood wind
dexterity, for example. Give me a good Bob Dylan with harmonica.
Someine who likes and identifies with your homomony maybe
likes the murmer of voices at the market better than
bubbling mountain streams but will often like both.
Unless your subject likes animal screams or some other
horror show you are over analyizing musical taste.
Now the reason that cords and rythmes and such are human
pleasing while chalk board limit cycle scratch is annoying
is related to objective physical properties of the multi-
frequency nonlinear properties of the audio system and will
reveal universal freatures when you study these harmonic
relations . This latter is similar to the objective study
of human behaviior that the Ayn Rand Theory [ART] entails
for human science and has many analogs.
Good seeing. JD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomm Carr
> This is what gets me--the symphony consists largely of homophony: all the
> voices move together, in one single melody or one harmony. This to me is
> collectivism in music...
Give me a break. Have we developed such an anti-collectivist reflex that our
knees all jerk when we see any group of people cooperating on a common task? A
symphony orchestra is not a collective. They work together on a common goal,
but don't we all? But while cooperating at one level, they compete against each
other at another. The musicians are ranked according to ability and their
position in the orchestra is determined by contest. The First Chair trumpet is
the best trumpet player, Second Chair First Violins is the second-best first
violinist and so forth.
The music produced by a good orchestral composition performed by a good
orchestra is some of the best music you will ever hear. And, just as a good
book/play/movie will have a main plot supported by one or more side plots, so a
good piece of orchestral music. I couldn't care less that Richard Wagner wrote
about gods and mythical beings. What is important is that the music stirs the
human spirit. Listening to Beethoven's Ninth is not listening to homophony!
Crieg, Holstz, I could go on. There is no bland sameness, no playing it safe,
no tedium in the great works of Romantic Orchestral pieces. What were the
composers thinking when writing their works? I don't know and don't care. It
is music that grabs you, teases out your emotions and carries them to heights
you never knew existed.
I don't know if this is what Ayn Rand liked about Romantic art. For me it is
uplifting, joyful, optimistic, inspirational. It plays to all that is great in
humanity. It shows us that greatness is not an unreachable ideal, but a goal we
can grasp.
> There is only one voice on the melody, and all the
> rest is harmony, or there is all one melody. Polyphony--different voices
> doing different things; counterpoint--faded out of existence, until
> Mendelssohn's Bach revival.
If you can listen to Pictures at an Art Exhibition and hear nothing but harmony,
I feel there is no hope for you.
TommCatt
--
"Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision
for the limits of the world." - Arthur Schopenhauer
Larry Kulp
First, symphonies, whether composed during the Romantic Era or in more
contemporary times, are mixtures of homophony and polyphony. Most symphonic
music is loaded with canonic, fugal, and otherwise simultaneously interwoven
thematic lines.
Second, and more importantly, you apparently do not understand that a
serious musical composition, whether homphonic or polyphonic in style, is
(ideally) an organic whole.
Third, you contradict yourself. What difference does it make that
polyphonic voices "work together" horizontally (sequential or linear
counterpoint) or that homophonic voices "work together" vertically
(simultaneous harmonies). In either case, they "work together" to form the
ultimate unity of the work. (For that matter, even polyphonic voices are in
harmony at any given moment.)
The important point is that, in all good music, the constituents are
meaningless apart from the whole. Just as individual human beings are made
of constituent parts working together to form an integrated whole, so it is
with good music. Just as you would regard an individual, don't fixate on
the parts, but look at the symphony's totality.
Why don't you start listening to symphonies for their more complex
structures? You apparently hear nothing but melodies, chords, and rhythms.
But fine music is much more than that. From the Romantics onward, even more
than in the Baroque period, composers have contiually striven for ever
greater complexity--structures within structures within structures (both
vertical and horizontal)--while still attempting to create a unified
conception, which is the goal of all good art. It takes practice to be able
to discern this complexity. And you have to pay attention.
Finally, what on earth does homophony vs. polyphony have to do with
collectivism vs. individualism? Baroque polyphony strove for unity of
concept no less than does modern homophony. To analogize the parts of a
composition with separate individuals is like analogizing kidneys with
separate persons. This would be a substantial conceptual and logical error.
Look at the whole symphony, not its parts, as if it were a single, whole
person.
And stop looking for hidden political or philosophical agendas. Music is
not explicit enough for that, because it communicates emotional states, not
propositions. (Composers who try to communicate the latter fail to do so,
but instead still wind up conveying their inarticulate, subconscious sense
of life.) Save your articulation of the subconscious for material which is
more susceptible of rigorous rational analysis. Meanwhile, trust your own
sense of life, otherwise you'll be missing a lot of beauty in the world. If
the music moves you, then enjoy it. If it doesn't, then listen to something
more to you liking.
KULP
Steve M. <Clig...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2ykK5.142794$4d.21...@news02.optonline.net...