Skywalker

Walker, I agree with your analysis of Return of the King. ARI has endorsed the Harry Potter series despite its elements of magic. The Lord of the Rings series is truly heroic, and its main point is the importance of struggling against evil. I also don't think it's coincidence that the heroes are the "men of the West" - the series is endorsing the values of life that make the West superior. Plus, the film versions so effectively evoke the heroic in man that I can't imagine anyone disliking them. Another great series, and I'm surprised no one's mentioned it, is the Star Wars trilogy! Few other films have such a fantastic combination of drama, adventure, great characters and acting, and intelligent, unique storyline. All three movies are fantastic, and I can't praise them enough. It's interesting how people interpret the same films differently. There's a debate on this forum about whether A Bug's Life (and its far superior precedessor, Seven Samurai) resonates with Objectivist themes, or is socialist propoganda. The movie is clearly an attack on the exploitation of the productive, and pro creative individualism. That seems pro-capitalism to me, but some completely disagree, seeing it as championing an "oppressed proletariat". What standard do you use to judge a film's philosophical quality? Is there an objective method of determining authorial intent? I would argue that unless the author of a script explicitly states his thematic intent, the best we have is individual interpretation.

Walker - I agree with you about the tension. I don't think it's important to have tons of theory background to recognize something like that. (Personally, I've played guitar, bass and some keyboard for about a decade, and I teach guitar as well, but my theory background isn't as extensive as I'd like.) I think music that demonstrates only the "good" or "happy" is less effective than music that creates a sense of drama by depicting a contrast, or battle between light and dark - that makes the positive resolution all the more fulfilling. The Liszt sonata in B minor, which I mentioned previously, is one of my favorite examples of this, with its incredible "thematic transformations" that present some very ominous themes, then turn them into beautiful uplifting melodies through dynamic and melodic alterations. There's a lot of music theory to that kind of juxtaposition, certain chords and key changes increase the effect, but I think the main thing is understanding the way a sense of drama and forward momentum toward a satisfying resolution is key to a great piece. Halley - With the minor third, do you mean used as a relative in the major key? Do you have any favorite composers who use this technique (or just favorites in general)? Also, I'm curious about the present work you mention. Would you be willing to discuss it at all? Are you doing symphonic composition, or something else like classical style guitar or piano solo work?

Hi Walker, I'd like to opine on your question to Richard Halley if I may. I don't think you can identify a clear message in non-programmatic (absolute) music. With a programmatic piece like Schumann's "Carnival," the message is to express the joy and beauty of the masquerade ball and the emotions of the attendants, and will probably inspire similar emotions of happiness and excitement in listeners. But with a piece of absolute music, such as Brahms's symphonies or Liszt's sonata in B minor, there isn't a clear "message." However, there are certain emotional qualities that certain musical phrases inspire - to use a simple example, the major key is typically heard as "happy," and the minor key as "dark" or "sad." But these must be taken in context. There can be uplifting pieces in the minor key - Rachmaninoff's second and third piano concertos, for example - and sadder pieces in the major. In light of this, it's difficult to say that a non-programmatic piece is "about" something in particular. To me, the aforementioned Liszt sonata in B minor evokes a internal battle between good and evil, with good ultimately triumphing (perhaps I think this because I know Liszt was fascinated by subjects like this). But someone else may find it to "mean" something completely different. That said, it's hard to listen to something like the first movement of Beethoven's Waldstein and not feel the energy and joy of it, due to its major-key melodies and quick, exciting pace. (As Halley suggested, this is true of some modern "non-art" music like Rush, especially a song like "Freewill" or my personal favorite "Analog Kid".) So while I think it's erroneous to claim all music has a "message," there are emotional qualities at the heart of certain pieces. I would be interested in discussing other pieces that generate the emotions of triumph and happiness, and how they do so through musical techniques.

"Defending one's rights" is not the same thing as wiping out several entire nations with nuclear weapons. No one here is saying we shouldn't act in our self-interest, we clearly must, but I have to agree with Poohat. What Bearster proposes is not in America's self interest and is not a rational means of self-defense. We can bring down a dangerous regime - using force - without purposely annihilating the entire population of the controlled country. Can you really suggest that we destroy, for example, the population of Iran, who in majority are screaming for freedom and the overthrow of their theocracy? The people of Iraq similarly wanted their tyranny removed; most reports agree that the anti-coalition terrorists there now are foreigners who came specifically to fight the US. (As to Bearster's comment about the sanction of the victim, I think it's clear that the people of Iraq had no means of bringing Saddam's regime down from within, so nothing suggests sanction in that particular case. The dancing in the streets after his fall suggests quite the opposite.) My judgement is that the Iraqi people aren't interested in struggle, but stability, and there is no rational reason we should have "annihilated" them. It's unlikely that the entire population of somalia presents a threat to US security, either. I completely agree with RE that we should get out of Iraq as soon as possible and focus on self-defense, but that doesn't mean we need to kill everyone in a country after we remove its brutal government. Nor does it mean that some measure of helping to set up a free post-war government is detrimental to our self-interest - only that our post-war involvement shouldn't be this extensive.

Just out of curiousity, RESG, why do you argue for an attack on Pakistan immediately? Isn't at least Iran a more imminent threat, given their accelerating pursuit of nuclear weapons? It's true that Pakistan already has them, but as I understand that situation, they're all pointed at India. What has given you the idea that Pakistan would distribute these weapons to terrorist groups? This isn't to say I believe them to be a legitimate "ally" of ours, just that I don't see them as an imminent threat and am curious why you disagree. Also, does the PA constitute a threat to American security, or should Israel deal with them? Again, as I understand it, Israel could easily dismantle them if it chose to. Finally, an argument for occupation is that if we "bomb the crap out of" a country, depose a corrupt regime, and do not assist in restoring order, we've sown the seeds of hatred for America and effectively swollen terrorist ranks. The people will want "revenge," and turn to the same kind of regimes to provide it; I don't believe that, as you claim, they will eventually see the error of their ways. (I mean, the Islamic world has been seeking "revenge" for the Crusades ever since the 11th century.) I believe it's in American self-interest not to be caught in an endless cycle of having to destroy the governments and elusive terror-networks in third world countries.

Hi everyone, I'm a first time poster with a long-time interest in Objectivism, now seeking more knowledge on the subject. Having recently read the Romantic manifesto, I am comparing Rand's definition of Romanticism with the composers and writers to whom academia has given the same label. Particularly, I am speaking of Lizst, Beethoven, Chopin, Schubert, Schumann, Rachmaninoff, and their ilk. I saw in the "favorite music" thread that there are fans of these composers, so I am sure some will say they certainly believe their works to be in line with Objectivism's aesthetic principles, but if anyone is interested, I'd like to hear your thoughts on how these composers fit into Rand's philosophy of art. Are there any serious composers or pieces you'd recommend who you feel exemplify the Objectivist sense of life? This also suggests another question. Based on the favorite music thread, it seems some of you here like rock, pop and jazz in addition to Romantic and Classical. What do you think defines music that is palatable to Objectivists - is it merely the sense of life displayed therein? Or is there a level of musicianship that you look for? The "tiddlywink music" that Ayn Rand is said to have loved is really quite simplistic, but incredibly jubilant. However, Rand also loved Rachmaninoff's piano concertos. My own tastes are similar, as I like much very complex Romantic, classical and progressive rock music, but also enjoy some simplistic, energetic pop and punk music that makes me feel excited and happy. Feel free to discuss your own views on what constitutes great music, and how your view squares with Objectivist aesthetics.