minorsevenflat5

Ninth grade or not, any aspiring writer would do well to spell "definitely" correctly. For the record, there's "a rat" in "separate."

I've heard of acapella - I'm in college; acapella bands are a dime a dozen. The human voice is an instrument. I never said it wasn't. I was talking about lyrics, words to the uninitiated. Not the melody, harmony, rhythm, etc. Just the words. Mass production isn't a bad thing. Record companies should try to make as much money as possible. The problem is that most people simply don't value quality in music, for one reason or another. Record companies, in order to make the greatest profit, have to produce huge quantities of crap music for consumption of the masses, since they represent the largest market. I'm not damning the record companies for doing so. I'm condemning popular taste. It makes it impossible for someone who wants to produce (mass or otherwise) quality music to make any kind of living. Since such a musician probably wants to live, he has to devote more time to making money in other ways. Does this diminish the quality of the artform as a whole? Possibly; I don't know. I do know such a possibility unsettles me. Tryptonique: Bruckner is fantastique. Not that "rach" isn't. The reason nobody knows Bruckner is political. He was victimised irrationally by the Viennese press who were devoted to Brahms, and detested Wagner - who was very influential on Bruckner - who both were also great. I also thought that you didn't value music based on how hard it is to make. Her comment suggests that Rach preludes are better than Bruckner's symphonies because they are somehow "harder" to write. I'm not even going to ask how she knows Rach toiled harder in composition of preludes than Bruckner did in writing his symphonies. Also, plenty of difficult composers are well-known, Alban Berg, for instance, and this notoriety does not make him good. As objectivists reject atonalism, most of you would hate him. I will posit that it is harder to write a piece of music that has depth and something new to offer upon each listen than it is to write a catchy little melody, throw a drumbeat under it, and some moaning, whining, screaming lyrics on top. Jazz and classical are examples of music that offer depth. Good, real jazz performances consist of individuals each striving to create original, great-sounding music as a band. As each individual is extemporaneously composing to his maximum ability, and at the same time interacting with other members of the band to make it sound as good as possible, the performance is therefore stuffed with musicality and richness. The composer of a symphony does the same thing, albeit on a much longer timescale. He is trying to make the music sound as good as possible, taking into consideration texture, melodic and harmonic motion, themes and variations, etc. The longer timescale makes more refined music, and though much of the spontaneity is lost, I value classical more highly than I do jazz. Both jazz and classical have immense musical palettes with which to create music. Rock and pop do not. This dichotomy is plainly evident when considering harmony. Classical composers devote their lives to studying vertical and horizontal relationships of harmony. Jazz musicians similarly seek out new and inventive ways of voice leading between chords. Some of these sound good, some don't, but that's not the point. These increased harmonic possibilities provide these musicians with tools to create rich, great-sounding music. Wagner's Tristan prelude comes to mind as an excellent example. You will find that the musical prime movers are jazz or classical musicians - JSBach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Schoenberg; Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Ornette Coleman. They are the ones whose overflowing powers of insight and creativity profoundly influenced music for the better. The only rock musicians I can think of who even compare to these men are Frank Zappa and Steve Vai. All others you might cite - the Beatles, Beach Boys, Satch/Malmsteen/Johnson, are all using musical tools that are derivative those of the prime movers. Rock and pop musicians either do not possess or at least do not use such an elaborate harmonic vocabulary. In rock and pop you will never, for example, hear the b13 of a V chord resolve to the 9 of the I in a minor key, much less in a major key. Yet this is one of my favorite sounds in music. Another thing you will never hear in pop/rock is an augmented sixth (a minor seventh that resolves outward to the uninitiated), another beautiful sound, when done properly, gone to waste. 99% of rock tunes use fewer than five chords none of which are extended beyond the seventh, cheesy unprepared modulations (Living on a Prayer, for example), and pentatonic (at most adventurous, mixolydian) solos and melodies. This does not make them bad, but it cripples them; it makes them necessarily less interesting and satisfying than jazz/classical. Imagine trying to paint a masterpiece with three primary colors. The more tools you have at your disposal, the better able you are to communicate effectively and accurately. Likewise in language. You can read supermarket trash, simple, easy, instantly gratifying, or you can read great literature, which may be more difficult, but ultimately more rewarding. The great writers were able to write great literature because they were masters of their craft. I stand by everything I've said about this paragone except the chasing ass comment, which was stupid. By the way, I'm don't consider myself an objectivist, though I do agree with her ethics and pretty much anything derivative thereof. I've read the scathing attacks on pseudo-objectivists by Peikoff et al. and understand their ire. I've never studied her metaphysics or epistemology, and though I plan to, I currently can't consider myself an AR devotee for want of this knowledge.

That was a typo; I meant to say that what classical music lacks in improvisational demand is made up by a greater requirement for interpretation and technical command. As for improvisation, yes, I've heard/read about improvisational headcutting and done my share of figured bass improvisation. The problem is, classical musicians nowadays, instrumentalists, not composers, cannot improvise. There are exceptions, of course, but not many. A rock vocabulary is the musical vocabulary used to make rock music. I don't see what is so hard about this. The "chasing ass" comment does not apply to me nor to anyone on this board. It applies to the large majority of people who listen to rock music. Most importantly, pop/rock/hiphop is mass produced, simple music that philistines can listen to while doing other things. I value only a very small percentage of rock music, and even then what I get out of it doesn't compare to the satisfaction I derive from jazz and classical. I listen to it because it amuses me. I listen to "art music" because I achieve a very deep level of happiness in doing so. Question: Isn't instrumental music the purest form of music as such? If you take away all of which instrumental music consists (melody, harmony, rhythm, etc.) from pop/rock, aren't you left with poetry at best? In other words, I don't see how lyrics add anything "musical" to music. When you speak of music and the message it conveys, lyrics don't count, as I see it.

I've heard this one too many times. Sorry buddy, once you can play the chords and rip through scales, you can't play everything. In fact, if that's all you can do, you can't really play anything. I never divided technical ability, songwriting, improvisation, and uniqueness. They all are vital qualities of good musicians. I said rock guys can't - or choose not to - create such demanding music for want of said qualities. Those are the qualities of good music. I want to listen to good music. Anybody can lock himself in a room for 8 hours a day with a metronome for ten years and play like Chris Impelliteri, but he will have achieved nothing in terms of being able to fluently pick the absolute best notes to play at the best times. Most of the guys on chopsfromhell are like this. Improvisation and composition are the same things; improvisation just takes place on a much shorter time-scale. I value a piece of music based on how good it sounds, which bears a direct corellation to the talent of the composer and/or improvisor. The rock guys I cited absolutely cannot improvise as freely as good jazz musicians. By freely, I am not talking about pentatonic freak-outs. I'm talking about communicating effectively the best possible musical statement given the context of the song. You can't do this with a rock vocabulary. It's like a third grader trying to write a piece of legitimate literature. I agree, the "big three" guitar gods, Vai, Satch, Malmsteen (and EJ), can play the shit out of the instrument, and they also improvise and compose beautifully, but they are exceptions. They were also ignored by everyone here. "Higher technical classical guitar", as you put it, has far more in common with jazz than any of the other styles you've mentioned. They both require the utmost technical ability (bluegrass and country do too). What classical guitar lacks in improvisational demand is interpretation and a requirement for a greater level of technical command. While I never claimed that jazz was harder to play than classical music (I excepted classical from my analysis), it certainly isn't easier. Well, the question was about bands was it not? Jazz is played by bands. Jazz is therefore relevant to this discussion. Finally, if the music is strong enough, it doesn't need lyrics to make a statement. In order to make music that evokes emotional response in an active listener (not as a soundtrack as you chase ass on a saturday night), you need superior musicality - the ability to compose, improvise, and play your instrument. Contrary to popular belief, there are objective standards that measure these things. Rock/pop music is inferior in this regard; most of it is hack-work, though there are exceptions. I will concede that the best classical performances are better than the best jazz performances, but just barely. I grew up on rock/pop. I still love it. However, the experience you get as an active listener to jazz and classical is far more fulfilling than attentively listening to rock and pop.

I loved the FF's until X and X2: I didn't like the charlie's angels thing they had going on in them. I loved Chrono Trigger and Cross. My favorite RPG of all time, however, was XenoGears. Great, moving story, memorable characters, epic in scope, and, best of all, you destroy god. How'd you guys like Xenogears? I agree with whoever said that you have to accept certain premises as metaphysical givens (assuming the existence of some kind of [life-force, chi, mana, fate], such and such would be moral . . .) before you see that these games are by and large very life-affirming, and their protagonists are heroic. That's not to say there isn't a bunch of nihilist trash out there like GTA. The difference is that the nihilist games are asking you to embrace something that is ethically evil based on the game's metaphysics. Examples: Diablo I/II - premise - might, mana, magic, and monsters exist. Goal - use might, mana, and magic, to kill monsters ensuring the survival of man. Ethically good. GTA - premise - exact replica of the real world. Goal - steal, kill to make money. Ethically evil. Then again, even though GTA and its like may be ethically reprehensible, the mechanics of the games are fun . . .

Only one person has suggested any jazz, the pinnacle of technical (excepting classical musicians) and improvisational prowess in music. Listening to jazz is certainly not a passive, animalistic experience. Rather, it is active, challenging, and ultimately much more rewarding than any current pop/rock music out there now. I find it interesting that more of you haven't given jazz more credit considering the abundance of objectivists here who supposedly lionize the prime movers. Those with the greatest ability, the highest achievers, play jazz. You can argue all day about who the greatest rock guitarist was, Jimmy Page, Hendrix, Van Halen, but compared to guys like Mike Stern, Pat Metheny, or Jim Hall, they're playing kids' stuff. Likewise for horn players, pianists, etc. These guys dedicate their lives to creating the absolute best music possible, as do classical musicians. Pop and rock guys don't. Their technical ability - tone, accuracy, range - is laughable. There exists no harmonic or melodic interest in their tunes - they are simple and childish. There is no reason why someone who values ability would want to listen to them.

Fine. I missed your point. I still disagree with you on what are the essential characteristics of man. Question: Are the essential characteristics of man facts (not definitions)? Facts that can never change? To save time: If you say that they are facts, I'm going to claim that we can't know them. I think that the essential characteristics of man are factual and cannot change, but that we cannot know what these characteristics are with 100% certainty. Would I be right to say that definitions are human constructs, approaching the level of "fact" as our knowledge increases? Finally, I'm arguing a point, not getting on your case in any way. Why are you taking an insulting tone in your reply? I'm not attached to my position for any other reason than that it currently makes the most sense to me. I'm not arguing on behalf of God, and I do not have a pregnant relative. I have no emotional attachment to this issue at all, and I'm not attacking any of you personally for holding a contrary belief.

Ok. Points taken. I'll think about all this. At the moment I disagree, because it sounds like you're saying that it is our definition of man that matters, and that this definition is subject to change. Does this mean that abortion is ok now but may not be later if our definition changes? If that's the case, it might take me a bit longer to agree. We'll just disagree for now and I'll drop it. This argument is exhausting and I've said all I needed to say. ed

I stated that by person, I meant that which has rights. You said "In my view" twice. I'm not willing accept that only a physically independent being just because it is your opinion. My main problem with your assertion is that I don't see how being a person with rights requires physical independence. Why is there necessarily a contradiction in ascribing rights to a thing located inside the mother's body? It is because of her, whether or not it was her intent, that the ball has started rolling. It has already been established that the parents are responsible for their children because they brought them into the world helpless. A parent is morally obligated to take care of her child whether she wants to or not. Why is this situation not a contradiction, while the former is? Why is a mother not morally obligated to carry the fetus to term? Why does the fetus suddenly become the mother's responsibility once it comes out of her? First of all, I don't plan on "concocting" anything. My intention is to seek the truth. If I concocted a definition of person, it philosophically is meaningless, especially to the Objectivist. My second problem with this statement is that it conceives a situation in which the fetus is a "person" that does not have rights. Further, it gives me no reason why the fetus' should be denied rights and the mother shouldn't be. Why not say that the mother gives up some of her rights in the act of becoming pregnant? In other words, you are pointing to a contradiction that depends on another contradiction - a person without rights. Your question is exactly what I'm asking - except I believe that the definition of man is independent of what we think of it, otherwise man would be able to choose who and what gets rights. Your definition of man includes physical and biological independence, significant sensory input, etc. I would agree with you in a heartbeat if you tell me why these are the essential characteristics of man. An equally valid set of characteristics of man might be ten fingers and toes, head, 4 limbs, eyeballs, conceived of sperm and egg from other man (and woman), etc. Why is your set the correct one? I see the biological dependence of the fetus on the mother simply as a very high degree of dependence, more than the dependence of a baby on his mother's breast milk, more than the dependence of a teenager on his parents' money, and so on. There may well be a fundamental difference implicit in biological dependence that destroys the humanity of the fetus. What is it? Who are you to say that biological independence is an essential characteristic of man? There seem to be two separate arguments for the right to abortion here: The spatial arrangement of the mother/fetus and the big difference between man and fetus. Neither of these are sufficiently supported to prove that the fetus does not have the rights of and is not a person. Ed

The act of sex is already a crapshoot. Always has been, might not always be, with or without the option of abortion. But seriously, I'm having trouble understanding the rational explanation for which birth is the point at which the fetus acquires rights. Incidentally, I have read the entire thread, so please don't accuse me of not having done so. Nobody has proven that the fetus becomes a person at the moment of birth. I say this because nobody has given a definition of the word person - entity having rights - and proven that it is the correct definition. Why can a fetus not also be a person? I don't buy the fact that it is not physically separate from the mother as the determining factor. All other things being equal, if the fetus could communicate with us, write books, tell jokes, I doubt we'd be having this discussion. I know the fetus cannot do any of these things, but if it could, and were still completely physically dependent on the mother, it would be a rational being. Viability is a horrible criterion for determining when the fetus becomes a human being as demonstrated by the person - i think ashryan - who showed how arbitrary it is. The word, viability, is hardly specific or absolute. Does the newly formed embryo have rights? Nobody here who holds this position has proven that it does. The fact that it is a member of homo sapiens sapiens is meaningless when talking about rights. Rights are afforded rational beings, not homo sapiens sapiens, unless the set of all homo sapiens sapiens are rational beings, which nobody has demonstrated. Can we know when a fetus becomes a person (I am taking for granted that the fetus does in fact become a person, or rather, that a person must come into being, because there do not exist invisible people that jump into fertilized eggs, viable fetuses, or newborns)? I say maybe. We might already know, and someone can prove that a fetus becomes a person at such and such time. We may not know now, but later technology will enlighten us. Perhaps the answer is beyond human comprehension. Would this inability to comprehend violate Objectivist epistemology? (That's not a rhetorical question - I would appreciate an answer) I think most of you can see where I'm going with this - I'm being a dirty skeptic, kind of. I'm trying to say that we don't know for certain, at least with our present body of knowledge, when a fetus becomes a person, and that we may never know or not be able to know. Therefore, it is morally correct to play it safe and not abort the fetus, unless, of course, it is okay to terminate something that may or may not have rights, for the benefit or interest of something that definitely has rights - the mother-to-be. I haven't come to a conclusion about the last issue. Does anybody agree with me, and if not, where did I go wrong? Ed PS - I am not an Objectivist. I agree with every tenet, and almost every conclusion, the issue of abortion obviously not being one of them.