Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Styles2112

Regulars
  • Posts

    424
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Styles2112

  1. That's not really true. It was a long time ago, but today's American military is trying to do more with less. I.e. trying to have far superior technology so that we can use less of our troops. Example- Our U.S forces are, arguably, much better, and more effective, than they were in WWII. Yet, currently we have about HALF the amount of troops that we did then. But, because of the quality of soldiers and new technology we can accomplish more with less. So size is not always a factor.
  2. I don't know any "trucks" that get 35 miles to the gallon. Unless they're talking about those tiny little rangers and what not. No REAL truck gets that kind of gas mileage.
  3. Yeah, you're definitely listening to the wrong stuff. Jazz is ALL about Rhythm. (Speaking from a guy who plays Jazz on drums.) It also has fantastic melody (Although, at times, simple). Listen to the artists spoken before, but also check out some: Dave Brubeck Quintet (especially "Take Five"), Miles Davis (pretty much anything by him), and for a bit more "rhythm" Get some Buddy Rich (Best of, perhaps).
  4. True. Of course, in my case, I just suck at explaining ANYTHING (including things I know well), so often I make the problem worse, rather than better.
  5. I don't think any of those artists are attempting to stand on the same pedestal as those you listed. Metal bands built their own pedestal (painted black, with red blood [paint] dripping off and a headless bat laying on it) Out of curiousity, what are we defining as metal here? I don't listen to black metal, but I'll listen to pop metal. Is Rush metal? What about King Crimson? How much distortion do you need before it becomes metal? Jimi Hendrix? Was he metal?
  6. I'm going to go out on a REALLY far limb and guess that you don't like metal music. (Nothing you have said so far, brought me to this point.... ) I like some heavy music. I think that music should reflect the lyrics or the intended story or purpose of the piece. In that context, I think metal has a place (Although, Christian Metal still has me baffled...."I love Jesus, I love Jesus......RAWR!!! duhn, duhn duhn...."). Personally, I would not use an oboe to suggest my deep anger about something, but distorted guitar (since anger can blind or blur your senses, the blurring of sound is an appropriate analogy) or distorted bass would be appropriate. Personally, I really like all types of music and can see purpose in them (well, maybe not techno.... ) I've said in other threads that my favorite music is prog rock (my definition- Rock music with classical influence). I like complex music, but without definition or a goal for that song, it's no good to me. Taking Rush's 2112 (a VERY objectivist piece), which has influenced many a metal player (being a very heavy piece, especially the overture), is influenced by classical music. The Overture follows a French overture to a "T" and the musicianship is phenominal throughout the entire thing. HOWEVER, I don't like bands like Korn or Limp Bizkit where it is (to me) just a slur of noise and swearing (which I REALLY hate in music). But, strangely, I do like Linkin Park (uplifting lyrics, and catchy riffs). On the same note, I love Beethoven, Stravinsky, and several other classical composers for many of the same reasons.
  7. As my memory recalls, most of the horn sheets I've seen (since, as a drummer, that's usually what I like to read off of) all have the figured bass written in. But, in some ways, it really wouldn't matter for the horn player, since he really only has to worry about his written melody, and playing a solo (yes, he needs to be aware of the chord changes, but if he's playing a blues scale, it doesn't matter as much). The point is, all music is based on the voice leading from chord to chord. Just sticking random chords next to each other without reason (i.e. Voice leading) will not, usually, present a good song, or unless you're intentionally avoiding voice leading, and attemtping to go against all written music theory.
  8. That's not actually all that true. When labelled, those sheets that the "horn" players get have figured bass on them, so that those horn players know what the root note is. So, when they read that section, they will see I-IV7-V6/4. The bass/root note DETERMINES the voice leading, as you study in elementary harmony. I don't know. After reading all this, I agree with Christopher. If you look at the history of it, voice leading came first, and chords progressed because of voice leading, not the other way around. Normally, most composers know, and set aside the chords/chord progressions they want, becuase they have an idea of how the voicings are going to go. I know for my writing, in particular, that the chords are secondary to the actual notes and leading, but then, most of my writing is done in counterpoint. To the original point of this thread, the art of jazz (swing/be-bop etc.) is in the syncopation between the drums/rhythm and the melody (which is written/composed). I think that's where the true art and appreciation comes in. Yes, much of it is improv, but you just don't get the syncopation like that anywhere else.
  9. I've always been into Jazz rock or Prog rock, Rock that expands upon itself (i.e. getting away from simple three chord progression) I've found Rush to be one of the best bands at telling a story and musically interesting and complex. King Crimson falls in that boat as well. I took an instrumental by Rush, called "La Villa Strangiato," and orchestrated for my orchestration class, and it was awesome. It translated really well, especially with the dynamics and power of the brass section. I tend to like most music if it's catchy (i.e. some pop metal and other pop stuff) but I find that the music I listen to the most is (in order)- Prog Rock(Rush, King Crimson, Yes), Jazz (Buddy Rich, Miles Davis, Ahmed Jamal) and Classical (Beethoven, Stravinsky, Joshua Bell [a new favorite], Grieg). All very complex and interesting stuff.
  10. You know...I've seen pretty much every Buffy episode....EXCEPT THAT ONE!!! Damnit. My parents told me that it was good. I seriously need to get Season 6 on DVD soon. The two other great Buffy's (Artistically, and boldness) are Hush (the entire show was silent, no music or speaking, until the end.) and the one in season 5 where her Mom dies (Again no music, and the acting was suberb in bringing out the reality of emotions.) Between Buffy and Angel, Joss Whedon had to killer shows, where creativity could run rampant.
  11. The Man is the Hero from 2112, which is, essentially, a regurgitated version of Anthem (which is another great Rush song) I also, believe that it is the same man, standing on the brains on the cover of "Hemispheres" I Love Rush album art.
  12. Isn't this, more or less, discussed in the "Ethics of emergencies" in VOS? I seem to recall that that essay addressed that specific issue. Since you apply Warrior to anyone defending One or other's rights (and we're not talking about police and military), I would say that that essay would cover all that you want to know.
  13. That's an interesting thought. I know I have a hard time explaining to my wife the Objectivist view. But, I'm, very much, in the same boat as you. I've been reading Rand for a while now, but I just got into the non-fiction books. Like you, despite some minor disagreements I have with it, it's had an overall positive influence in my life. It is, at times, very hard to explain. Essentially what you're telling people (who don't know it) is we believe the polar opposite of what you believe (and, of course, one only imagines the reaction that that brings). Still, an interesting thought you had.
  14. Strangely, my father, while not a True Objectivist (though, much of his thinking is in line with it), is the one who got me into the idea of it. He gave me "Anthem" around 8 years ago, and it quickly became one of, if not, my favorite books. I later read "Atlas Shrugged" (which took me MUCH longer), and had found that a lot of my already established thinking, was in line with much of it. Actually, it's pretty nice, because if I want to talk about stuff I've been thinking about, he's always a good choice for me. I've always wondered whether the difference in age is one of the things that helps me be closer to ideals with my parents (i.e. I'm in my early-mid twenties and my parents are in their early-mid forties.) It would be quite interesting to see the background of that sort of thing. Plus; age with culture/state/country.
  15. I'm currently using this, which is the back of the Rush album "Hemispheres"
  16. I had a similar thing, but mine was music and Army. Luckily, I fell into a nice position where I do both (working for an Army band). I don't make oodles of money, but I'm good at what I do, and I get to play music all the time! Can't really beat that. You'd be surprised at what you can combine. I know OT's (Occupational therapists) who've used their musician skills to create new instruments and sound for the sake of their jobs. On the other hand, I'd have no idea how to apply neurotechnology to music, but if you're good and inspired, you'll find a way! Good luck with the decision.
  17. I can see your point here, but I disagree. I think the continued settlement (regardless if it's only seasonal) qualifies for ownership. I was also under the impression that they, too, farmed the land. Maybe, I was wrong, but I thought I had read that somewhere. I agree. However, does the man in Montana who "owns" 10 miles worth of land, open to having his land taken because he is not using (in anyway, shape or form) that land? I agree with you here as well, with a slight differation. I think that had the Native Americans been worried about LOSING land, they might have had set boundries drawn up. It would seem to me that they had not expecting a conquering nation to come in and settle on their lands (used by them for hundreds of years). Had set boundries been made, it would have been easier to sell, or trade. Then how else do you claim unowned land? I see what you mean about claiming land by "tradition," but the land they lived on...well isn't possession 9/10ths of the law in that case? Thanks for a well written and thought-out reply. Your stance was a bit clearer to me in this one than was in previous posts.
  18. Are you intending for it to be an acoustic piece? If that's the case, then bass (electric) may not be the best idea. Piano chords backing it up would be nice in that case. I would then add a some nice brush work, picking it up to a pop beat at the chorus. If you want to make it a bit heavier than I would probably stick with a light pop beat, with the electric bass. Personally, I thought it had a nice effect as an acoustic piece (I could definitely hear some brush work going on behind it.) I have band practice tonight, I but I can try and do some work with it tomorrow night and send it to you.
  19. Yeah, if you send it to me in AIF or mp3 form I can probably add something to it. I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet....I might only be able to do so when I'm at home.
  20. Rational one, What, EXACTLY, is ownership then? They lived on that land (regardless of moving around on it.), used it's resources, and it was there home. Are you saying that if you had 500,000 acres that you would not move around on it? Especially to protect it's borders? Just because it's a collectivist society, does not mean they do not own the land that they use (and that no one used before them.) You are saying that, because we saw them as not having ownership (despite living on that land for how many years, and living off of it), that gave us the moral right to slaughter them, tag them, and move them? (Asking this question, by the way, does not make me an "Anti-American Troll." I am interested in the answer, whether I agree with it or not.)
  21. Couple things to this post. As a person who's been diagnosed with ADD since he was 5 (and on Ritalin since 6-11), I'm not sure I agree with that. It's funny, after discussing much of this with my wife (an Occupational Therapist), her view on ADD is not that it's abnormal, but in that it's more normal than the rest of people. That humans were not designed to be sitting around on computers all day, smoking pot, being lazy. We were designed to be a constantly moving machine. She believes that ADD is a modern reflection of this traditional trait of humans. But, I digress. As an ADD person, the only thing I enjoy, is the occasional glass of an alcoholic drink. Usually never more than one or two (almost never more than two, usually just one) and never more than once or twice a month. I abhor the idea of drinking to get drunk (which is why I was seldom seen fri and sat nights at college, because I could never stand that crowd. ) The reason I enjoy the drinks that I do, is because they TASTE good, and because they relax me a bit, without taking anything away from me. But, I understand their dangers, and I do everything within my power to prevent true Intoxication of those drinks. I do, however, like your story on quitting alcohol. My papoo (Greek for grandfather) had always told me a story on him with cigarrettes. He could never understand why we needed these patches and therapy for quitters today. He'd say to me,"I used to smoke two packs a day for 40 years straight, and when my father died, I just quit. No patches, no nothing, I just decided to quit." I've always wondered why it isn't just that easy for some people.
  22. Sorry, my finger reached over too far and hit the "h" instead of the "G." Proven by Scientists? Do we teach this in schools? Or is it just a couple of people who "happen" to agree, and then write their own books on the matter? How is THAT proof? However, I know several people who produce all their values, i.e. work for their money, follow trade principles, but believe in god, and therefore...by your definition, cannot be happy. Yet all other rules are followed. THIS is what I'm talking about, you're trying to say that THESE people AREN'T happy? Again, I don't see your measuring stick. I'm not talking about thieves, murderers, and parasites. I'm talking about simple people who work hard, live life, and believe in god. You condemn them to a lifetime of not being happy? For what, so you can be? I don't see it.
  23. Maybe, but having someone who challenges you is important, as well. My wife and I have different political views, and I respect hers, and she respects mine, but we make sure we keep each other in line, by being able to back up what we say. I know, for me, that she keeps me thinking. And that's an important aspect of her, that I greatly value. She doesn't need to agree with me, she just needs to respect what I think. And I do the same for her.
  24. Question, is the man tricking out his ride himself? If he is doing the work himself, then his pride in his craftsmanship is equal to that of the writer, he can then be as happy.
  25. But, see, this is the exact thing that I'm talking about. where's the proof? Do you simply accept it, because SHE said so? While I see some rationality in it, I don't see total rationality in it. Also, Jmehansnow, I agree. An individual can measure individual happiness (or individual joys=instantaneous joy) against each other (i.e. I'm happier spending "private" time with my wife, than drumming, and I get more joy from drumming than riding horses). However, What I'm saying, is how do we measure those collective joys against one another to say that I'm happier than you/ you're happier than me? And, in the end, why would we want to? Americonorman, I liked what you had to say. it is similar to what TomL had to say to begin with. The Introspect thing. My one question. What is OPAR?
×
×
  • Create New...