Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

stephen_speicher

New Intellectual
  • Posts

    2455
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by stephen_speicher

  1. I could be wrong, but I have always thought that Rachmaninoff played some of his own pieces faster than I would like, and placed emphasis different from what I enjoy, as an expression of his own artistic choice. He was, afterall, not only a great composer but he was also considered to be a virtuoso performer, and I simply cannot imagine him playing faster in order to fit something on a recording. Besides, this "speedup" occurs on the Ampico piano rolls which, as far as I know, would not have any such limitation. Ah! Now here is a thought. Perhaps the transcribing process from the Ampico piano rolls affects various dynamics. That is worth looking into, when I have some time.
  2. I tend to seriously doubt this. Truly great performers internalize some music that they play -- especially their signature pieces -- and yet we do not observe extra speed or lack of emphasis in their performances from year to year. But, we have at least one composer here on the forum -- Christopher Schlegel -- so perhaps he may care to comment.
  3. As much as I love Rachmaninoff's music, I have never been able to fully appreciate his recordings of his own work. I always feel as if he was playing everything too fast, with not enough emphasis on what I would like. I jokingly say to myself that Rachmaninoff just does not know how to play Rachmaninoff! Personally, I am particularly fond of any performance of Rachmaninoff's works by Emil Gilels.
  4. I suspect you are thinking of "alternative" solely as a conscious choice, and therefore only applicable to volitional human beings. But the use of "alternative" in the Ayn Rand quote you provide is much broader than that, and "alternative" is mainly noted to distinguish life from inanimate matter. All living enities face the alternative of life or death, and their actions are in furtherance of one or the other. Even non-conscious life, such as a plant, faces such an alternative; goal-directed behavior does not imply purposeful choice. The roots of the plant will grow to seek water; if it finds it, it survives. If it does not, it dies. Contrast this with inanimate matter, such as a rock. The rock sits wherever it is, passively, reacting only to whatever forces impinge upon it. Unlike that which has life, inanimate matter does not face alternatives in regard to action; it does not have the goals and values that are inherent in life.
  5. In what way is her wanting to be a fashion designer reflective of some state of "her philosophical development?"
  6. Being "aware of the thread" does not imply that I have read all the posts in thread. In fact, after glancing at the first post I had no interest in the subject until redfarmer mentioned Stephen Siek's lectures on Rachmaninoff, and it is to that subject that I spoke up. Any criticism I have expressed in this thread had nothing to do with any poster's own view of folk music. WilliamB made an initial post which I found offensive, but I stopped reading the post at that point and just ignored it. Betsy properly criticized WilliamB for (among other things) his mind-reading and psychologizing towards Ayn Rand, which was a major part of what I had found so offensive in his post. Tryptonique chimed in and compounded the offense, justifying WilliamB's inappropriate behavior. I couldn't care less what view about folk music these two posters (and two others here) have, but I do care about their attributing to Ayn Rand thoughts and feelings that she never expressed, and bizarrely interpreting her words in support of their mind-reading. As I said to Tryptonique, I do not appreciate his attitude, perspective, nor his interpretations. I have no idea what "opinion" you think I revealed, but in the issue which concerned me I have no similarity with his. Again, I have absolutely no interest in these people's view of music, but I do care about what they misattribute to Ayn Rand. Free Capitalist, I have answered your questions (which I otherwise would have ignored from most others) because I hold some respect for your judgment. However, I do not want to spend my time on this forum explaining and justifying myself.
  7. You're welcome. And, again, to leave no chance of doubt, I am not saying that the velocity interpretation is necessarily wrong. Rather, that that interpretation is not an "observational fact," as is so often claimed, and that there exists some data which appears to contradict that interpretation.
  8. Yes, cosmological redshift as velocity is not an "observational fact" but rather an inference drawn from other observations, and indeed there are other (less well-known and, perhaps, lesser) theories that make different inferences. Someone asked a similar question on this forum several months ago and here is the response I gave. Probably the most mainstream advocate of alternate redshift theory is Irving Segal from MIT. Segal developed his Chronometric Cosmology, and has published many papers in the mainstream journals on his theory. He wrote a book called "Mathematical Cosmology" which has been used in many courses at various universities. Segal died about five years ago, but many of his students carry on his work. There is a survey paper which lists more than 20 alternative theories: Ghosh, A. (1991), "Velocity-dependent inertial induction: a possible tired-light mechanism", Apeiron 9-10, 35-44 I have read proceedings from a Redshift Controversy conference, but I do not have the reference handy. The problems with most of the "tired light" theories are mostly due to a lack of observed scattering effects. At least one person has developed a theory in which we are awash in a sea of gravitons, and that type of interaction would have neglible scattering effects. One book containing this idea is: Van Flandern, T. (1993), "Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets", North Atlantic Books, Berkeley. I believe there is a more current edition available. Please note that I am not endorsing any of these theories, nor am I catgorically rejecting redshift-as-velocity. Rather, I am pointing out that redshift is not an "observational" fact (as it is often represented) -- it is an inference-- and there is other data which conflicts with the standard view. Such discrepancies have been published in the literature for decades, and here I list just a few concerns. 1. Observations of high redshift quasars and low redshift galaxies that are clearly interacting and/or connected, yet have extremely disparate redshifts. 2. Companion galaxies that have redshifts higher than their parent galaxy. Both in the Local Group and in M81 there are eleven companions and this has been noted for all. Since the companions are orbiting, about half should have been blueshifted, but are not. 3. Higher redshift quasars have lower measured Faraday rotation than smaller redshift quasars, and the reverse should be true. 4. Galaxy clusters have been found which have as much as a four magnitude range of dispersion from the standard Hubble diagram relating redshift and brightness. 5. There is some evidence that redshifts are quantized, which is inconsistent with expected continuity of velocity. This preference for certain discrete values has been observed in a wide range. These are just some of the concerns with the traditional interpretation of redshift-as-velocity. The most notable objector to the standard view is famed astronomer Halton Arp, who has campaigned against the Big Bang theory for many years. His latest book has a lot of information that can be gleaned by the non-physicist. The reference is: Arp, Halton. (1999) "Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science", Apeiron, Canada. And, again, I am not endorsing any of these alternate theories -- all are problematic in my view -- but such alternate theories do exist.
  9. I have not been reading most of what you write here. Based on what I did read, your posts have been too long and rambling, and I did not appreciate your attitude, perspective, nor your interpretations. I responded to this one point because I saw my words right at the beginning of your post. Sorry, but if you do not like my replies please feel free to ignore my writings, much as I have mostly ignored yours. [snip the rest, unread.]
  10. Neither have I. Well, Betsy can speak for herself, if she even wants to, but I do not think what Ayn Rand wrote on folk music is much contended -- the little that Miss Rand wrote on the subject is quite clear -- but rather the contention is over some people's interpretation of such.
  11. It does have to, when WilliamB asserts that quote in support of his interpretation of Ayn Rand's view of folk music. [snip the rest, unread.]
  12. This was such an excellent post, I thought it worthy of acknowledgement by repetition.
  13. In that essay Miss Rand referred to folk art as "essentially similar and excruciatingly boring." Why do you think this is a "point of contention?"
  14. You (WilliamB) seem to have completely misread what Ayn Rand wrote. The first five things she stated -- "a heroic man, the skyline of New York, a sunlit landscape, pure colors, ecstatic music" -- are paired with the following five things -- "a humble man, an old village, a foggy landscape, muddy colors, folk music.." So, the only reference to music in that quote is to contrast "folk music" with "ecstatic music," not your "redundant, repetitive simplicity." And the second quote you provided, namely makes no reference to folk music at all. Yes, they do, but perhaps not in the way you intended.
  15. In other words, rather than addressing specific facts related to specific people, you decided to slur an entire group of Objectivists by lecturing us, telling us that we treat Objectivism as a religion and Ayn Rand as a prophet. I see. So your sense of propriety includes knocking on people's doors and telling them that they are treating as religion the philosophy they value so greatly, and treating the ideas of its founder, as a prophet. First, the philosophy I hold is not a matter of "beliefs," but rather a matter of careful and rigorous logical thinking that I have done over the course of my life. Second, your intended slur against my character was gratuitous, unsupported by reference to any facts. Your barefaced assertions carry no weight. Third, my "identity" is my mind -- my consciousness -- so in a very real sense my identity is those thoughts and ideas that I hold. I see. So in addition to being an expert on the ideas and views I hold, now you are also expert on my feelings and my motivation. You may have no doubts as to the veracity of your claims, but how unfortunate it is for us lesser folk that the pronouncements you make are unsupported by reference to any facts. First, I cannot speak for the basis of your philosophy, but, again, mine is not held as a matter of "belief." Second, it is you, not me, who spoke of "people who don't follow or find truth" in my philosophy, as being my enemy. It would be nice for a change if you could refer to what I actually said when making your unwarranted and unsupported judgments.
  16. That is sad and funny at the same time. Sad that you cannot find a really decent advisor, but funny that the best one under the circumstances is one who doesn't care. But, considering that not that many years ago you could not even put out an Objectivist-oriented publication on many campuses, perhaps your situation is not so bad.
  17. An infant possesses rights by virtue of being human. The essential difference between children and adults in this respect is that children require a guardian for those rights -- someone with the knowledge and skill to exercise the child's rights -- because the child is not physically and mentally equipped to exercise all of them on his own.
  18. I am regularly receiving mine, so that feature must still be enabled.
  19. Yes, it would be "out of bounds" if in doing so you indirectly imply, without naming names and addressing quotes, that someone(s) on this thread is in need of such a reminder. The charge of Objectivists blindly following the gospel of Ayn Rand is an old slur used by its enemies, and typically used by those who want to embrace the philosophy along with their several modifications to it; having their Objectivism and eating it too. So instead of lecturing a group of Objectivists about treating Objectivism as a religion and Ayn Rand as its prophet, directly address the facts that inspired your lecture.
  20. And as a sort of corollary to this, one might argue that a degree is required to actually believe that such noise is anything but corrupt. (I say this with all deference to the many fine institutions that actually do teach music.) Afterall, how is is possible to keep a straight face and treat the following with any degree of seriousness: A man sits down at the piano and lifts the lid, closing it after some time has elapsed without playing a single note. He repeats the same. Such is a "performance" of a "musical" piece, John Cage's 4' 33". Ironically, in a way, this may be preferrable to the noise introduced in other works. Believe it or not, a couple of years ago Mike Batt was sued by the estate of John Cage for his "One Minute of Silence" cut on an album. The Cage estate claimed violation of copyright for the sound of silence! Batt settled out of court.
  21. It is not easy to put out articles of substance on a weekly basis. I wish your group the best in this endeavor. I have one suggestion. You might want to consider putting a sprinkling of quotes by Ayn Rand in your articles, quotes that are appropriate to the subject at hand. There is nothing like the clarity of Ayn Rand's own words in getting many points across, and being beginning students of Objectivism this will enhance your consistency with Objectivism as you attempt to apply the philosophy to rather specific issues. Also, perhaps you should consider posting a PayPal account (or some other means) here and on your website for those of us who might want to offer some financial assistance. And, do you have a faculty advisor for this project?
  22. Fortunately so, since your view is quite typical of your fellow Libertarians who also glommed onto Ayn Rand primarily because of her politics. Staying focused on political obsessions you all miss out on the true spirit of the American people, and the malevolent sense of life of your "disgust" towards them is more misanthropic than reasonably based. I have a benevolent attitude towards the American people, but not so towards the Libertarians who misue Ayn Rand and Objectivism as an excuse and justification for their own malevolence.
  23. I am glad you enjoyed the movie. I have been listening carefully to the Crawford/Brightman recording and I was quite pleasantly surprised at the beauty of their performance. Crawford has a magnificent voice and communicates a sense of stronger emotion that was missing from the Colm Wilkinson performance I listened to previously. Brightman's voice just blew me away; a real operatic songbird. But I must say that I still favor the movie renditions of Gerard Butler and Emmy Rossum, Butler especially. Butler's voice is nowhere near the technical level of Crawford, but he is a real actor and his acting lends a dramatic emphasis to the role that overshadows what I hear in the other renditions. Similarly with Rossum, whose young innocence is more believable to me. With that said, I would have loved to see the stage version of the play with Crawford and Brightman, if nothing else than to see what they look like in their roles. I thought about my reaction to this for a while, entertaining the thought that maybe I was just emotionally attached to the first version I saw -- the movie. I have seen that sort of reaction in others. But I do not think that is the case. My most favorite piece of music is Rachmaninoff's Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, which I discovered when I was quite young. I listened to the recording over and over, lost and enraptured in the music every time. Then, many years afterwards, I discovered Emil Gilels' performance of the piece, and I put my original record away and never listened to it again. So, I am certainly not reluctant to give up my previous judgment for a better one, and though I thoroughly enjoyed the Original London Cast performance, I still greatly prefer the soundtrack from the movie. My first impression was that perhaps she was overacting, but it soon became clear in the context of the story that she really hit the mark. Driver is far from one of my favorite actresses, but I agree that she did a wonderful job in the movie. This is very strange. I just looked at the Libretto which comes with the two-CD Original London Cast recording, and it indicates that at the end of Act One the "chandelier falls to the stage at Christine's feet." In the screenplay the chandelier wreaks utter destruction near the end of the movie, not simply "falling to the stage" as in the stage version. But I fail to see how the stage version is self-consistent, considering that at the opening of the play the auctioneer says "this is the very chandelier which figures in the famous disaster." Those words are more consistent with the movie version than with the stage version.
  24. Leaving aside everyone's respective interpretations of Ayn Rand's words, I would like to understand your own thoughts on this. When you talk about "aversion to groups, committees and 'collective minds'," I envision a group acting as a mindless whole, absent of any direction as a consequence of lack of serious individual, independent thought. By contrast, cannot a group or committee consist of thinking individuals who collaborate on a joint effort? For instance, a group of people consisting of those who each have a particular expertise, each adding his own knowledge and perspective to a broad project which requires -- or, at least, can benefit from -- their combined effort. Likewise, I would think that an organization such as the ARI could benefit from being overseen by the expertise -- the unique knowledge and perspective -- of individuals jointly called the "Board of Directors," consisting, perhaps, of a philosopher, a businessman, an educator, an artist, etc. Afterall, the furtherance of the ideas of Objectivism -- which, I think, is the goal of the ARI -- is a very wide endeavor which could involve dealings with academia, business, the public, the government, etc., and a group of knowledgeable people acting together to provide overall guidance could be an enormous benefit. What do you think of this, Delta?
  25. You're welcome. I happened to remember that sentiment expressed in The Fountainhead, but a very useful tool in locating ideas and quotes from the Objectivist corpus is Phil Oliver's Objectivism Research CD-ROM, available at his web site here.
×
×
  • Create New...