W.C.Meyer

I haven't heard of a price depression from this time. If there was one, I'm not sure what the source was; possibly antebellum effects.

I hear the Aryan Nation has great pamphlets on Societal Collapse Survival. Sheesh.

For Medtner, I'd say he's a less impressive Prokofiev who can't write anything if it doesn't involve a piano. This isn't to say the man isn't good; I simply couldn't give him more credit than Prokofiev (my favorite composer), either as a composer or pianist. Making a comparison between Rach and Medtner is really interesting, actually. He'd taken the concrete themes of Rachmaninov and post-Romanticism, and melded it with the oddities of the modernists. In this regard, the man is very unique. There is no comparison between Bartok and Schoenberg. Though Bartok did delve into atonality, it certainly did not make up a majority of his work, and I'm a fan of the majority of his work. Many have either never heard of Bartok, or were displeased when they did. His style is certainly one that takes getting used to; unless you're Hungarian.

Once again, this isn't a moral assessment of WWI.

You know, I was going to go in depth, until I realized there was no depth to go into it. The premise of atonality is self-explanatory: take away tonality (that which gives coherance to music) and replace it with chromaticism in no logical order, with no consonant harmony, and with unstable and displeasing intervals to form a meandering melody with no definate beginning or end or purpose. I could have deleted that paragraph, and instead posted this:

I can't say much about The Rach; one can scarcely find a harsh word. It's all technically very sound, and inventive at times (I'm not a huge Rach fan). I will give you a word or two about the so called "modernists" (I dislike this term, as I am an avid Prokofiev & Stravinsky fan) such as Schoenberg, Hindemith, etc: the prevelance of atonality in music today is as embarrassing as praising Pollock as a gifted man. Years from now, musicians will look upon the absurd mush of the Atonalists and wonder what in the hell people were thinking to have actually endorsed that stuff. I would go further in depth with the theory of atonality, and why it is inherently a worthless system, but I'll drop that and make a simile, as most here aren't well versed in theory. An atonal work is like a novel written in a recognizable language (such as English), but with no sentence structure, punctuation, ideas, concepts, or emotions. The only emotion atonality can convey is madness. And that makes me mad. -WCM

As long as you're not espousing the sort of ideas that allowed for this unsolicited act of altruism; take the money and run. Don't make yourself a martyr just yet.

You're missing the point: Ireland, a part of England, was in cohorts (and was recieving weapons with intent to initiate violence) with the declared enemies of England. There's the justification. I'm not making a moral assessement of WWI.

I have mixed feelings about this, as both sides dealt with one another with the threat and initiation of force, first. I would have to side with the English with regards to their treatment of the turn-of the century IRA movement (there are a number of faux-uprisings throughout Irelands history). Care to know why? An often overlooked part of history is that Ireland aspired to not only rebel and overthrow the crown, but signed a pact with Germany, essentially declaring an Irish-Central Powers alliance in WWI. Imagine Texas pledging allegiance to Cuba during the Cold War. As if the pact weren't enough, a shipment of German weapons, headed for Ireland, was scuddled by the Brits. The Crown was completely justified in responding with force now, and did so, crushing the Easter Rising. Now, you ask, were the IRA aspirations legitimate? If any one can convince me of the legitimacy of the Central Powers of WWI... BLARNEY!

I seem to have become lost somewhere in this thread. The question, as far as I can tell: does Obama explicitly advocate redistribution of wealth? One particular interview has been nit-picked to the point of scabbing. Why are we only using this particular interview? Does nobody remember the "Joe the Plumber" controversy? Am I imagining the whole scene in which Obama hands down, undeniably advocated redistribution of the wealth? Why are we relying on one very ambiguous interview to ascertain the man's motives? Why not hear it straight from the horse's mouth, according to a more concrete interview, caught on camera, with Barack Obama fully in view saying clearly something to the effect of "what's wrong with redistribution of the wealth?" Perhaps I'm off-topic; if I am, I apologize. -WC

The instrument used has nothing to do with the theory behind it. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say in your first paragraph, but: imagine the white keys of the piano. There will always be half-steps between B-C and E-F. The only thing that changes is where these half-steps are placed in the scale, relative to the root note (we're speaking of the church modes here). All seven church modes have a corresponding root note on a white key where one can start on that white key and end on that white key an octave higher without playing any accidental (black) keys. It's all a matter of what key you start on; for instance, playing the notes F through F on all white keys is a Lydian mode (scale); playing the notes C through C is Ionian (major) mode. It's all a matter of the order of whole and half steps (tones & semi-tones, respectively) in the mode (scale) in reference to your tonic (root note). Now, of course we don't play only white keys; otherwise, what are the accidentals for? You can transpose any mode or scale into any 'key', that is, it's root can be any pitch, so long as the following pitches follow the form of that particular scale. for instance, if you wanted to start your major scale on a D, you would simply follow the WWhWWWh pattern: D-E-F-G-A-B-C-(D). We run into a problem here, however, because the interval E-F is a semi-tone, and the interval C-D is a tone. We therefore must correct this by sharping those tones so as to make them consistant with our major scale formula; therefore, the new scale is D-E-F#-G-A-B-C#-(D). I hope that clears up scales/modes? As for the reference to the E-major chord on a guitar requiring more strings to be pressed: remember that theory remains consistant regardless of instrument. One could make a Gb-major chord as large as one would want; but the pitches are still the same: a root, a major third, and a fifth. I never recommend taking theory advice from guitarists...if they're not classical or jazz trained players, they don't know jack. The music nerd joke goes something like "How do you make a guitarist shut up?...Put sheet music in front of him." As for your question in regards to the functionality of Eb in a key (as in, why can't you say it's a D# instead?)...that requires quite the explanation that won't make sense unless you've fully grasped scales. It's an issue of functionality. -WC

It's assumed by all writers of theory books that everyone has the same response to minor/major tonality. And for the most part, we all do. I understand every single thing one can potentially do with say, a harmonic minor scale, but I have yet to read any convincing work that gives insight as to why we all share the same emotive response when hearing this scale. (I use harmonic minor only as an example, here). As for defining major and minor, the formula is quite simple. Major scales follow a pattern of whole and half steps as follows: WWhWWWh. Minor (nat.) follows the pattern: WhWWhWW. There is no disagreement about this; however, the effects of these unique scales is entirely subjective as far as I can tell. This assumed dichotomy of major=elated/happy and minor=depressed/solemn seems to be a western phenomenon; ever since the triumph of the Aeolian/Ionian modes over the rest of the church modes, it would appear that these two scales are most capable of conveying emotions...I would agree with this: the rest of the church modes simply can't carry emotions as effectively (save token responses such as an Arabesque air with Locrian or a pirate-y feel with Dorian) as major and minor. BUT WHY?

I don't post as much as I should; busy, for the most part. Are there any here interested in the study of music theory: components, forms, tonality, rhythm, who can offer any details as to how certain aspects of music relate to life, particularly an Objectivist sense of life? I'm a music theory and composition major, and understand all components of music well, but cannot use this knowledge to explain how it could relate to Objectivism or philosophy at large. Even if you can't make any abstract connections, I'd love to talk theory with an Objectivist. -WC

If your theater company were not an altruistic not-for-profit business (if you can call it that), would you rely on government aid? I am also in the arts, and am troubled by the future of higher aesthetics.

See: Searchbar: Abortion You'll find too many explanations to count. Essentially, protoplasm is not human life, and therefore is undeserving of human rights.

Daniel Day Lewis as Hank Rearden.

Hilary Clinton has accepted the position of Sec'y of State. Any thoughts? How is Obama's cabinet shaping up?