Pytheus

Well said. I'd say based on your response that you regard melody as intrinsically harmonic. If so, I'd agree! I agree with your entire post. There is been a huge volume of writing in the last twenty years on this subject. But unfortunately most of it is based on, yes, you guessed it...Plato! EVen Aristotle held views on music similar to Plato's, but are they right? Does a particular "type" of music or in this case non-music, have an effect on the individual? Is there enough data to support a conclusion to this either way. Miss Rand suggests that an active mind will be drawn to more complex musical ideas, or as Aristoxeus might say, musical space. But even she stopped short of a final answer and just offered an hypothesis.

The short answer...yes. Teaching a mind how to function properly in general is a good way to put it. When I was a young lad we had "general" music class that involved basic part singing, some instrumentation, rythmics, etc...When I studied music at the college level music appreciation was a joke. It didn't have to be, but it was. This might have changed by now, but judging from the general state of the culture I'd say it hasn't. I remember a funny story from my college days. An older female composer friend of mine asked me to conduct her first major piece, "Engima" for chamber orchestra. Of course as I student my mentor, Dr. Joe Barry Mullins, told me to conduct two dogs barking if I could get them to sit still long enough just to gain experience. So I agreed and she gave me the score. I'm flipping through it and ask her quite seriously what the melody was supposed to be. She replied, equally serious, that melody was dead! I didn't know melody had died! This was shocking. Had the media been alerted? Was there an investigation? Of course it was until some years later that I learned of the culprit. I conducted the "thing"! And it was a learning experience in many respects. But UGHH! I looked her up a few years ago, and she's now a member of a Bi/Gay/Lesbian/Transgender music association in a major American city. "Engima" was the right choice for a title! P.S. We are no longer in contact.

I've heard that term "Pre-Music" before, but I don't understand what is means. Rather than "Post-Music" I'd submit Non-Music, also known as noise. But as for Medieval music NOT being music I'd disagree, it does meet all the criteria as music as I understand it. Maybe not good music, but music none-the-less. Of course all this could have been avoided if Rome had never fallen and the development of Greek musical thought had continued. But alas that didn't happen. These Greek musical ideas weren't "lost" they were DESTROYED! Burned in Bonfires of the Vanities by Chrsitian mobs intent on the destruction of anything pagan. Why do you think the Church modes are different from the original Greek ones? Because the original texts had been consigned to the flames and the morons left in charge GOT IT WRONG!

Christopher, I just got back in and realized you had a link in your last post. I checked it out. Indeed you are doing something. <applause> I listened to a few selections. I fully admit the instrumentation shook me some, but that's because I'm simply not accustomed to it. I just may have to place an order and become more aquainted with this music! Bravo! Pytheus

Dear sotwareNerd, Who are the authors of this series? In my opinion those definitions aren't very good. The phases are useful to help classify time periods in an general way but do they include the Romantic period under Modern? (I think the word you are looking for is Homophonic.) I'll submit some better definitions for you later, if you have a sincere interest. Regards, Pytheus

My primary instrument was clarinet, although my primary interest was conducting. Since I was about 6 years old, "classical" music is the only type that's really held any interest for me. Learning other songs or popular music was nice when it came to meeting girls, but beyond that it bored me quickly. And I rather expected the girls to "keep up" with my level of thinking but most didn't have the bulk for serious musical thought. (I do admit I have met and know some excellent female musicians.) What I mean by "proper training" is how to concentrate or focus your attention and how to listen for the different "voices". That's one reason I like to use examples from Bach when teaching this to others. Simple fuges are great tools for sharpening listen skills and demonstrating how a theme or melody is passed from voice to voice and molded and modified in the process. Of course this is utterly impossible with someone like Jon Cage! And though I do not consider film music an art, I do think it can be useful in teaching. I think music thoery as such can be helpful, but it's not a prerequiste or even necessary in the appreciation of music. That is more of a concern to the composer. I'm much more in line with the thinking of Aristoxenus on this issue. I'd say more, and perhaps will later, but I'm late for a dinner enagement. Regards, Pytheus

I am a muscian, although I don't play anymore. I'd have to say that TODAY, my favorite composer is probably J. Brahms. But in truth I have many favorites, it's akin to picking your favorite star in the sky. Brahms is often described as "dark", but I hear it as "dark chocolate", thick towering hamonies and DEFIANT. THe Brahms Clairent Qunitet is a gigantic work, the second movement is some of the most searingly beautiful music I've ever heard. I like Beethoven, especially all the piano works and quartets. And I do love Bach, the Chacone from the Partita No2 for solo violin is astounding! The concerto's, organ works, wonderful. Did you know the first 2 movements (Kyrie and Gloria) of the B-minor mass were written as a job application? I base my comments about other Objectivists not liking Bach on comments like yours...you don't like it. Or at least you don't like much of it. I've heard these comments many times over the years and haven't been able to put my finger on the why of it. Perhaps it is my training, but I think any deep understanding of what took place musically in the 19th century must be based on a firm understanding of what happened in the 17th and 18th centuries...especially a deep understanding of Bach. In my opinion, and I stress this is just MY opinion, Bach is the cornerstone of modern western music. (Modern meaning the time since the Age of Reason, not modern in the sense of John Cage.) Plus I do think it takes proper training and the development of listening skills to hear Bach properly. But I think it takes those skills to hear most any composer properly. Most people seem to regard listening to music as a mindless thing that doesn't require any effort. For example, I counted a few weeks ago, the number of CD's in the local music store devoted to things like "Music for Reading" and "Music for Friends" and "Music for Lovers" and "Music to trim the Verge by"! There were over 30 such titles! Now I do unerstand why music companies make such releases, but it does say something about the culture. Personally I think it is a lack of musical training brought about by the utter destruction of classical music...AS SUCH....by philosophers and their lap dogs, the modern academic composer! I damn them all! Now, if you require an example, I submit "Opera Babes"! Yes, you read it right, "Opera Babes'! Go get a a recording of the great Renata Trebaldi singing one of the most beautiful aria's ever written, "Un bel di" and compare that to what the "Opera Babes" did to it in 2002. It's like someone re-writing "Atlas Shrugged" and leaving out all the verbs! But back to my point, for me at least, listening to music is something that requires intense concentration...it require EFFORT! If people made love the way they listen to music the world would be depopulated in a decade! I don't know much about the "pop" music scene, perhaps you can recommend something. I've been studying so called "classical" music almost 40 years and I still don't have it all down. There's always one more thing to learn, one more composition I haven't heard. But, the field is dying and rightly so, at least in it's current form. But what my friend will replace it?

I have absolutely no idea who most of the "bands" or performers are. But I am well versed in Bach, Brahms, Beethoven, Rachmaninov, Chopin, et al. Bach in particular is interesting. Objectivists seem to avoid Bach as if their very life were in danger. Why is that? Is it that he's just simply not liked or is it because he did write some religious music?

There was a excellent TV show written by Joss Whedon called "Firefly" They made 14 episodes, and aired 11 of them. The show was cancelled but it is available on DVD. It's a western set in space. The cast is perfect! For TV it is excellent! The movie version is coming out in Sept called "Serenity" which is the name of the ship. If you like well written shows then you will love this one.

We'll I guess I'm the odd man out on this one. I didn't care for the movie. It was technically great, but the writing was "off", and overall it wasn't any fun. For example, in the original movie, which if I remember correctly Dahl wrote the screenplay for, Willie sings a charming song in the "Candy Room". When the door opens there is a sense of excitment and wonder that's lacking in Burton's version. Gene Wiler brought a loving charm to the roll that Depp lacked...he just seemed weird. Joe Morgenstern at the Wall Street Journal put it best..."engagement without entertainment."

Well of course, now that I feel like a school boy at lessons!

Long shot...G. Bruno?

OK, was it Galileo? Didn't he write a paper on the properties of water and refraction?

Ok, was it an English scientist, Thompson or something like that? Around 1840 or so?