ChristopherSchlegel

I don't like his overall approach to songwriting or performance. His work is too laidback, easy-going for my tastes. His melodies & harmonic structures are very homogenous & bland - no extreme highs & lows. The overall timbre of his tunes is usually that stereotypical 70s strummy acoustic guitar 'soft-rock' approach that is, admittedly in my estimation, devoid of passion, excitement. I can't remember ever hearing a song by JT that sounded powerful or heroic. I do remember hearing him cover some old jazz standards (can't remember specifics) & noticing that he was changing/simplifying the chord progressions to the point that it was annoying to me.

I also value some of Prince's music. I have serious reservations though. Sometimes he is explicitly 'religious' or even 'mystic' in his lyrical content. Sometimes he is explicitly vulgar in his lyrics & stage performance. After hip-hop & rap started getting big, Prince started including raps in some of his material. Why?! He has such a beautiful voice when he sings, listen to "Kiss", "The Most Beautiful Girl In The World", "The Beautiful Ones", etc.) Having gotten that out of the way...he can at times be one of the most amazing, talented, singer, songwriter, performer, artists in modern pop music. Another similar artist, whose work I love, but also have reservations about, is Terence Trent D'arby (who is now Sananda Maitreya - ??? go figure ...click here for site). His first few albums have great pop/R & B material (i.e. Introducing the Hardline According to TTD on TowerRecords).

Excellent! My absolute favorite is Beethoven. Do you have a particular favorite? Are you a musician? Upon what is that claim based? I know from my private & school study of Bach he was a first-rate musical mind. But that doesn't change the fact that I do not personally like certain aspects of his music (i.e. his voice leading choices, wandering baroque harmonic structures, overly ornamental phrasing, etc.). I recognize it is a personal choice/optional value. Beethoven also wrote "religious music". I enjoy it in spite of that association. In fact of the limited Bach I do like would be parts of "St. Matthew Passion".

He already has an independent streak in him several miles wide! LOL...Geez I only wish that were true. Seems like most of the pop music I've heard kids listen to now days barely has ANY melody at all, much less some blazing, glorious, brilliant melodic lines.

LOL! That was a good one, man. If one day he wants to know any JT tunes I will gladly show him. Right now his favorites are mostly songs from kiddie shows (i.e. "Blues Clues", "The Wiggles", etc.). So a lot of the time that's what I play for him when we are singing & goofing like in the pix. He does love music. He really likes watching my Monkees DVDs & my "G3: Live in Denver". The problem is he favors Vai instead of Malmsteen! Ouch! I ask, "Wanna watch Yngwie?". Ethan replies, "No, daddy! Gonna watch Stevie Vai boogie!" Just recently we started "jamming" together for the first time. He has a little drum set in the living room. After watching some G3 he realized that he could play his drums while daddy played the guitar...just like the guys on the TV do! Man, that's good stuff. Very good! So glad you did. Great pix, beautiful kid & perfect captions.

My primary instrument is guitar. I also play bass (like a bass player & not a guitar player!), piano (although more like a bar-room hack than a 'pianist'), drums & banjo (not regularly, though; just for a few good paying gigs). I've played guitar now for 29 years. I love to play classical, older jazz standards & some pop tunes on my classical nylon string. However, my favorite instruments are my Strats & Marshalls! I grew up listening to & playing electric guitar stuff: Van Halen, Blackmore, Malmsteen. Click here for mp3s I also compose & arrange music, in all genres, for myself & for clients as a small business on the side. That can be difficult. I made a living as a working musician (original & cover tune bands, gigging, recording, studio work, teaching private lessons, etc.) for about 15 years when I was younger. I applaud your efforts in that direction. Explaining anything that requires rigorous logic to your average musician can be very difficult. & if you think Objectivist politics is hard, try metaphysics & epistemology to some knucklehead that swears he just knows his musical talent is due to his past life's as an Egyptian prince & a palm tree in Costa Rica.

Thanks, Felipe. As you can plainly see, his cuteness is due to mommy (i.e. golden blonde hair, bright blue eyes, beautiful smile) & not daddy. Although, he does have a bit of my wide nose & big mouth...when he is old enough to understand, I'll apologize.

Ohboyohboyohboy ... A thread about kids! You guys are in trouble now I rarely waste an opportunity like this. My wife & I had our first & probably only child 3 years ago this past week. His name is Ethan Aaron & because I am a very annoyingly doting father I am going to provide a link to some pix of him right here.

Fair enough. I personally don't like the music as much as earlier though. Good deal. "Much better" is definitely how I see it also! Well, maybe this will liven things up a bit then... I CAN'T STAND James Taylor. To be fair, I think he is good at what he does. However, I don't value what he does.

Excellent! Thanks for the update.

Fair enough; that's why I used the word potential. I used the answers.com definition & my stated distinction merely as one example of how the concept of 'corporate welfare' is poorly defined in general usage (at least when I have encountered it).

Keep reading!

Good point, softwareNerd. The definition at this site, for example, is the general one I have heard being used. Notice that the fundamental problem with this manner of defining the term is the lumping together of "subsidy" & "tax break". I would regard a subsidy as unearned redistribution of wealth, but a tax break as the potential removal of govt. coercion. So, regardless of the numbers you have complied, you may have a faulty premise in your analysis, Franc28.

Congrats! Ironically, consider this: If you truly, honestly value your marriage & spouse BUT go out "partying & picking up chicks" instead of spending quality time with your wife THAT would be a sacrifice. An Objectivist knows the word means giving up something one values or exchanging a higher value for a lower value or for nothing at all in return. The problem with the generally accepted definition of the word sacrifice is that some people regard it as meaning some form of delayed gratification. The fact that they never thoroughly check their premises means they are open to the deceitful motives of those that use this misunderstanding to make people accept actual sacrifices. My wife & are both Objectivists. We were when we met. We've been married for 14 years. It's the best! I jokingly refer to her as my "better 60%" . That is awesome! Good thinking!

You are welcome to use anything & everything I've said. Glad to help. Exactly. Mark, I apologize for not making this as clear as possible the first time. softwareNerd, thanks for clarifying my point! Also, I just recently posted an essay on my website I wrote a while back that involves this issue & others related to it.

I realize this is a matter of personal taste ... but I just don't think the last 3 tunes you mention come anywhere near the beauty of "Just The Way You Are". I suppose it possible that I love the early stuff so much it's hard for me to accept or appreciate the later stuff. OK, OK. I don't have anything against Valli. Just to clarify though, it was in contrast to Vivaldi, which was how the issue was raised earlier in the thread. So maybe I was being too hard on Frankie . I agree; philosophically & musically. Good breakdown, Myself, though in my estimation I don't think the song is even catchy. I realize this is a personal issue, though. I second that!

Is this a defense of a mixed economy? of socialism? capitalism? Does he really not understand the contradictions involved in his statement? Objectivism does not say private educational institutions are "Above the law". They would be "supervised" in the same manner as any business: the govt. would protect individual rights against force & fraud. & isn't this the problem public schools are already facing? Programs are being cut because there's not enough money. If this argument was true for private schools, then why are there so many private schools for music (& other arts)? False dichotomy. Exchange any another industry & it becomes apparent: private supermarkets result in best interest of business over the shopper. etc. Irrelevant. The point is NOT how much or little teachers are paid. The point is how they are funded. Taxation always looks cheaper because the debt is "hidden" by the govt. This poor man simply cannot grasp ANY alternative to a mixed economy. Every scenario he offers of "privatization" contains some version of govt funding. & why are there so many NON rich & privileged people still alive & not starving to death in the completely privatized world of supermarkets?

Because individuals that work at insurance companies are automatically less virtuous than those that work for the government? But for the record I don't think the Police force should be privatized. I don't have to "imagine...if doctors worked directly for insurance companies", that's part of the problem as medicine is currently practiced! Thanks to the rigidly stratified level of socialism already in place across the board in the medical industry, doctors (& health care providers in general) can't even look at a patient without calling an insurance company to make sure they might get paid for the work they do & they hopefully won't get sued out of existence. That's not an argument. "Narrow" does not equal "inaccurate". It is admittedly a stretch, but I can see that the FDA &/or the EPA might be useful but only if they acted consistently on the principle of individual rights. For example, the EPA could be a branch of the govt. that would handle making Exxon pay for ruining someone's beach front property. As opposed to how they operate now, which is to use taxpayer money to clean up Exxon spills through the SuperFund parasite program. I was told this by a friend that is an environmental engineer, so I don't know exactly how accurate that is. I am assuming what he told is factual. But again, why will Mr. Boothby not be poisoned by the govt. but he will by greedy companies? How will the companies satisfy their insatiable greed if they kill all their customers? How does a higher rate of taxes equal being safer from poison? Does that mean if Mr. Boothby gives all of his money to the govt. he is guaranteed to be safe from poisons? No, Mr. Boothby, does not believe it would work. He is being dishonest there, because several paragraphs before he was busy insisting that the world is full of maniacs that want to get rich by poisoning everyone. & also that they would be able to if it wasn't for our govt. that is 7 trillion dollars in debt. Furthermore, notice the sloppy definition offered as "precisely the reason we have govt.". Under that definition, it could be the proper function of the govt. to set up concentration camps to imprison jewish people & burn them in giant ovens. It's a job that an individual certainly couldn't do; you'd need the full force of an armed govt. to get it done. Contrary to what most critiquers of public education say, I generally say I am quite impressed that public schools are able to accomplish the things they do. I am quite surprised that more public schools aren't complete hellhole dens of drugs, guns, chaos, etc. The Real Problem with Public Education is how it's funded. Like every collectivist program/dream/ideal, there is a system by which x amount of people pay in & x plus more people expect to get something out of it. It's constantly a losing proposition. I really don't see a problem with public education as long as I am not required to fund it, unless I want to use it. It's not a "noble goal"; it's a half-assed solution to a serious problem: there are many poor people that are uneducated, specifically meaning that they are unable to deal effectively with reality on a level at which they can be productive in society & thereby support themselves & their families. THIS is where it gets ugly. Because the vast majority of "this whole process" of higher ed these teachers go through is literally, unfortunately GARBAGE. I work at a private college where they offer a Masters Degree in Ed. Some of the stuff I have seen that passes for coursework, thesis work...imagine Rand's "The Comprachicos" written not as a warning of what NOT to do when teaching children, but instead, written seriously as a method book of how to teach children. I am not exaggerating. I wish I was. Actually, our society does rank other professions in this manner. Furthermore, it is usually due to effectiveness & then market forces. Also, notice Mr. Boothby recognizes it would be beneficial to remove the worst teachers...but it shouldn't be done! Let us apply his standard to the medical field, as he suggests: a doctor is guilty of performing an operation intoxicated & removes a person's healthy kidneys, what should be done? Should he be fired? Possible jailed? Or should he just be ignored & allowed to continue operating on patients? That is true. Of course, "equalizing" means "dragging down to the lowest common denominator"; just like "socialism" means "equally spreading the misery". However, we've had public schools for about 80 years (yes? no?). So why is our society still "stratified" into disparities between rich & poor? Mr. Boothby's emotional state is not justification for socialism. That's an excellent quote. Unfortunately, it does nothing to support his claims. A good education IS expensive & probably will always be fairly expensive. The point is that I am willing to pay for mine & my child's education. I have no moral obligation to pay for anyone elses.

You wrote a good, organized essay. Congrats! Not terribly surprising, eh? I don't necessarily think mine is a "better" mind than yours but I have thought about these issues before & I want to make some comments.

OK, I'm glad; thanks! Anyway, for whatever it's worth, it's not like you were missing a great deal of value in your life by not knowing about Frankie Valli, eh?

YOU played in it? What do you play?! I didn't know! I like some of his work. I enjoy some of his more 'angular' melodies & harmonic structures. He is usually quite tonal but has an interesting personal twist on traditional voice leading that I appreciate (& have been slightly influenced by). Some of his stuff, though, starts to stray a bit too far from tonal bounds for me. In the same sense, I also like some Prokofiev as well as some early Stravinksy. My fave Ruskies, though, are, of course, Tchaikovski & Rach.

I apologize if my post was taken the wrong way. I did not in anyway intend to ridicule due to lack of knowledge. I really did just think it was humorous. Me, too!

I love earlier Joel like this. Also find & check out "Root Beer Rag", wonderful little instrumental! But his real strength was his vivid story telling & characters in his early work ("Piano Man, "Moving Out", "Scenes From an Italian Restaurant", "New York State of Mind", "Honesty", "She's Always a Woman", etc. geez what a list!). He is one of the few living pop writers capable of writing on the kind of timeless level of Gershwin, Porter or Berlin. Unfortunately, after he married the model girl he decided he was a guitar player, he started making cookie cutter videos & his songwriting (in my estimation) became quite banal, at least relative to that stunning earlier work. Very much the same thing as Elton John, although he was never quite as good as Joel. & now that I am typing this it occurs to me that Stevie Wonder was also capable of brilliance in his early career but at a certain point stopped creating at that same level. No as in Frankie Valli & The Four Seasons see example on TowerRecords. Although...for an ironic twist on all of this...a few years ago Joel wrote some Romantic/Classical pieces & had them performed, recorded by a classical pianist. Joel's Classical CD on TowerRecords. I have not heard the whole thing yet but what I have heard is quite beautiful & stongly Romantic (i.e. 19th century - Chopin, Schubert, etc).

There are a couple of threads I posted info about the nature of music: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=2853 http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=2299 If that helps, good. If not, let me know & we can explore it more in depth or in a more suitable manner. Too many variables in that equation to determine without more info (what songs? what genre? what do you like about them? what do you dislike about them? what characteristics of the songs in question are virtuous/non-virtuous, etc.). In a general sense, this type of situation can possibly be an example of how music work in an epistemological sense. Many pop songs have just a few catchy notes repeated over & again. Or one catchy chord change, a catchy line, a catchy rhythmic accent, a catchy instrumental timbre or part. Sometimes it's a catchy set off words strung together in a "poetic" manner. Sometimes it's just the phonetic sound of the specific words & not even their meaning that is catchy. The point is that in all these examples I have qualified them as catchy. So what makes something catchy? An auditory object that is easy enough to recall upon hearing once or twice. What makes it easy to recall? Its manner of construction. Generally, it has enough repetition to attract your attention; but then it has enough variation to "close off" the object as in "This is the end of the object, it is now complete". Does that help at all? Yes, I enjoy some of Verdi's works. He had a much better sense of line, form & melody than Mozart (among others). No. Are you? If so, have a wonderful time! Great! I hope you find something you can value.

Actually, I think the ability to create a memorable melodic thread (that even the non-professional musical listener can follow) is a key component is estimating the relative power of a composer's skills. It shows that they are able to understand & use musical materials in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of an objective view of epistemology. A melody is after all a conceptual-auditory unit. So, specifically I was not knocking Mozart's lack of musical brilliance (which he certain could be at times) as much as his overall compositional method (logical, purposeful form & structure, etc. or lack thereof in much of his works). Beethoven's 7th symphony is my absolute favorite work (by my favorite composer!). Both Mozart & Beethoven wrote piano pieces called "Turkish March"; Beethoven's is "The Ruins of Athens" whereas Mozart's is generally called "Rondo Alla Turka". Beethoven's is a wonderful miniature composition; Mozart's is delightful in places also; but also degenerates into overly baroque ornamentation in places.