You have a point there, and I thought about myself, but it’s a very daunting task to explain the main principles of Objectivism in a way as memorable and strong as Ayn Rand’s.
I absolutely agree with that. It’s really a daunting task just to make worthwhile art in general. But, when faced with a daunting task, does one borrow *directly* from those who have mastered the task in the past, like Peter Keating cutting and pasting the architectural designs of others onto his buildings, all out of the original context, or does one attempt something on his own.. Letting himself fail, even, for as long as it takes to get it right–to make something new, and true, and something that’s never been said in exactly that way before?
Personally, that’s why I would primarily take issue with the title. It’s a very ambitious title. It’s a title that I would not expect someone to give to a work unless he was ready for it, and could live up to it on his own effort, not second handed, but with an *entirely* original and flawlessly inspiring performance musically, lyrically, aesthetically, and philosophically. I would expect it to be an unprecedented integration of musical ideas with lyrical ideas that was constructed with as much passion and devotion as Ayn Rand put into her own works.
I think anything less than that, with a title such as that, however innocent the intentions, could only ultimately serve to feed off of Ayn Rand’s enormous popularity, not to promote it in a significant way.
But, then, I am an American. I can sympathize with the plight of someone who lives in a country where her ideas are even more unheard of than they are here, and the desperate desire such a person might have to broadcast them for someone, anyone to hear, and hopefully to want to know more. But still, posting the songs on a public forum opens them to criticism from a world audience. So that’s my perspective.
