Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What kind of music do you enjoy?

Rate this topic


AshRyan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Miles created quite the supergroup for Bitches Brew. Although it may not be the best choice if you aren't a musician or if you don't care for 20-minute improvisations. If you want some good early fusion music, try Miles' On the Corner as it's much more accessible.

Inclined to agree.

But I do have this odd attraction to the unusual and the "novel."

As an architecture student I was attracted to the work of Antonio Gaudi.

Bitches Brew is for those who dare.

Just like Objectivism is for those who dare to want to challenge establishmentarian ideas.

Like myself :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 401
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just like Objectivism is for those who dare to want to challenge establishmentarian ideas.

Like myself  :rolleyes:

To each his own.

I think Objectivism is for those who dare to live happy and successful lives and achieve their values.

Like myself :dough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To each his own.

I think Objectivism is for those who dare to live happy and successful lives and achieve their values.

Like myself  :D

Strongly inclined to agree.

But I thought this thread was about Music and aesthetics! <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

truthfully, i like to listen to just about every type of music. Indie rock being my favorite. Any thing that sticks out in my mind as a genius, unique composition of musical talent, i will love it. I like pagliacci (opera), a lot of latin based musics (preferably non-english), I like some rap (outkast, ludacris), I like indie rock (at the drive in, coheed and cambria), I like math metal (dillenger escape plan), I like big band era things, I like emo (bright eyes), I like classical for sure (bach being my favorite), and I like what is now called noise music (such as wolf eyes; its just computer generated sounds based on mathematical patterns)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Cut out Richard Halley from an ATLAS SHRUGGED movie? NOOO!

You have to have him! He represents the 5th element of Objectivism, the aesthetic element.

The sense of life. And it's integral to the idea of reason and emotion being integrated. You could condense much of the film by using the musical element (How, I can't get into at the moment.) You would have to have music in the film anyway, so to cut Halley would be wierd.

I do agree that there is the threat of the music not matching the description in the book, just like the buildings in THE FOUNTAINHEAD movie didn't match the ideas in the book. One way to deal with this is to use it sparsely, meaning that when you are dealing with scenes where the people are apethetic, and in despair, use no music, since there is no sense of life. Have a lot of silence. Then, when we meet the whistling engineer on the train, and Dagny is hearing the symphomy in her head, it will stand out that much more. Then when she awakes form her reverie, and he stops whistling, the silence will resume. That's just one example of how Halley is important to the film.

The bigger question is, why a concerto? A concerto usually refers to a solo instrument against a backdrop of the orchestra. But in Galt's Gulch, there is just Halley and the protege. Is Rand using the term concerto loosely, or is his performance in the Gulch arranged for piano only? But Dagny hears the orchestration in her head. You could have the piano in the Gulch scene, and during the credits, the full orchestration. The whole movie could be an exercise in the rising of the notes, becoming rising itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some musical favorites:

Rush

Old Yes and Genesis

Steve Vai

Joe Stariani

Gershwin

Tchaikovsky & Rachmaninov (seems like a staple here)

Bela Fleck & the Flecktones

Eric Johnson

...plus some stuff that would go in the "sometimes like" cateogry, like Dream Theater, Dave Matthews, Queen...

During the workday, I'll sometimes listen to Jimmy Buffett... keeps me in an "islands" kind of mood.

Also, I notice Dismuke posted here earlier. I very much recommend his www.Dismuke.org. Sometimes, if work is tedious, I go over to dismuke.org and listen to his music from the 20s and 30s. If you're not used to it, you have to listen for a while to get used to it, but when you do, you'll find yourself addicted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The music that is most “therapeutic” for me is classical music. Rachmoninov and Tchaikovsky I obviously like. Mozart and Beethoven I don’t get, although Beethoven can be really passionate. Schuman and Grieg I liked automatically and almost everything I hear. Granados has some wonderful pieces. But I’m still exploring classical music and I’m delighted when I find a piece that really gets me. But my all time favorite, that I first listened to seven years ago, because the first time I heard it nearly brought me to my knees was Albinoni’s Adagio (but the one that his student “translated”). I see this Adagio as twelve minutes of Catharsis.

I like some rap. I think Eminem is a genius. I have interest in rap because it seems to be a gateway to a future type of art. I call it “street poetry”. These rappers are talented and the aspiring one’s I’ve met are quite brilliant. They just need to be enlightened. So maybe it should be called “enlightened rap”.

I love to dance to salsa, cumbia, merengue, reggae and house and techno. But I rarely dance. In some moods I can dance to Jazz.

I am beginning to get into Jazz. A friend introduced me to Gershwin. I found Cole Porter because of Harry Binswanger but I’m sure I didn’t need him to talk about him because he’s a classic. Elle Fitzgerald’s singing makes me cry. Harry Connick Jr. has become boring.

The popular singers like Celine Dion or Witney Houston and a handful of others have amazing voices and I have to give them their “props”. (Sorry).

But as an activity my favorite thing to do is listen to Spanish love songs. I love the famous Spanish “balladists”. And of course I like to sing along. I’m usually alone when I do this. I’ll name some for those who care: Julio Iglesias, Juan Gabriel, Rocio Durcal, Jose Feliciano, Julio Jaramillo, Jose Jose, Marc Anthony, Luis Miguel, and the least talented of these all, Enrique Iglesias, etc. The general theme of their songs are lost love, unrequited love, hopeless love, tragic love. But they do it so well! There are, however, songs that celebrate love.

I think I outlined most of it. But there’s one experience I have to mention. On this night a new type of music came into existence. The celebrated composer walked to the piano and sat down. He sat there testing the audience’s anxiousness minute after minute. After twelve minutes he got up and walked off the stage without touching one key. The silence was “triumphant”! The piece was called twelve minutes of silence. (Just jokes!)

Americo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I outlined most of it.  But there’s one experience I have to mention.  On this night a new type of music came into existence.  The celebrated composer walked to the piano and sat down.  He sat there testing the audience’s anxiousness minute after minute.  After twelve minutes he got up and walked off the stage without touching one key.  The silence was “triumphant”!  The piece was called twelve minutes of silence.  (Just jokes!)

You're joking, but they actually sell CDs of stuff like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

In reply to the original topic ( yea i'm a bit late). I listen to lots of different classical music and whatnot (Mozart is amazing) but I mainly listen to/play a form of rock music called Metalcore. A mix of american heavy metal and melodic swedish metal. At first glance a lot of people would be turned off to this right off the bat and I don't blame you, but I find the music incredible in that it can convey such intense energy and it really completes the mix when bands of this sort have positive, individualistic messages (not all of them do though).

I listen to everything though. acoustic stuff, swedish/nordic folk, rock, heavy metal, classical, some blues. Basically almost anything but pop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.trippeisen.com

The guitarist for Static-X is a pretty outspoken O-ist (or at least claims to be). I got an email from BMG promoting their new album "Shadow Zone" (one of the songs has a mention of "A is not A"...I think the song is about logical contradiction) and Tripp was wearing a shirt with Ayn Rand's face on it.

He actually has lots of customized O-ist shirts.

Kinda neat in my opinion.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About when I became interested in Objectivism, a couple of months ago, I fell for heavy metal - especially of the Swedish "Gothenburg Sound" sort, aka melodic death: for its beauty, power, edge, and sheer aggressiveness.

I haven't much else to say, so I'll just list band names.  Adagio; Apocalyptica; Arch Enemy; Children of Bodom; Dark Tranquillity; In Flames; Lacuna Coil; Metallica; Nightwish;

Ah Nightwish, I like them too, my favourite song being Moondance. You might enjoy Therion and Tristania which are also part of that genre (while you might have heard of them). There is also a classical song that reminds me of this, O Fortuna! by Carl Orff. Tristania does "World of Glass", "Crushed Dreams", and "Deadlocked" from their original album. Therion does "Seven Secrets of the Sphynx", and "The Rise of Sodom and Ghomorrah" (sp). That is all I can remember at the moment, but there are more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good day, I love reading the posts on this message board. Such a support of intellectualism and objectivity, even on subjects where I normally don't expect such a grand conversation.

I myself am a musician, not someone who has mastered any one instrument (if that really is possible) but someone who knows a little about a lot and am trying to further on that. I am though, a musician who has embraced technology more openly than most musicians who play traditional instruments. I do studio work; sound engineering and musical composition with computers as well as play guitar and piano (but I'm a novice on guitar and piano for it was computer music that I learned first).

The style of music that I listen to predominately is a 'genre' of 'electronic music' called: "Drum N Bass". It is a very fast (around 170bpms), very aggressive (usually) and usually has no lyrics. The main focus of the music by the average listener is the technicallity it takes to produce it and the pugnacity of the music. 80% of the music is typically fast, dark, and produces aggressiveness and a dark mood within me. On the other side (the other 20%) there is a reinforcement of musical values (music theory) rather than experimentation with synthesis. That side of it is beautiful, powerful (in a different way than the darker material) and most of the time (if done correctly) is very inspiring.

A good way to find what the music sounds like goto this website and listen to the Winamp webcast:

http://www.bassdrive.com/

Now, I can't ensure that whatever is playing at the moment you listen is going to be good because with every genre there is bad music.

A lot of people view electronic music as a fad, or something one would (or only could) listen to if he/she was on drugs. Many media outlets have categorized electronic music as an evil tool of consumption that draws young people to drug use.

I found the music when I was 12 years old because of my older cousin. She had given me a tape of what was considered "Techno" music back then in 93'. I listened to the tape so much that my father had to re-spool the actual tape to another cartridge. Well after growing up with it, I was consumed. It was the only music I listened to other than a few VERY select bands (Cake and Bob Dylan). I don't know why i never liked anything else except for electronic music growing up. It may have been that I was so infatuated with the technology of sound production that I appreciated a raw (new) artform that was exploiting technology creatively.

Regardless, that is what I primarily listen to, but I have branched out so much (strangely enough, since I've discovered objectivism it almost feels like there was a negative mental construct that limited my ability to appreciate 'different' music and it's now gone...because of objectivism). What I listen to now is ANYTHING I can get my hands on because I know the more diversity I have coming in, the more diversity I will have coming out creatively.

Great conversation!

~Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're joking, but they actually sell CDs of stuff like that.

John Cage had a "composition" called 4'35" (or something like that). It is just as Americo described. On one Cage tribute album, Frank Zappa chose this one as his "tribute."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Some musicians who, IMO, do not deserve their success are Brittany Spears, Justin Timberlake (although his producers, The Neptunes & Timbalin, are amazing), Third Eye Blind, Jay-Z, J-Lo, Beyoncé, and others of the same "studio-manufactured" strain.

::laughs hard:: i think one of those things just doesn't belong there: Third Eye Blind. I find their music quite lovely. They're a band that has always found inspiration in authenticity and a DIY ethic. What is your reason for placing them on your list of undeserved success?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think anyone who listens to modern mainstream music is a second-hander. Modern culture is completely anti-mind, especially that icon of conformity that I love to hate, MTV. You just can't give your approbation to that kind of stuff and call yourself an ideal man or woman. Even if you do find a modern piece of music whose lyrics are not entirely evil, I guarantee you that you will never achieve the same level of personal enlightenment that you would gain from the kind of music I advocate. What is my reason? Modern music is designed specifically to get stuck in your head--the record companies do it on purpose to sell records, and even the good-intentioned musicians are too much influenced by modern standards to write anything truly individualistic. The time you spend re-playing song lyrics in your head, whether they be rock, rap, pop, country, etc., is time you do not spend thinking about how to be a better human being. To achieve self-actualization you have to get rid of the mental clutter and bad premises that modern society is continuously injecting into your subconscious. That is why I do not listen to today's music or watch television anymore. That is not to say that all classical music is good, for the vast majority of classical music is not much better than today's stuff. The only composer I have found to be consistently good is Rachmaninoff, for he has a higher percentage of "masterpieces" among his works than anybody. Some of his works totally changed my beliefs about music.

Symphony No. 2 in E-minor, Op. 27 - every movement is outstanding

Isle of the Dead, Op. 29 - the middle section is one of the best things ever written

The Bells, Op. 35 - first movement in particular

Vespers All-Night Vigil, Op. 37 - first few songs especially

Prince Rostislav - early symphonic poem that is hard to find but rewarding

Piano Concerto Nos. 2 and 3 - his best-known major pieces

After listening to this music, other music disappoints me. In fact, the only pieces I listen to regularly that are not written by Rachmaninoff are Beethoven's "Emperor" Concerto and 32nd Piano Sonata, Chopin's E-minor Piano Concerto, and various other classical pieces of good quality. Sometimes I will listen to electronica because I like the sound of synthesized music, but most of the artists are quite repetitive, unmelodic, and derivative in their composing.

What ticks me off so much about modern musicians? It is that modern synthesizer technology enables so much that was not possible in the time of Mozart and the rest of them, yet they decline to take advantage of it because they are scared that they will be viewed as "not trendy" if they do something original. It just all sounds the same to me, and I cannot tolerate a lack of individuality in music--like so many other young people, these musical "artists" are just copies of one another.

I think the only reason my generation listens to modern music is that they are afraid their peers will think they are "uncool" for listening to anything else. For example, if I were in the mall and a pretty girl came up to me and asked me what I was listening to on my headphones, she would probably make an excuse to run away and flirt with some jock the moment I answered her. But that's okay with me because I do not care about the opinions of conformists and do not respect anyone who does because they are cowards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modern music is designed specifically to get stuck in your head--the record companies do it on purpose to sell records, and even the good-intentioned musicians are too much influenced by modern standards to write anything truly individualistic.
I'm not going to speculate about what record executives are "scheming" when they create a project. Let me, however, tell you what I think is good about pop music and I believe this ties in directly with what you are saying about eay-to-recall lyrics and music.

One of the things that makes pop music popular is the way that it takes crow epistemology into account. The songs are typically short and do not place a large demand upon your awareness. Lyrics are quick and to-the-point. Musical motifs are simple (but powerful) and usually involve simple measures. A good pop tune is like a good principle in that it compacts a plethora of information into a single retainable unit. I see these as virtues for pop music.

The time you spend re-playing song lyrics in your head, whether they be rock, rap, pop, country, etc., is time you do not spend thinking about how to be a better human being.
That's quite a devil you have on your shoulder!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think anyone who listens to modern mainstream music is a second-hander.

Anyone who makes such a sweeping condemnation of other men had better present the evidence to defend his judgement. Of course that can't be done because this isn't true.

Modern culture is completely anti-mind,
Ayn Rand didn't think so. Read her essay "Don't Let It Go" in Philosophy: Who Needs It. She had a great deal of praise for many aspects of American culture.

especially that icon of conformity that I love to hate, MTV.  You just can't give your approbation to that kind of stuff and call yourself an ideal man or woman.

What is this nonsense about "call[ing] yourself an ideal man or woman?" What for? I thought the purpose of life was the achievement of real values that make you happy.

Even if you do find a modern piece of music whose lyrics are not entirely evil, I guarantee you that you will never achieve the same level of personal enlightenment that you would gain from the kind of music I advocate. 
"Personal enlightenment" is not the purpose of art. This is how Ayn Rand regarded books and plays and it applies to music as well:

Test: do you enjoy a book or play for its own sake?—or do you "enjoy" it as a means to an end, the end being that self-conscious sense of acquiring some virtue from it? Joy is an end in itself. My pattern of enjoyment is: I'm good, and if this thing has given me enjoyment, then it is good. Their pattern is: I'm no good and if this thing has made me better, then it is good.

So far, I have only criticized the first half of the first paragraph, but that is quite enough and I'll stop now. The only thing I do agree with in the rest of the post is that Rachmaninoff's Second Symphony is my most favorite piece of music too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've kept this to myself for many years, but this thread prompts me to reveal that the Concerto of Deliverance was written in this world by Jon Sebelius, and its called the Fifth Symphony. ( I know, I know. No soloist) The corrolation between Rand's description and the music is almost spooky. From the first rising three-note theme to its recap in the last movement as a pealing background to a great, grim and filally triumphant struggle... and that ending... Well, to paraphrase; I envy the person who discovers this work for the first time.

Cordially, Glenn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy listening to Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds very much. I think he has one of the best voices ever. i listen to david bowie and the beatles and the cure and radiohead and joy division and jeff buckley. and some hardcore bands like converge and burnt by the sun.wide variety of music. i'm willing to listen to new things. any suggestion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray V.:

Regarding:

‘John Cage had a "composition" called 4'35" (or something like that). It is just as Americo described. On one Cage tribute album, Frank Zappa chose this one as his "tribute."’

I’ve been meaning to say that my description wasn’t entirely original. The style is the most original aspect. The first person to describe such an “event” was John Ridpath in one of his intellectual history courses. The others, were Objectivist friends of mine. I think they actually name Cage.

Sincerely,

Americo.

By the way, today I entered a bar called “James Joyce,” here in Toronto. I was glad to find NO pictures or even books of the author. I even noticed that a beer draught was named after him, or not. In ten to twenty years I would like to own my own (intellectual) bar called (Apollo-dionysus [lower case purposeful]). This location is a possibility. Great area, great street, on a corner, great infrastructure. Everything in this bar was intelligible, including the drunken guitar-singer. I mention this because it is related to the “John Cage” artistic types.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not mean to write such a mean-spirited post earlier about modern music. Some modern music has good qualities--just not AS good as the music I like.

The chip on my shoulder towards popular culture stems from my experiences with the rest of my age group, whom I consider for the most part to be completely depraved creatures who have a high probability of destroying the world once they become the adults in society. For example, I would sit alone and read during lunch in high school while the other students threw things at me because I was the smart kid. Everything about them, especially the godawful music they enjoyed, drove me into a fury that I have tried hard to put behind me but might not fully recover from for a long time. Classical music has been instrumental (pardon the pun) in helping me get past the rage I felt towards the world and experience more positive emotions instead. I can't help thinking that if everyone listened to what I listened to instead of this modern stuff that is a horrible, mind-crushing influence on adolescents, the world would be that much more peaceful. Imagine the consequences when an entire generation of Britney Spears clone girls and Justin Timberlake clone boys grows up to take the reigns of society. Human beings do not live by means of trendy dance moves and fashionable clothes, they live by means of intelligence. The mainstream does not encourage intelligence, it encourages conformity, and because of that it is not only bad art but a threat to human life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not mean to write such a mean-spirited post earlier about modern music.

I find it difficult to believe that you "did not mean" to write that semi-long post. It took thought, effort and enough time and I do not think it could have just accidentally happened. That said, I understand the frustration of being surrounded by what appears to be (and often is) irrationality. If you want to see irrationality on a daily basis, as I'm sure you don't, try being a cop. :)

The chip on my shoulder towards popular culture stems from my experiences with the rest of my age group....
Do you not think it would be more rational to evaluate "modern music" (or even some aspects of pop culture as a whole) on its own merit and not on your experiences with peers? Because something is popular or trendy alone doesn't make it a bad thing. It may just mean that it is appreciated by the masses for the wrong reason(s). Or to look at it another way, are you going to let pop culture dictate to you what you won't listen to or watch?

How new must music be for you consider it "modern"? I like some classical music, and I have quite a bit in my rather large CD collection (about 1200+ CD's). Sometimes I enjoy hearing "A New World" or Midori playing Paganini's "24 Caprices" and other times Stevie Ray's rendition of "Little Wing" moves me. Stevie Ray Vaughan may not have able to write a symphony, but then I doubt Dvorak could work a fretboard like lightning either. :(

Recently I started listening to some Rush again. I learned that they read Ayn Rand and it is very noticeable in a lot of the lyrics of their songs.

Imagine the consequences when an entire generation of Britney Spears clone girls and Justin Timberlake clone boys grows up to take the reigns of society.

Hasn't that been said about every new generation, at least in the past 100 years or so?

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...