Bold Standard

I strongly disagree with this, since the first day a god was invented was probably one of man's earliest attempts to discover a (primitively) philosophical approach to understanding the universe (i.e., a metaphysics). Here's an historical question: if Christianity hadn't dominated the Roman Empire, would a different Mystery Cult simply have taken its place? When I compare the bits of Augustine (early Christian philosopher) with the bits of Plotinus (late pre-Christian philosopher) that I've read, the differences seem very subtle in the most important places. There were many other cults similar to Christianity in Rome at the time, but there are (mostly tactical) reasons that Christianity dominated. But if Christianity had never been thought of, would events have turned out in an almost identical way with an almost identical religion, or is there something special about Christianity that made it so devastatingly influential? As to the primary question of this thread: I don't know what the worst even in history was, but I do know that seeing the Towers crash on TV was the worst historical event that I ever witnessed while it was happening. The spectacle of watching Bush appease and let the enemies escape and more or less get away with it, in near sympathy with the prevailing views of the world has been almost as disturbing to watch.

I guess it's obvious from my SN what type of currency I favor. I recommend looking up some of Richard Salsman's many articles on the Gold Standard, and the elimination of Central Banking. He goes into lots of detail about how it would work out, from an economist's perspective. I'm not an expert on economics, but all of the articles and lectures that I've read or heard by him have made a lot of sense to me.

I decided to post my full response, but if you want to continue this discussion, but don't have anything specifically related to the thread to add, please PM me! Well, since there is as of yet no objective way to qualitatively evaluate music, I'm afraid I have to rely on the only definition that's possible to me now: a "boring" composition is one that makes me bored or is painful to listen to in some way, and a "not-boring" one is one that interests me or makes me feel pleasure of some kind. It's personal; and I think there are some objective principles underlying this that will allow me to relate to other people (but not necessarily all people in all contexts), but nobody knows what these are exactly, so any criteria I give would be largely speculation for what I think is involved. A good example of what I consider to be "boring folk music" is: "Vincent" by Don McLean--YAWN!! Never heard Mars Volta, but I think I agree with your point. Even if that were true, the ability to play a part is not the same as the ability to create that part. It's a shame you wrote such an epic tome, apparently on the premise that I thought To Sheila was only "studio tricks." But that's not what I said or what I meant. I said tones and sound effects. The difference between the sound of a vintage piano vs a toy Casio keyboard, or a Fender Jaguar vs a Squire guitar, or a saxaphone vs a kazoo are examples of "tone" (or "timbre" if you prefer). The difference between a guitar signal being recorded "direct," vs the sound being processed through a Mutron Biphase, a Lexicon reverb, a Marshal Stack and then a microphone is an example of "sound effects." The fact that you could replicate To Sheila live (and maybe even do it better!) is 100% irrelevant to what I'm saying. But it is effects heavy. In fact, I think that's one of its primary virtues. For starters, there is a ton of reverb on Corgan's (main) vocals. Then, when the chorus starts, the guitar that strums on every downbeat has a quick delay, distortion, strange EQ, and is drenched in feedback. Then the drum machines come in, heavily filtered. There is some kind of effect on the piano, that comes in on the next part (probably Lexicon reverb, I'm guessing--probably run through a filter, too). Then in the next chorus, all the instruments with effects are blending together for the first time. Then in the next verse it goes crazy with the effects. While he's saying "Laayytly" the guitar does a cool little harmonic bend with all the delay and reverb, then the mandolin comes in with lots of reverb, such that it sounds like it's being played on some Eastern mountain top.. and this is the most interesting part so far, because there is still all the reverb on the vocals, so it gets a really strange vibe-- on the next verse it sounds like the reverb on the vocals gets cranked up even more, not to mention all the compression, which makes it sound very distant and at the same time very close. Then at the last part there are some little runs on the piano while the guitar comes in with so much effects it doesn't even sound like a guitar anymore, but almost like a violin. Now, on the other hand.. Before Adore came out there was a little bootleg tape that was in circulation, of Billy Corgan playing a lot of the Adore songs with an acoustic guitar, at a place called the Viper Room. It sounded like "Vincent," and it was a little hard for me to get into the album after hearing that tape. But now I like it, because it does have some good sounds. Not all of Billy Corgan's songs were like that though.. Mayonaise, for example, sounded awesome acoustic, as it appears on the Viewphoria video (hm, okay, maybe that one is better than Madonna! ; D). Me neither. No, you're right. It isn't. .....Did you think I was trying to argue that the improved technology in the 90's was responsible for the music being a poorer quality?? No, I meant that it is a poorer quality in spite of the better technology. And, even though there was great technology in the 60's and 70's too, the same technology was much cheaper as the years went on (and is quickly becoming cheaper still). So that makes it easier for the average musician to have access to it, and so more people should be learning how to use it and how to apply it in ever more interesting ways. If that isn't happening, it's because of aesthetic philosophy and its descent, and because of the culture; the technology is there for anyone who wants it and knows how to use it (even for my broke-@$$. ) I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say here or what point you're arguing against. What are we boiling down? Synthesizers have been around since the 1920's if you count the theremin. That's interesting (and I didn't know that), but I still don't see the point. If I were to discuss "complexity" (which I haven't yet), I would mean it in terms of the relationships of the intervals, not the number of notes. It's an interesting progression.. I like that type of chord progression (actually, it's kind of similar to "Soma" by SP, now that I think of it). Are you using "complex" to mean: "difficult to play"? If so, why? Yeah, the music is pretty. But why is it? To be honest, I don't have an answer for that. Maybe it has something to do with complexity, or maybe something else! Actually, I like the arrangement-- the tones and sound effects! That slide guitar sounds awesome. But it's also very catchy. A memorable melody is very important to me. A song that doesn't have a memorable melody is what I would consider a "filler" song. There are several filler songs on Adore, but they usually have other virtues besides the melodies. Interesting means I like it! : D Interesting is whatever it is that makes you say, "the music is very pretty," because I want to figure out why, and to me that is an interesting problem that wants a solution--therefore, it is interesting. Oh. I like the Fleetwood Mac version better. I love Stevie Nicks--she brings me to tears often. I don't think she sounds like a goat at all. >>As far as recording techniques? Some clarity here would definitely be in order. What sort of differences or gaps do you think are really important between the 80's and mid 90's?>> Differences? I'm totally at a loss to why you think that's so important to my argument. I think effects were cheaper in the 90's, and some interesting new ones were invented. I think more bands should have made good use of them, but I don't really think it's that big of a deal. >>Keep in mind Madonna released 7 original studio albums from 1992 up until the present versus 6 original works (I'm not counting "hits" collections on either end) prior to 1992.>> I don't want to keep that in mind, because it's mainly just her 80's stuff that's good. >>The song "Oh Father" is from Like A Prayer which was released in 1989. The Smashing Pumpkin's first album came out in 1991. So for over HALF of Madonna's career she had access to the same technology and recording techniques (more so actually, since she was one of the biggest artists in the world in 1991).>> A technique isn't the kind of thing you have "access" to. It's an idea--you either have it or you don't. Just because you have a certain kind of equipment doesn't necessarily mean you're going to use a specific technique with it. >>Well Madonna didn't write anything approaching "Oh Father" or "Material Girl" either (musically speaking). That is my point. Like A Prayer was co-written by Patrick Leonard and Steven Bray. Madonna had really nothing to do with the music there. Both actual musicians. Madonna is a vocalist who writes lyrics (I'm not even sure if her lyrics are always entirely written by her or not). She does not write music. Madonna poses as a solo artist when really that isn't a remotely accurate picture. When she goes on tour, she has her "touring band" to play the music that other people wrote. Compositionally, Madonna is capable of putting out stuff like Borderline. Material Girl wasn't even composed by Madonna! It was written by Peter Brown and Robert Rans.>> Who cares? They were written for her weren't they? >>Once again, the terms "interesting" and "boring" seem remarkably arbitrary the way you are using them.The sort of bopping music of Material Girl is NOT musically complex whatsoever. I'm not saying Billy Corgan or The Smashing Pumpkins are like Beethoven, but neither is early Madonna. Material Girl certainly isn't complex or or interesting melodically (if you are using interesting to mean complex, difficult, or even all that unique).>> In the sense that you seem to be using the terms, I'm definitely not using the term "interesting" to mean "complex".. And I don't see why anyone in any context would equate the term with "difficult." And I do think Material Girl has a unique melody. And it's catchy. It's got a good vibe.. It puts me in a good mood. I enjoy listening to it, and those are a few reasons I think it's interesting. >>If you want to pick 80's musicians, why oh why did you have to go with Madonna?>> Because, I wanted to compare the most generic, but representative pop star from the 80s with the most creative and original, but representative pop stars of the 90s, to prove that the 80s were unequivocally better. Remember the topic of the thread? : ) >>Why not Pat Bennetar or Blondie...or...ANYONE other than someone who doesn't actually compose (Madonna *cough cough*).>> For one thing, because I think that's totally irrelevant. In fact, I would hypothesize that the prevalent mentality which concludes that an artist who doesn't compose his own music is somehow thereby inferior to the ones who do is one of the *primary causes* of the death of pop music. In the 1960's, songwriters as such went largely out of style. A band who sucked but wrote their own stuff was admired more than even a band who expertly performed songs that were specifically composed for that band by professional songwriters. To me, that's completely absurd. That's like saying the company who installs the plumbing in a building is no good unless they were also the architects who designed the building. There's no reason that an artist shouldn't write his own songs, but there's no reason he shouldn't play other people's songs too--especially if that would be an improvement in the situation. >>Btw, I actually really love 80's music. I think most of it beats the hell out of 90's stuff, to be honest. I just don't think Madonna is really all that impressive musically or even lyrically.>> I think she's underrated! (I mean, her 80's stuff). I actually think people were envious of her because she was so successful, and that negatively influenced their opinions of her, and then she just got a bad image and a lot of people got tired of her (I'm not accusing you of that; it's just something I've noticed before with people in general). >>Perhaps I just find The Smashing Pumpkins to be a lot more meaningful lyrically and aesthetically precisely because they do write their own lyrics and music.>> I've heard many people voice this type of opinion, but never once heard an intelligible explanation as to how it makes any sense. Were the lyrics and aesthetics meaningful up until the moment Madonna started singing them? >>So you mean like half of the producers, writers, etc of the 80's and 90's versus The Smashing Pumpkins then?>> No, only the 80's. >>My main issue with your post was your choice of Madonna. I personally think that Prince (talent wise musically speaking) kicks the crap out of Madonna (not entity-Madonna but individual Madonna... ) as do most of the people she worked with.>> Don't you see.. the fact that there was better music in the 80's than Madonna was my whole point in choosing her as an example; that and the fact that she's representative of a lot of pop music in the 80's. Because, the same can't as easily be said for Smashing Pumpkins. I can think of a couple of groups in the 90's that were better, but they were not representative of the 90's, and they were almost completely ignored in the United States, and are to this day. If you can think of a dozen artists from the 80's that are better than Madonna, then that just proves my point even more (assuming you agreed with me that Madonna's songwriters were better than SP, which I guess you don't). >>My issue was more with your example as it relates to The Smashing Pumpkins because Madonna is just such a horrible example in my opinion. I'm a huge Pumpkins fan, but I definitely can concede that there were definitely superior musicians (pop and otherwise) in the 80's and 90's. Madonna though or songs in her catalog? Not in my book, Mr. >> Oh well, close enough. The point of the thread is that 80's were better--so wouldn't it have been enough to say, "Well, I don't think Madonna was better than SP, but there were plenty of other 80's groups that were so I see your point"? : / >>As far as the image thing goes, grunge was definitely an important aspect of The Pumpkin's success. I'm not disputing that. However, Madonna as an individual (not entity-Madonna) sold records nearly exclusively off of the talent of other people and by peddling sex and controversy.>> No way. She sold records because she was a great dancer and a great singer, and she had great songs--and nobody in the 80's cared that she didn't write them herself (that only became a sin when grunge got popular; the rules were you had to write your own songs, never do a guitar solo [one reason SP was less popular than Nirvana, I think, too many badass guitar solos], and always write about mopey or disturbing topics). >>However, take the shock rock aspect out of Marilyn Manson and you have an interesting, yet mediocre rock band. Same with Madonna.>> No way. Manson is 100% boring and lame even with the shock value. He's not as good of a singer or dancer as Madonna. His band is not just mediocre but lousy (IMO), even for the kind of music they play, which is already pretty bad, even if it's good!.. OTOH Madonna's band was always really awesome musicians. Omar Hakim, who played drums for David Bowie's band for a long time, played drums on a lot of her albums and tours. Lots of cool people played with her. She had lots more substance than Manson, Brittany Spears, and etc. >>Take away Madonna humping the floor of Radio City Music Hall during the first ever MTV Video Music Awards...and you have a mediocre pop act based on the talent of other people. That is why I don't really like your choice of Madonna nor do I think the image thing between Madonna and Marilyn versus The Smashing Pumpkins is really accurate.>> I never saw her hump the floor, but I still like her. : ) And I said Madonna and the Cure vs Manson and SP. >>*sighs.* It only sold like 70,000 copies. It didn't even remotely approach a gold record last I heard.>> Is it expected for an album to reach gold in the first month, these days? Geeze. >>Reviews of the album were pretty mixed as well. People either loved it or had a generally lukewarm opinion of it as well.>> They loved it or liked it? That's bad? Hm, I guess the industry does have high standards these days! : / Almost every album review I've read about a band I liked, that wasn't taken from that band's website or something, has been negative, not just lukewarm. But I thought that's just because culture is crap right now. Still, I didn't think most of those bands were hurting for money or anything--sometimes their labels would drop them but not usually. >>Darcy wasn't that hot of a bassist (Melissa Auf Der Maur could fill in just fine) but it would be cool if she was back.>> Everything you've said so far is forgivable besides this. LOL. Darcy was the best bassist out of all the American bands of the 90's, hands down. And she was the most talented person in the band besides Billy Corgan. Yes, this is coming from an ex-drummer! I learned every drum beat from Siamese Dream start to finish from memory, but I still think Darcy is better than JC.. Also, I'm probably the only person in America who bought James Iha's solo album, liked it, and still listens to it today! But Darcy's tone.. her timing.. everything, was completely awesome. Also, her image and stage presence was one of the best things about the band. Everyone they got to try to replace her was horrible. They would do better to just used synthesized bass lines than have that L7 chick with her wonky tone and no sense of rhythm. >>To be it just seems hasty and a commercial move to claim that The Pumpkins are reunited if James Iha isn't at least involved. I guess we will see, right?>> Well, as long as they don't get those idiots from Zwan to play in it again, I'll go see it! >>Compare like 10 different musicians and people with one band all under the banner of Christina Aguilera. To me that seems a bit unfair.>> Why? >>Well...catchy doesn't necessarily equal good. Just having a song stuck in your head doesn't necessarily mean quality. I don't mean to sound presumptuous here, but I'm willing to lay odds that most of us in life that listen to music with any frequency or depth have had a crappy song stuck in one's head that one doesn't really "like" per-se. A hooky chorus or repetitive phrase that gets stuck in one's head might be completely inane and uninteresting. That alone doesn't say much.>> A catchy melody isn't the only component necessary in a really good, well crafted song. But it is a necessary element (for me). >>You are using melodic in a more normative and not descriptive sense which is where I think our conflict is being generated here.>> Yes, I think you're right. >>I'm sure if you look at Brittney Spears, you can find different emotions she sings about, but that doesn't make the compositions quality compositions or her a quality artist even if she covers that ground (even assuming she writes her own stuff).>> Sings about is not the same as conveys. Mediocrity cannot convey a broad spectrum of emotions. >>Take Madonna's song "Boderline." That song seems to be (lyrically) about romantic frusteration...yet it is poppy, upbeat, and leaves one with the feeling of being happy. I mean...I have been romantically unhappy before and I don't feel like going out and busting a fresh dance move in a club (ha ha). That sort of "fitting the mood with the music" thing seems a bit more intuitive to people who write their music themselves and generate lyrics in a more organic process versus fitting words to music (mo matter what that might be).>> Maybe you haven't busted many fresh dance moves in clubs. But if you ever try it, it can be a great place to vent romantic frustration.. and express your emotions and basically allow yourself to experience yourself fully. And you can overcome a lot of frustrating emotions that way, which is encouraging and does make you feel happier, so songs like that can be perfect for that sort of thing. Similar with certain songs by the Smiths. >>I'm not saying one has to be uber-cliché and scream loudly in a song if you are angry. However, it seems a bit superficial to have lyrics that speak of deep pain or anger and sing that song with a slow tempo but pop songs just seem to often lack that depth.>> I disagree.. in fact, that kind of contrast is one of my favorite things about the Smiths and Morrissey.. And the Cure, for that matter. Dark depressing songs with broody mopey music is draining and boring and pointless, the way I see it. If you want music to also be poetry, it should be a discussion and an interpretation, and a resolution to the lyrics, not just a naturalistic approximation of the mood of the lyrics. >>Take "Spaceboy" off of Siamese Dream and you are looking at a song about Billy's brother who was physically handicapped (and both were actually abused by their crappy parents). Billy ended up taking care of his brother and trying to watch out for him and that song covers some of that territory. If you didn't know the background, would you necessarily think that? However, you can totally feel that really emotionally tormented vibe that just a bit more real. Perhaps that is just me though.>> Personally, I think it's lame when people sing about their real life experiences. I want to tell them-- can't you be a little more creative? I don't care what kind of accidental or unfortunate crap happened to you when you were a kid. What difference does that make to me and my life? I don't even care about the accidental or unfortunate crap that happened to me when I was a kid--deal with it; move on! >>If you are going to compare two bands and say one is better because of X,Y, and Z reasons...you need some justification for using those as criteria. I'm open and totally receptive to arguments on behalf of more melody being an intrinsicly good thing. Maybe it is. I want to hear your arguments on that though or at least get a better picture on what it is you personally use (and why) to make musical aesthetic judgments.>> Not necessarily more melody.. Just better and more memorable melodies. >>To me that is far more elucidating, productive, and interesting than simply just stating criteria.>> Hmm--maybe, maybe not! >>I'm with you on The Cure versus The Smashing Pumpkins in most areas...though I think TSP could write some amazing stuff that rivals The Cure on a match up basis. Overall, though...I agree. As far as Madonna V. The Cure? I don't think that even the people that wrote for Madonna can't match the intensity of stuff like "If Only Tonight We could Sleep" or "Friday I'm in Love" in my book.>> Yeah, I never said Madonna vs the Cure, but I agree. >>The Cure is dark, no doubt. They are prototypically Romantic in every way and I mean romantic in the literal art-history sense, not the Objectivist re-definition.>> I don't believe Ayn Rand re-defined romantic. She just offered a new variation on it-- "romantic realism." >>Even so, you end up with stark images and lyrics that pain t some very dark pictures, but with depth versus the fluffiness of a lot of Madonna's catalog.>> Yeah, I get annoyed with the Cure's dark gothy stuff. I like their sweet, happy stuff, like Lovecats, or their punky stuff like Fire in Cairo the best. But they had lots of great material. And a bass player who was even better than Darcy! >>Also keep in mind that I don't think that she is bad. I guess I should have made that clear a long time ago. Much in the same way that you are a Smashing Pumpkins fan, I like Madonna as well and respect her much in the same way you respect TSP. I think she has boat loads of talent and pulls off some amazing songs. Like "Ray of Light" for example (I know it is a techno dance song, but it is pulled off brilliantly). Anyway...>> Well, I wasn't trying to be un-controversial in making the comparison. I think it was a provocative comparison for the right reasons that I wanted to emphasize.

lol.. Thanks for the response. I actually am well acquainted with the Smashing Pumpkins--and I'm a fan. But it's not necessarily always their songwriting that I like about them (sometimes it's good). I disagree. In fact, I think some of their most boring compositions are on Adore (not counting Machina, which I'm not as much familiar with as the other ones, so I can't say for sure). But, somewhat case in point, I think some of their best recording techniques are on Adore, which makes it one of their best overall records. Yes, I have. I agree that it is a beautiful song. But, it is primarily so (IMO), because of the great sound effects and tones on it. If you took all of that away, it would be a boring folk song. The songwriting, qua composition, on that song is pathetic next to a Madonna song such as "Oh Father"-- if you haven't heard that one, I suggest that you look it up. I couldn't find a video for it on Youtube, but that might be because of copywright issues or something. This comment especially makes me think that you might actually like Smashing Pumkins because of their recording techniques, tones, and sound effects, and not even realize it. Landslide says nothing about Billy Corgan's composing/songwriting ability. He didn't write this song! But I've already digested it, before I made the comment, and I disagree. It's not that I don't like Billy Corgan, it's just I don't think he ever wrote something approaching "Oh Father" or even "Material Girl" for that matter. His songs aren't usually very interesting melodically. They just have gimmick guitar tones and arrangements (which he achieved usually from trying to copy My Bloody Valentine and/or early 20th century music--as in "Tonight, Tonight" and others) that make them interesting. I didn't necessarily mean "Madonna," the individual woman, but Madonna as the entity who created the songs that Madonna performed. Prince would have probably been just as good an example, though. Pumpkins are absolutely no different in this respect whatsoever. In fact, it's only their Grunge "image" that would ever make someone say something like this. Corgan is actually friends with Marilyn Manson.. They're at least as much the same as Manson is to Madonna. I have no idea which songs Madonna actually composed--I meant the songs that were composed specifically for her. I've only heard a few songs off this album, but I think they're amazing. I hadn't heard that it "flopped." Sorry to hear that. : ( But it only came out a year ago, maybe sales will pick up. I think this is hairsplitting. Rock is a form of pop! Easy. Just compare their song writing. What's unfair about that? They're all using the same 12 notes. Nope, I'm familiar with the whole catalog (except Machina). It's not obvious to me--I think whoever wrote Madonna's songs is a better song writer. Her songs are in general catchier, more melodic, and I might even argue that they cover a broader spectrum of emotional content than SP. SP is a great band, and they're all fantastic musicians IMO (at least, when D'arcy was on bass). And Billy Corgan is a really good songwriter. But I think there are tons of bands in the 80's and even more frequently in earlier decades who were much better. Yeah, I love The Cure too, and "Just Like Heaven" is one of my favorites. I think they wrote much better songs than Smashing Pumpkins, just like Madonna. I'm not sure about who was better between Madonna and The Cure. But it seems clear to me if you take Madonna and The Cure vs Smashing Pumpkins and Nirvana, then the 80's win. : ) I like Japanese pop, too! Do you have any favorite recommendations?

But if you're interested in reading a very bad, poorly argued, generally fallacious book that actually has a similar theme to what you're describing, there is a book called Ayn Rand: the Russian Radical, by Chris Matthew Sciabarra. It's hardly intelligible, but from the bits I've read, he does seem to be trying to argue that Ayn Rand was in some respects a product of her environment. I wouldn't spend money on it, but if you have a big library near you; they might have it, which might or might not help you on your paper (all of the biographical material from the Ayn Rand bookstore is much better, but maybe less specifically consistent with your thesis).

I'm afraid that Ayn Rand is probably the worst (i.e., most difficult) person you could pick for this assignment. If anyone is a refutation of the idea that people are "only" products of their environments, it would be her. Her environment produced millions of people who did nothing, or perished in communist slavery, or escaped and did various things--but only one her. There is nothing specific to her environment, as far as I know, that would help to explain why this happened. It was all her own choices, which were a product of her ego (or "soul" if you'd rather--I mean, her identity; her self, not anything supernatural), not her environment, that made her who she was. If you want someone easy and interesting.. Pick someone like.. Hm, Jesus would be pretty easy. All he had to do was live up to a bunch of myths and legends and "prophesies," prevalent in his culture at the time, and he was deified. But.. in any case you examine, it seems to me that the most interesting aspects of it are those in which they were the exception.. i.e., "X was a product of his environment in repsects A, B, and C.. but he was able to originate idea Y all on his own, which made him unique and different from others in his environment." Someone who is truly a product of his environment and nothing more would probably not end up being important or successful or noticed at all--at least, in a free or semi-free country.

Me too! There are a lot of songs that I want to redo, and a lot of songs I wish other people would redo. There is also a lot of old music that could at least use a really good re-mastering, to take out the hiss and fix the EQ. [edit: but I mean, as in, early 20th century stuff. I don't think of the '80s as "decades ago" because, that makes me feel old. And they did have some really good recording equipment and techniques even then--see Cocteau Twins' "Victorialands" album, for instance.. or, even earlier than '80s, Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" in the '70s.. awesome recording, even by todays standards, which are only slightly higher--mostly *cheaper* so that one could record "Dark Side of the Moon" on a budget now, if one had the talent, which most do not.]

Oh, I misread Jaksn's post, I thought he said "Some winners," and was trying to give an example of diverse and good music since the 80's. But, anyway, it's a decent sample of a certain kind of music since the 80's that's had popularity with some of "the masses." So I'll leave what I wrote. : )

I would very much like to read the article in which he says this. Does anyone have it, or at least a reference to where/when it appears? Not knowing the specific context in which he made this comment, I always thought pop music--as a flourishing "genre" had died some time in the early 60's. But I certainly agree that pop, inasmuch as it did exist in the 80's, was at least several thousand times better than it has been since then. I disagree that music had less variety then. The 80's music that they play now on top 40 "best of the 80's" collections is a different story--that doesn't represent even a fraction of what was out there. And if you compare to similar best of the 90's collections, I think you will see that there was just as much if not more unoriginality and lack of diversity in that decade. And none of the groups you mentioned, besides maybe the Smashing Pumpkins would be on it. And if a similar compilation were made for the 2000's so far, I don't think anyone you mentioned but maybe Avril Lavigne would be on it. I like Smashing Pumpkins and all, but do you really think their compositions are better than, say, Madonna (in the 80s)? If anything, they might have employed some more interesting recording techniques sometimes, but that's studio not composition (and is debatable)--plus, technology has been advancing even though art has been declining, so new artists do have a slight advantage over old ones in that regard.

Ha--I saw this the other day, and it reminds me of your picture! The kitten is very similar, plus it says "camouflage," and your girl is wearing a camouflage shirt. I like cats, btw. Yours is very cute. One thing I notice when I look at your picture is that her right hand looks small. Is that because it's not finished yet? The color on her legs looks really good.

How should we know.. who is John Galt?

I think you've got pretty good taste in pop music! ; ) Ha, yeah that one's cool. I think my favorites (musically, I mean--their lyrics are usually pretty lame so I don't pay attention to them) are "Everything Counts" and "A Question of Lust." They have some other good ones but I can't think of them right now. There's not a video for "It'll End in Tears," but here's the main single from that album: Song to the Siren. It's a little melancholic, but I'd say wistful is a better description of this particular song. This Mortal Coil was actually a collaboration of different bands from the 4ad label, and this track is actually performed by (members of) another band called Cocteau Twins (my favorite pop group). It's a Tim Buckley cover (the concept of This Mortal Coil was primarily to redo songs that 4ad owner Ivo Watts-Russell liked). The "Nocturnes" were a series of pieces that Chopin composed that were intended to be performed at night (hence the name). There are much better "Nocturnes" and better performances than this, but it was about the only one I could find with a quick search on Youtube that wasn't a student recital, and didn't cut off in the middle: Here's Morrissey: Girlfriend in a Coma (The Smiths) Seasick Yet Still Docked (Morrissey) (This is his most "melancholy" song, as far as I know, at least, in the context of the way it sounds). Interlude (duet with Siouxsie Sioux) Hm, I guess.. To a certain extent, whether this music is melancholic or not depends on if you're in a melancholic mood or not, to begin with. Maybe "melancholic" music just means that you can listen to it when you feel melancholy, and it will not clash with your mood. If that's what it means, then I guess most of those songs are melancholic. But if it means that it makes you feel melancholy when you're in an otherwise good mood, then I think I'd disagree with some of the songs, and agree with others. As to my song, it doesn't make me melancholy when I'm in a good mood, and I don't know if it would clash when I'm already melancholic, because it puts me in a good mood even if I know I'm about to hear it--but maybe just 'cause it's my song. : )

Yes, I always sit through the credits so I can hear the song! In The Ominous Parallels, Dr. Peikoff says that they used to have a string quartet play selections from The Merry Widow, as they marched people off to be executed in the concentration camps. That is a hundred times more disturbing for me, because of the gruesome juxtaposition.

Thank you for mentioning "You are my Destiny," by Paul Anka! Actually, I had never heard this track before (and I wasn't familiar with Paul Anka, either), but since you mentioned it, I looked it up. I like it a lot, and I do think it has something(s) important in common with "Otto," although I'm not sure I know what it is any better than you do, yet. I agree with you about my melodies being mysterious, but for some reason, they don't strike me as melancholic. I think they're laid back, but ultimately optimistic (I think I need to fix something in my voice leading or counterpoint on some level to better achieve that in this song--but I'm not exactly sure what yet). But then, a lot of music that people think is melancholic doesn't sound that way to me. I had the hardest time seeing why "even" Morrissey is considered depressing music by most people. I always thought he and the Smiths were happy and perky sounding, though his lyrics seem very Shavian and sometimes either cynical or tongue-in-cheek, neither of which elements appeal to me much. But then sometimes his lyrics are fresh or even poignant, and sometimes even uplifting (not unlike Nietzsche or Shaw, sometimes), and that has been an inspiration for me lately. But I don't know why I'm ranting about the Smiths.. Lots of other music that people consider melancholic.. such as Chopin's "Nocturnes," etc, doesn't seem that way to me. If I wanted to name something I think is melancholic--I think I'd pick something more like "It'll End in Tears" by This Mortal Coil (the song and even that whole album, for the most part). That's also a perfect integration of lyrics and music, for the most part. But melancholic is not really what I'm trying to go for now. Because I'm happy now, and I want to make happy music, and ultimately try to take people totally out of the modern music scene and into something else altogether. I haven't come very close to actualizing that yet.. but I'm working on it. I've always loved "The Pink Panther" theme. Bacharach is an influence for me (meaning there are techniques he employs that I admire, and enjoy listening to, and try to figure out how to do myself), and that's one of my top favorite songs by him. (I used to randomly put Pink Panther stickers on envelopes I would mail to people). I wonder what made you think of that song, from hearing "Otto"! "Pink Panther" is so chromatic and jazzy. I'm glad if you can see a connection though; I'll have to look for one next time I play or listen to Otto. : ) Depeche Mode, I either love or hate, depending on the song and my mood. "Enjoy the Silence" is one that I usually like a lot, but I'm not sure if I'm familiar with the other one you mentioned (I'll look it up). One thing Depeche Mode proved, that is meaningful to me, is that you can have an extremely exciting and commercially popular musical performance with just synthesizers and drum machines and singing, and no obnoxious drummers clanging on cymbals, hurting everyone's ears. I started out as a drummer--I played drums all through high school. Went to state marching band contest, took private lessons with an amazing jazz drummer (named Joe Raynor--he came in second place out of 40,000 contestants in a national Gene Krupa drumming competition in 1941, and he had all kinds of interesting insights on rhythm, music, dynamics, and "lost arts," as he used to refer to some of the techniques he taught me), etc. But since about the year 2000, I haven't been able to stand playing live drums, and have preferred using drum machines or looped samples. I'm considering hiring a drummer for my live shows with this project, but.. Well, I know I don't have to--and if you don't believe me I can just say, "Well, Depeche Mode did it!" : P

Wow, this one is looking really good! Is there a symbolic significance to the number 23?

OH, there is one I that struck me that I forgot to mention! In the Phillips Light Bulb commercial-- the scientist who notices that the sun is not normal, and promptly rushes to his observatory to check his books and look through his telescope, and sees that it is not, in fact, the sun, but a Phillips bulb.. before he notices the sky at first.. is whistling "Yankee Doodle Dandy"!! How could that have possibly gotten past the censors??

This law would be a violation of the rights of the parents.

Have you come across anyplace that might indicate what year this one was from?

Would you consider armed robbery to be an "easy" way for people to get things they couldn't afford from the private sector? The average tax payer pays more in taxes every year than it would cost to send a child through a reasonably priced private school, whether they have children in school or not. Besides this, the progressive public school system is designed to cripple and indoctrinate the developing minds of children; hardly to "educate" them. (In many cases, except where there are still remnants of a classical approach to education, which are not necessarily the best possible approach either).

This is not true at all, in the case of schools. Actually, I did a research project on this in high school. The public school system is a fairly recent development in this country (I can't remember the exact dates, but I'm thinking late 1800's), and was one of the most radical endeavors attempted by the government up to that time. Private education had been widespread. In order to achieve a monopoly, and force out the competition of private schools, the government utilized many underhanded and despicable tactics. The government schools were inefficient and low quality from the beginning. They were widely ridiculed by intellectuals at the time (such as Mark Twain). But, gradually, they won out, became accepted, and it was eventually forgotten that there ever had been or even could be an alternative. Similar to the nationalization of the railroads-- and every other socialist endeavor that I happen to know much about in America. (I know I haven't argued or proved these assertions here, or cited my sources, but it's information that's pretty easily available. If someone wants to challenge me on any of it, I can look it up. Unfortunately, I don't have any surviving copies of that research project from high school anymore.)

I should clarify that this is actually a story told by one of the characters in his novel, not part of the actual plot of the novel (which is kind of a coming of age story involving college basketball). It's an enjoyable story, but I didn't want anyone to go out and buy it thinking it's about Greek mythology, specifically, and be disappointed.

Does "it" refer to the melody, or the beat? Or something else? Can you think of some other music that is "strange" in a similar way, to give me some way to evaluate that term? If it's the beat, it's probably because the recording of the drum machine came out really bad.. One person thought he heard record scratches.. lol, but I think that's just the hi-hats, that got a little distorted. lol, Funny.. Someone else said it reminded them of a Tears for Fears song called "Mad World." I haven't listened much to REM or Tears for Fears, but I know writing modal songs with four major chords in a row (I have four major chords in a row in the verse, and four in the chorus, then a it goes back and forth between two major chords, and ends off with three major chords; then the whole thing repeats) was a big thing in New Wave, and so a lot of those 80's bands wrote songs with similar chord progressions. This is kind of an experiment for me, because most of my other songs stick more or less to one key. I think there's something catchy and fresh about it, though. Thanks, I really appreciate that. The voice is probably the most intimate instrument, being a direct product of my body-- so even if that were the best feature in my music, I would probably be most self-conscious about it. There are two vocal tracks on that version of the song, and they were both first takes. I think I could have gotten better vocal tracks if I'd had more time, but those came out pretty good. Some people say they have trouble understanding my lyrics.. If so, there is actually a link to the lyrics, in the box that plays the song, under the controls, and to the right of the picture of Gretta Garbo, next to something like "download," "rate," and "add."

What makes you think there was a time when no competitors existed?

I would be very interested to find out how the Starship Troopers movie affected sales of the Starship Troopers book. Does anyone know how to find that out? I googled for a while and couldn't come up with anything. But I did find legions of sci-fi fans saying things like, "if you want to start a fight at a sci-fi convention, say, 'I liked the movie adaptation of Starship Troopers.'"

But in a certain sense, Ragnar Danneskjöld was an adaptation (i.e., an inversion) of the Robin Hood myth. I've seen Objectivist artists do the same thing with the myth of Icarus-- everything's the same, except Icarus doesn't fall. In one version told by Andy Bernstein in his novel, Heart of a Pagan, the forward thinking Daedalus fastens the wings with bronze instead of wax. That way, the story becomes beautiful and inspiring (like the original myth was up until the tragic finale), and ends with a theme that is opposite of the original one.