Re: thank you
Originally posted by fredx
You are the first person on this site to actually stop and read what I said without for one reason or another skipping over it and you even commented on what i said. You made my day. Still, I may have to disagree with you.
Firstly, I think a rhythm is definitely part of music.
Oh yes, definitely!! Rhythm is harmonic accents, it's one of the most powerfull aspects of music, and I'm sure Rand would agree with me as her favorite style of dance was tap. Personally my favorite instrument is the drum machine. Every good drummer knows that the tempo is set by the key, when rhythm clashes with chords disonance is created which is sometimes desirable but many musicians who fail to grasp this concept end up with too much dissonance and too little resolution.
Secondly, I think that your understanding may be impeded by the fact that you are so very intellectual, that you may not take what lesser beings think and feel into consideration.
lol, I don't believe this describes me. I'm motivated to study philosophy to understand all relevent aspects of my world including other people. Other people see differences between philosophy, psychology, mathematics, music, thinking, emotion, the practical, and the ideal. I've never been able to see any fundamental differences (genus/species differences yes though). Maybe I'm just weird? But I do take my audience into consideration, the only thing different and politically incorrect about me is that my aim is contribution, not concensus.
Immediately related to this is your belief that there is no difference between the heart and mind, when although of course "the feeling heart" may not find its locus in the "pumping heart", there is a "feeling heart" which often defies the rationality, intellectualism and logic of our minds.
Therefore, Ann Rand's ideas sound pretty, but when you weigh them for emotional substance, you might find the arm of the scale representing Ann Rand is way up in the air.
No, defying the logic of our minds is precisely what our emotions cannot do. Ayn Rand didn't develope this idea as much as her pupil, psychologist Nathaniel Branden, although she did lay the foundation. What the emotions do is sum up everything in your mind, concious and subconcious and even reflexes. Everyone has a subconcious metaphysical evaluation of the world, however contradictory it may be, which Rand called "Sense of Life". All your beliefs and assumptions and perceptions go into shaping this. For instance, if you decide eating ice cream is evil after a brutal punishment as a child, even if the explicit assumption is forgotten, you will feel a tinge of guilt whenever you eat ice cream until the assumption is challenged. This is logical within the context of the mind, even though it doesn't follow logically from reality- humans are fallible. Emotions are physiological, they effect and are effected by your body. But the effect occurs in and is perceived by the mind.
The relevence is once you understand the true meaning of your emotions, their sources and purpose for keeping you alive and allowing you to fully experience the world, they gain a whole new intensity that's totally impossible when entrapped in the prison of irrational, undefinable whims. That's why Rand was so intensely romantic and passionate in her fiction, philosophy, and everything else.
Some people would swear that "underground" stuff that you are calling garbage. I am sure there is some kind of objective judgement of quality that exists. Still, this music might make them feel good or they might find it interesting. It has some appeal..
People gravitate to art that reflects their own Sense of Life. Someone who holds a malevolent and irrational view of the universe will find pleasure in art that reinforces this idea, pleasure that can't be found anywhere else because reality is constantly contradicting them thus increasing their anxiety and frustration--anxious, frustrating music is then actually a release for them because it serves as a validation.
As for the music purist part of your argument. I create songs with my guitar, at least rhythems with nice words and melodic singing, without worrying if its a g flat I am playing or a C major or whatever. Mostly I just play the basic chords: Am, C, G, E, etc. I've taken lessons in the past but I really don't know music theory that deeply. That doesn't mean that I don't make nice music that people couldn't potentially "vibe" to. You sound like an idealist and a purist when it comes to music, but sometimes it comes down to: does it sound nice, can I feel what this person is trying to express, can I feel it? For people not like us, i.e. non-intellectuals, music is not about the mind or thinking or such an intellectual thing, its can I shake my booty to this? Just some thoughts.
If you know that the function y=x^2 is a parabola, you don't have to plot every point to get the message across. You can never plot every point. You can probably never learn everything there is to know about music theory, or anyway you don't have to. Basically all chord progressions can be viewed as variations on the standard "I, IV,V" progression anyway. However, I'm sure you've realized no vibe is created by randomly striking the strings with no rhyme or reason or any thought put into which frets are being held down whatsoever. And in fact, even this would be somewhat rational, because you would have to at least have a vague notion of the concept "if i strike the strings, sound will result". Likewise, the more relevent information you discover, the better the vibe you'll be able to create. Ha, sorry this post is so long, I can email you if you're still confused or if the moderator edits out anything imporant. : ) Objectivism attempts to transcend the ideological/practical dichotomy.
