Here is the one and only reference that I was able to find.
“On a more adult level: a heroic man, the skyline of New York, a sunlit landscape, pure colors, ecstatic music–or: a humble man, an old village, a foggy landscape, muddy colors, folk music.”
Ayn Rand, The Romantic Manifesto: Chapter 2 page 27
I’m not saying this is AR’s opinion of folk music, it is mine and could have been one of AR’s, but I wouldn’t know and frankly I don’t think it is all that important a topic to do any indepth research. Folk music was and still is a haven of untalented (Woody Guthrie, Bob Dylan) “singers” of idiotic lyrics, not unlike rap music. Now the original post did mention Jim Croche, his songs are primarily about love and things like that, as opposed to statements on social issues or socialist diatribes, and he had the ability to sing unlike many more famous folk singers. I like Jim Croche songs primarily for this distinction but Jim Croche isn’t whom most rock and rollers say is the greatest artist ever, most of them point to Bob Dylan, a man who cannot sing and who has been a complete idiot his entire artisitic life. And his disciples are all over the place, Springsteen, Tom Petty, Sheryl Crow, etc.
I perceive the glorification of this type of mediocrity to be the main problem with all modern music, but most notably with folk and rap music, though I fail to see any redeeming qualities in the latter.
Have you surveyed the entire field of rap music? Besides the bubble gum rap that is pushed into the mainstream there exists an undeground culture who are often labled, “nerd rappers.”
I know some very talented freestylers who can put together amazing strings of words, that rhyme, and make sense. Some of the things these kids come up with off the top of their heads is utterly amazing. I bet you didn’t think this, but Eminem was one of the top freestylers in the country before he met Dr. Dre. You might not appreciate his particular subject matter, but his ability to battle someone with words was amazing. I would call it virtouso. Try putting together a rapid sucession of words with rythym, rhyme, and grace, and see what you can come up with. It is alot more than the stereotypical, “Tear da club up nigga, tear da club up,” mainstream kind of rap.
Artists like Aesop Rock, Atmosphere, and KRS-One speak on subjects that will never be pushed into the mainstream, and thus at first glance everyone sees rap as useless and talentless. Hell, I would if I didn’t know of the underground scene.
I’m not saying this is AR’s opinion of folk music, it is mine and could have been one of AR’s, but I wouldn’t know and frankly I don’t think it is all that important a topic to do any indepth research. Folk music was and still is a haven of untalented (Woody Guthrie, Bob Dylan) “singers” of idiotic lyrics, not unlike rap music. Now the original post did mention Jim Croche, his songs are primarily about love and things like that, as opposed to statements on social issues or socialist diatribes, and he had the ability to sing unlike many more famous folk singers. I like Jim Croche songs primarily for this distinction but Jim Croche isn’t whom most rock and rollers say is the greatest artist ever, most of them point to Bob Dylan, a man who cannot sing and who has been a complete idiot his entire artisitic life. And his disciples are all over the place, Springsteen, Tom Petty, Sheryl Crow, etc.
I perceive the glorification of this type of mediocrity to be the main problem with all modern music, but most notably with folk and rap music, though I fail to see any redeeming qualities in the latter.
Hey hey, ease up on the Dylan bashing. If we’re going to get into unbridled opinionation here, I feel obligated to voice my admiration for the man. He doesn’t have a great voice to be sure, but he was a helluva songwriter and furthermore, his collaborations with “The Band” are some of the best musical performances I’ve ever heard.
On that note, is anybody else here a fan of The Band? They were the group that performed that great song “The Weight” (y’know, “Take a load off Annie, take a load for free…”). The famous The Last Waltz is a four-star movie-documentary about The Band’s final performance, and includes such musical greats as Dylan, Van Morrison, Eric Clapton, and Ringo Starr – all in the same concert, and directed by Martin Scorcese! Awesome film for anyone who appreciates that genre of music.
I wouldn’t call myself a fan of folk music (for the record I hate Country and Rap, and Woodie Guthrie). I am, however, a pretty good musician myself, with a wide variety of musical tastes. I take pleasure from different kinds of music because I like it, not because it falls under the genre of “primitive folk music” or “sophisticated tasteful classical music.” Mozart was dull (and lest somebody call me a moron, I can play the trombone solo from his piece “Requiem” from memory…but I just don’t like to).
And Bob Dylan is anything but an idiot. Also remember, in the vast virtuous pursuit of money, Montesquieu, I’m guessing Bob’s got a helluva lot more than you 
I can swear I recall passages from either Atlas Shrugged, or The Fountainhead that clearly put down folk music. Does anyone recall this?
It is my honest evaluation that Ayn Rand DID in fact bash folk music. I remember reading where she used it in analogy to describe something as bad.
In The Fountainhead she is describing Toohey’s approach to writing his columns & has him quoted as saying:
“The worst folk song is superior to the best symphony.”
I view that as a concretization of her concept of the enshrinement of mediocracy in order to destroy genius. This is merely extrapolation on my part but, I think the symphony (classical, baroque, romantic music in general) as a form has the potential to be objectively superior to folk music because it represents a higher form of achievement than any folk song could. Obviously, that doesn’t mean any given individual should be obligated to like any symphony or dislike any folk song regardless of context.
The Rand analogy I offered in another thread here on music is that an airplane could be considered an “objectively superior” mode of transportation to a car, but that doesn’t mean you should use an airplane to ride down the street a couple of miles to the grocery store.
In The Fountainhead she is describing Toohey’s approach to writing his columns & has him quoted as saying:
“The worst folk song is superior to the best symphony.”
Judging from the theme of The Fountainhead, I think Toohey wrote that because a folk song is “collectively produced,” while a symphony is an individual achievement.
On that note, is anybody else here a fan of The Band? They were the group that performed that great song “The Weight” (y’know, “Take a load off Annie, take a load for free…”). The famous The Last Waltz is a four-star movie-documentary about The Band’s final performance, and includes such musical greats as Dylan, Van Morrison, Eric Clapton, and Ringo Starr – all in the same concert, and directed by Martin Scorcese! Awesome film for anyone who appreciates that genre of music.
My dad is friends with some of the members of the Band, so I have been exposed to their music all my life. On that note, I have grown rather fond of them, especially for their intense commitment to making music.
In The Fountainhead she is describing Toohey’s approach to writing his columns & has him quoted as saying:
“The worst folk song is superior to the best symphony.”
I view that as a concretization of her concept of the enshrinement of mediocracy in order to destroy genius. This is merely extrapolation on my part but, I think the symphony (classical, baroque, romantic music in general) as a form has the potential to be objectively superior to folk music because it represents a higher form of achievement than any folk song could. Obviously, that doesn’t mean any given individual should be obligated to like any symphony or dislike any folk song regardless of context.
The Rand analogy I offered in another thread here on music is that an airplane could be considered an “objectively superior” mode of transportation to a car, but that doesn’t mean you should use an airplane to ride down the street a couple of miles to the grocery store.
great assesment, and I totally agree.
For the most part, I prefer would prefer acoustic/vocal music. I cannot perform a symphony by myself, and I don’t yet have the knowledge to produce a symphony, but that will probably change in the next couple years. I definetely agree that it takes much more technical expertise to create a symphony, although I am generally more concerned with the emotional power put into a song. For some reason I barely get that from symphonies, unless a single person is taking control of the symphony, such as John Mclaughlin’s performance with the Munich Philharmonic. In case you haven’t heard that particular performance, I think you may appreciate it very much Chris..
And Bob Dylan is anything but an idiot. Also remember, in the vast virtuous pursuit of money, Montesquieu, I’m guessing Bob’s got a helluva lot more than you
For the majority of his career Bob Dylan was a socialistic dope and now he has turned to evangelical religion, am I missing something, but in my book, and I assumed everyone on this board’s book, that makes him an idiot. Saying he doesn’t sing that well is an understatement. Had anyone had a modicum of respect for tone and ability he would have been laughed out of the studio when he first started and not been allowed to terrorize the human ear for decades.
Making money through dubious means is no virtuous achievement. Because a schister like Dylan puts crap onto tapes and gets idiots to buy them I should admire him? He can have all the money in the world and that wont change the fact that his music is still no good and that he is an idiot. It just so happens there are many idiots out there with money to support his untalented rump.
<FC: Guys, let’s stick to the thread’s subject. The poster asked about the degree to which AR disliked folk music, not the degree to which any particular student of her philosophy dislikes it.
A thread about which music is good or bad can easily occupy 10 pages of posts, and that’s with all proper definitions and essentialized statements, something neither of you seems to be willing to provide here. So let’s end this pointless bashing of each other’s music tastes; even if you believe folk music isn’t good, it’s not so bad as to demean someone else over it.>
Hmm, Im really into trance music, wonder what she would have thought of that.
Hmm, Im really into trance music, wonder what she would have thought of that.
What is “trance” music? Can you provide a defenition and some examples?
Of course, the real question is more, “What is my aesthetic evaluation of trance music?” rather than “What is Ayn Rand’s?”
Read this if you want to understand what trance is:
In “Art and Cognition”, from The Romantic Manifesto, Rand pretty much “bashes” folk music, sometimes explicitly, as in the quote Thoyd Loki provided, and here:
“The products of anti-rational, anti-cognitive “Progressive” education, the hippies, are reverting to the music and the drumbeat of the jungle.”,
but she also does it implicitly, throughout that chapter; but let’s not forget that in the very same essay she says: “Until a conceptual vocabulary is discovered and defined, no objectively valid criterion of esthetic judgement is possible in the field of music.”
Though I admire Ayn Rand intensely, I don’t agree with some of her ideas about music. I know for a fact, for instance, (and to go in the opposite direction from folk music, for a moment) that some of the most complex music ever recorded sounds like random noise to the untrained ear, in the very same manner that a complex mathematical equation will look like gibberish to someone who doesn’t know what it means, and in the very same manner that a foreign language will sound like gibberish to someone who doesn’t understand it.
I am fairly certain that Ayn Rand wasn’t an expert on musical theory, and I’d say that there are excellent odds that certain types of experimental or avant garde music probably sounded like incoherent noise to her. On the one hand, she could denounce folk music because of its redundant, repetitive simplicity, and feel, perhaps justifiably, that such music was beneath her since it offered no challenge to her intellectually, and caused in her a purely negative emotional response; but on the other hand, due to the fact that she was not an expert in musical theory, she ought to have (and very well may have) recognized the possibility that certain types of music might actually be beyond her in the same sense that certain types of music were beneath her. At one point she seems to concede this, during a discussion of the similarities and differences between language and music:
“Western man can understand and enjoy Oriental painting; but Oriental music is unintelligible to him, it evokes nothing, it sounds like noise.” (Art and Cognition, Romantic Manifesto.)
I would suggest that it sounds like noise to him because of his ignorance primarily, and only secondarily because of the difference in culture and environment; and Rand’s statement is only very generally true, as I’m sure many Western people can and do enjoy Oriental music. (I might not be able to appreciate Oriental music until I had some sense of their musical philosophy and, more importantly, their formal and technical approach to musical theory and composition. Once I learn something about that, I am in a much greater position to appreciate and enjoy the music. Of course, I can still dislike it. How we respond to music emotionally is still in the realms of the subjective. I’m entitled to my opinion, but I’d rather have an educated opinion than one which is arrived at by way of ignorance.)
But later on, Ayn emphatically denounces what she calls “modern music”, and says that she is objectively certain that such music is NOT music. There is a reference to “non-periodic vibrations”, and as examples of these she cites sounds like traffic, coughs, sneezes. There are no other examples, so what she seems to be denouncing under the umbrella of “modern music” are compositions which include these non-musical sounds, or noises. I agree, noises, in themselves, do not constitute music; but non-musical sounds can often be incorporated into musical compositions with great effect. Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture is a prime example, which uses cannon-fire to augment the power of the music; Mahler’s Sixth Symphony has the famous (or infamous) “hammer-blows”. I wish she had gone into greater detail about what she labels “modern music”. As it stands, the term as she used it is lamentably vague, and one can only speculate as to what she might have thought of the various different kinds of experimental music, whether it be orchestral, electronic, or what.
Ayn says (and I’m paraphrasing because it’s difficult to hold a paperback open in your lap and type at the same time) that if any sort of noise is introduced into what is supposed to be a musical composition, that removes said composition from any consideration as a work of art. I have to respectfully disagree. I know of one chuckle, for instance, that I would absolutely hate to see removed from the piece it is included in. I’m refering to Robert Plant’s giggle, chuckle, or guffaw, which opens up “Whole Lotta Love”, on Led Zeppelin’s second album. I suppose the sound itself doesn’t constitute a musical sound, but it’s incorporation into the song is priceless. Just my opinion, of course, but I think it would be daft to suggest that we should be such purists as to disallow the creative use of non-musical sounds in otherwise musical compositions.
Back to folk music. Folk music can often be life-affirming, joyful, and a sheer pleasure to listen to. I was raised listening to Simon & Garfunkel, Peter Paul & Mary, John Denver, and the like. It was my father who played this music in the house, and it was my father who first introduced me to the philosophy of Ayn Rand. My father played us a lot of folk music, but he was nothing like a hippie himself. In fact, he couldn’t stand the whole hippie movement, even though he was a member of their generation. He was in the Air Force, was patriotic, was an advocate of capitalism, was an atheist to the marrow of his bones, never used drugs except for the occasional beer, and was interested in philosophy. He’s changed a bit since those days, but he’s still nothing like a hippie. I’m nothing like a hippie either. Folk music, in a variety of forms, has existed since ancient times, and folk artists should be judged as individuals, one artist at a time, not just lumped into a single category and dismissed out of hand. To do that is to make an error of prejudice, plain and simple.
I don’t think that any real connection can be made between people who enjoy folk music and a lack of intellectual caliber. It may be true that in general, the common herd has responded more readily to more accessible types of music, but of these types we can include certain kinds of chamber music, dance music (including symphonic dances and waltzes), operetta, show-tunes, gospel, hymns and masses, dixieland jazz, blues, rock, rap, what have you, as well as folk, which includes country and western music, whose fans are often the polar opposites of hippes insofar as their sense of life, their philosophy, their moral and political beliefs; but at the same time, it’s a plain fact that some of the best and brightest people in the world have enjoyed these accessible forms of music as well. I’d even go so far as to say that there might not be any definite correlation between musical preferences and levels of intelligence. Musical tastes seem to be more dependent on cultural and ethnic backgrounds (as well as the respective knowledge or lack of knowledge in regard to musical theory) than on intelligence, sense-of-life, or worldview. Of course, I could be wrong, and I would happily be corrected.
The idea that certain types of music can be psychologically damaging (an idea which Rand seems to espouse), is interesting, and might warrant some investigation, but in just looking over a few threads here at this forum we can see that rational people can and do enjoy all different kinds of music, from rock and heavy metal to alternative, to classical.
I remember reading somewhere that Ayn Rand disliked Beethoven’s music, calling it “malevolent”, or something; this has always bothered me. It bothers me because it’s weirdly evocative of a popular extreme-feminist belief that Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony is a depiction of the mindset of a male in the act of rape. Not only is this a belief, but there are people teaching this very idea in certain universities. This kind of nonsense is frightening, folks. For myself, I find nothing but great beauty and benevolent power in the symphony mentioned: joy, and hope, and exquisite, life-affirming passion. I have nothing against a person taking something wholly different than I do away from music, any music. It’s natural and normal; but I suggest that it’s unwise and even dangerous to foist one’s own subjective response to music on others by way of some sort of presumed intellectual authority. Not that Rand did that, necessarily, but I’d be dishonest to say I didn’t think she came somewhat close.
I am fairly certain that Ayn Rand wasn’t an expert on musical theory,
In fact, she was familiar with some of the major work:
The nature of musical perception has not been discovered because the key to the secret of music is physiological- it lies in the nature of the process by which man perceives sounds—and the answer would require the joint effort of a physiologist, a psychologist and a philosopher (an esthetician).
The start of a scientific approach to this problem and the lead to an answer were provided by Helmholtz, the great physiologist of the nineteenth century. He concludes his book, On the Sensations of Tone as a Physiological Basis for the Theory of Music, with the following statement: “Here I close my work. It appears to me that I have carried it as far as the physiological properties of the sensation of hearing exercise a direct influence on the construction of a musical system, that is, as far as the work especially belongs to natural philosophy … The real difficulty would lie in the development of the psychical motives which here [in the esthetics of music] assert themselves. Certainly this is the point where the more interesting part of musical esthetics begins, the aim being to explain the wonders of great works of art, and to learn the utterances and actions of the various affections of the mind. But, however alluring such an aim may be, I prefer leaving others to carry out such investigations, in which I should feel myself too much of an amateur, while I myself remain on the safe ground of natural philosophy, in which I am at home.” (New York, Dover Publications, 1954, p. 371.)
On the one hand, she could denounce folk music because of its redundant, repetitive simplicity,
Where did she do that?
and feel, perhaps justifiably, that such music was beneath her since it offered no challenge to her intellectually, and caused in her a purely negative emotional response; but on the other hand, due to the fact that she was not an expert in musical theory, she ought to have (and very well may have) recognized the possibility that certain types of music might actually be beyond her in the same sense that certain types of music were beneath her.
Remarkable mind-reading – and psychologizing!
The idea that certain types of music can be psychologically damaging (an idea which Rand seems to espouse)
Where, pray tell?
I remember reading somewhere that Ayn Rand disliked Beethoven’s music, calling it “malevolent”, or something; this has always bothered me. It bothers me because it’s weirdly similar to a popular extreme-feminist belief that Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony is a depiction of the mindset of a male in the act of rape. Not only is this a belief, but there are people teaching this very idea in certain universities. This kind of nonsense is frightening, folks. For myself, I find nothing but great beauty and benevolent power in the symphony mentioned: joy, and hope, and exquisite, life-affirming passion. I have nothing against a person taking something wholly different than I do away from music, any music.
It’s natural and normal; but I suggest that it’s unwise and even dangerous to foist one’s own subjective response to music on others by way of some sort of presumed intellectual authority. Not that Rand did that, necessarily, but I’d be dishonest to say I didn’t think she came somewhat close.
Ayn Rand did no such thing! It is one of the lies being spread about her by people whom Ayn Rand DID reject, but not because they liked the “wrong” works of art.
Leonard Peikoff was asked about this in a live radio interview conducted by reporters for a local newspaper while he was doing his daily radio show. Here’s what he had to say, transcribed verbatim, from my tape of the interview:
If it were true that Ayn Rand kicked out of her circle or denounced or would not tolerate anyone who disagreed with her on things like music and painting, I’d like you to account for my continued existence as a close friend of hers for over thirty years plus being designated as heir.
I loved Beethoven. I have a vast Mozart collection of which she knew perfectly well. I love Somerset Maugham whom she hated. […]
She knew in great detail of the conflicts – such conflicts or disagreements as there were – and as long as you could specify what you liked in terms that were understandable in reason (and that were not an assault on reason, as I indicated to you before) there’s no such thing. It’s a complete, total lie.
In “Art and Cognition”, from The Romantic Manifesto, Rand pretty much “bashes” folk music, sometimes explicitly, as in the quote Thoyd Loki provided, and here:
WilliamB,
Please DO NOT put my name in a post like that.
Remarkable mind-reading – and psychologizing!
I’m not seeing what the issue is here. Lets go through the paragraph bit by bit shall we?
Statement 1: "I am fairly certain that Ayn Rand wasn’t an expert on musical theory, and I’d say that there are excellent odds that certain types of experimental or avant garde music probably sounded like incoherent noise to her. "
That sounds reasonable. All the guy is saying here is that
-given that you need to be a musical expert to properly “hear” or understand or “get” certain types of complext music, Ayn Rand probably saw certain music as incoherant noise.
That doesn’t sound like mind reading, it sounds like creating a hypothesis based on some generally accepted facts like
Ayn Rand didn’t play instruments
Ayn Rand didn’t study musical theory for any length of time
being profecient or having an expertise in music isn’t a subjective thing. Having expertise generally requires lots of study or a remarkably gifted ear. Even with a natural ear for music, it takes study to understand what you are hearing
I’m not seeing what the problem is or how he is psychologizing/mind reading. I’m also aware that you didn’t quote this statment above, but I am analyzing it because it is part of the overall statment and excerpting like you did takes what was said out of context (and I think that will become pretty obvious the farther we go).
That seems pretty reasonable considering we have a body of empirical evidence before us proving WHERE Ayn Rand denounces folk music and for the very reasons this guy tells us…because it is “simple, repetitive, redundant”.
If I (Evan Sanchez) labeled music as simple, repetitive, and redundant, is it a huge logical leap to say that such music doesn’t challenge me intellectually and is (at least in my own opinion) beneath me?
Not at all. Unless I’m half-witted, simple stuff like the Barney and Friend’s theme song isn’t going to intellectually exicte or elicit positive emotional responses in comparison to the work of a master. By the time I’m 10 I’m probably going to have moved on and such crappy musicianship is probably going to be beneath me in reality as well as by my own standards and value orientation.
We already have the fact that Ayn Rand disliked folk music and we know why. Is it such a bad thing to put two and two together and get four?
Once again, given that Ayn Rand ISN’T an expert, this person tells us that the smart thing to do is acknowledge that while some things are going to be obviously beneath Ayn Rand’s massive intellect…others are going to be beyond it. Not due to some flaw in Ayn Rand or lackof intellect , but due to a lack of musical training or knowledge about musical theory. Is that such an insult? Is that a bad thing? Of course not.
I know many brilliant people who can’t carry a tune. That doesn’t make them bad. I know many people who can do advanced calculus, but couldn’t tell you OBJECTIVELY what makes Beethoven’s 9th better than the theme song to Seinfeld other than the fact that it uses more instruments and is “seems” harder to play.
Most important about this third statment is the fact that this person doesn’t assume that Ayn Rand didn’t realize that some music was going to be beyond her. He leaves open the possibility that she herself might have acknowledged this very fact when he quotes the passage where she talks about Eastern music.
He made a value statment (ought instead of is) saying “This is what Ayn Rand should have done.” Is that a bad thing? He even concedes that she might have indeed done what he thinks is proper.
So what is the problem? Do you think that he is in some way fundamentally wrong? Do you disagree with what HE thinks should Ayn Rand should have done in that situation or his evaluation of what would be right in that situation?
Given that Ayn Rand wasn’t a musical expert, yet STILL persisted in making music related value judgements is it wrong to maintain that while some things are going to obviously be at or below Miss Rand’s level that some things are going to be above it? If you DO think that is wrong, please tell us why you think it is wrong.
Is it wrong to say that the right thing to do in that instance is aquire more knowledge or withold judgment until one gets a greater grasp in material?
Ayn Rand was all about getting the facts, learning, studying, and understanding the world around her. She was definitely not one to encourage whim or snap judgments. Thus, I honestly do see how William B’s suggestion could be off the mark at all.
If you don’t take this paragraph out of context or excerpt it as you did, I think it is pretty clear that this guy wasn’t “mind reading” at all. He wasn’t saying “Ayn Rand felt X or thought Y” without any empirical evidence whatsoever.
He cites why he thinks Ayn Rand felt that folk music was beneath her and simple logic tells us that people don’t think that simple, repetitve, boring music is at their level unless they themsleves are simple, repetitive, and boring people. Unless you are implying that Ayn Rand is as simple as the music she labeled “simple” then why is it a bad thing to take a logical statment and derive a conclusion from it that lines up with observable reality?
How is that “psychologizing” or “mind reading?”
One does not need a degree in music to know that Schoenberg and Cage are just plain awful and corrupt no matter how “complex” their arrangements may be.
He wasn’t saying “Ayn Rand felt X” […]
He [was saying] Ayn Rand felt that folk music was beneath her
Ah, contradictions, what a pesky thing. 
Besides, by that last point you’ve proven Betsy’s point about psychologizing.
The post was yet another one of those posts that are filled with deductions piling up on top of one another, with hardly any inductive claim based on observation and experience.
For example, you say:
If I labeled music as simple, repetitive, and redundant, is it a huge logical leap to say that such music doesn’t challenge me intellectually and is beneath me?
It isn’t, if your theory of music is that it is supposed to be intellectually challenging (whatever that means!). Objectivist theory of aesthetics says that music, and all art, has practically nothing at all to do with the intellect.
Instead of relying on deductions too much, placing one’s trust on inductive reasoning about reality will show that the level of complexity in a piece of art has nothing to do with whether it is good art or not. Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata is a simple piano melody; you don’t even necessarily need two hands to play it, because the left hand merely accompanies the right hand’s melody; Bach’s Badinerie, yet another example, is a very simple flute melody.
On the other hand, there are few things more difficult for conceptual processing than serious post-modern writing.
As a wise lady said once, check your premises. B)
Would I be out of bounds by suggesting that Objectivism is not a religon and Ayn Rand not its prophet. I think that a person could do damage by following AR’s life as though it were the Messiah’s. Her philosophy has so much to offer but it does not lay out "Objectivist "guidelines for matters of personal taste.
She may herself had held opinions about art and music that tied back into her own philosophy, but that does mean that an individual should not like something because she didn’t. One should remember how much the era in which an individual was raised effects their personal opinions on art and music. Most people her age hated folk music and alot of them probably didn’t hold anything near Objectivist views.
She also made allusions in AS that she didn’t like the countryside and prefered the city. I love being in the countryside that does not make me an alltruist or a non-Objectivist. She also LOVED hollywood movies, I imagine alot of us out there don’t care much for hollywood movies of today or of her time. These types of personal preferences should not be cast in with the information she gives on personal and political philosophy. A person stands to make a religon out of an atheist philosophy when doing so.
On the topic of Bob Dylan or other similar folk musicians, I for one like much of the music. I would never defend however much of the socialist setiment that was prevalent at the time, but still enjoy hearing a really good Dylan song. But those are my own feelings that do not affect anybody elses.
One does not need a degree in music to know that Schoenberg and Cage are just plain awful and corrupt no matter how “complex” their arrangements may be.
And as a sort of corollary to this, one might argue that a degree is required to actually believe that such noise is anything but corrupt. (I say this with all deference to the many fine institutions that actually do teach music.)
Afterall, how is is possible to keep a straight face and treat the following with any degree of seriousness: A man sits down at the piano and lifts the lid, closing it after some time has elapsed without playing a single note. He repeats the same. Such is a “performance” of a “musical” piece, John Cage’s 4’ 33". Ironically, in a way, this may be preferrable to the noise introduced in other works.
Believe it or not, a couple of years ago Mike Batt was sued by the estate of John Cage for his “One Minute of Silence” cut on an album. The Cage estate claimed violation of copyright for the sound of silence! Batt settled out of court.