Any fans of "pro-life" music out there? :-)

[Roger Bissell]

[George H. Smith]

Roger,

By Randian standards, does it qualify as faking reality when an actor pretends to be playing an instrument that he cannot actually play?

More seriously, some years ago you and I and Chis Sciabarra (a serious jazz buff) had a fairly extensive correspondence about why jazz is not popular among O'ists. I recall that you expressed some interesting ideas on that topic. I think some OLers would find them interesting as well, so perhaps you will give us a summary.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Over 6 years ago I was engaged in a discussion on the Yahoo JazzWestCoast list about why jazz videos on YouTube typically don't get many hits, on average maybe a few thousand at most. At that point I decided to see whether I could produce a jazz video that would do considerably better, so I started a "Stories of Jazz" series. Part 1 flubbed, but Part 2 is up to over 50,400 hits. Here it is:

Ghs

[Jonathan]

Roger,

By Randian standards, does it qualify as faking reality when an actor pretends to be playing an instrument that he cannot actually play?

More seriously, some years ago you and I and Chis Sciabarra (a serious jazz buff) had a fairly extensive correspondence about why jazz is not popular among O'ists. I recall that you expressed some interesting ideas on that topic. I think some OLers would find them interesting as well, so perhaps you will give us a summary.

Ghs

Do you think that jazz is less popular among O-ists than the general population?

My impression has been that jazz is more popular among O-ists.

J

[George H. Smith]

Jonathan wrote:

Do you think that jazz is less popular among O-ists than the general population?

My impression has been that jazz is more popular among O-ists.

I don't have the data needed to answer your question about the popularity of jazz among O'ists relative to the general population. But I know that for nearly 50 years I have only encountered a relative handful of jazz buffs among O'ists. Moreover Rand herself disliked jazz, as indicated in this letter she wrote to a radio station in 1936:

Of course, we would like to hear as many classical recordings as you can give us. For the life of me, I can't understand why people should intrude with their senseless jazz requests upon the only classical program we have, when every other station plays plenty of jazz night and day. Can't we, the badly neglected minority that possesses a trace of good taste, be allowed one good program out of a hundred trashy ones?

Later the same year, Rand wrote:

As to the music, my vote is: more classics, particularly light concert classics such as you have been playing lately. Personally, I would say: all classics, but I don't mind suffering through a jazz number once in a while if it's necessary and if your audience demands it.

And again:

Do we miss the Midnight Jamboree? Well, "you have no idea!" Oh, yes, the Jamboree is still there, but "she ain't what she used to be." "Don't look now," but we are not very happy about the announcer who is understudying you. He is not bad, as radio announcers go, but he is just that--a radio announcer, and with a leaning toward jazz music besides.

I don't think Rand ever published anything about jazz specifically, but she may have discussed it with members of her inner circle. And if she did, it is possible, given her moralistic attitude about forms of art she disliked, that the word filtered down from on high that rational people should not like jazz. Indeed, I have met a number of O'ist types who not only disliked jazz but who, in effect, condemned jazz as irrational.

Improvisation makes jazz an intensely individualistic form of music, so on those grounds alone we might think that O'ists would be interested in the genre. But it is also an acquired taste, so some O'ists, especially those who don't know anything about chord structures and the like, might hear what seems like a random running of notes upon their first exposure to jazz and so refuse to explore the genre any further. That's just a guess, obviously. More supportable is the observation that many orthodox O'ists have a prejudice against any music (or type of art generally) that was not officially sanctioned by Rand. I once saw an O'ist get livid when another Randian said that he liked the music of Beethoven, a composer whom Rand specifically criticized as anti-life, or something to that effect.

Then as now, I could never make any sense out of such evaluations. Rand, in my judgment, over-moralized the universe by extending moral judgments inappropriately into the field of art. During my student days at the University of Arizona I often noticed the tendency of Randians to virtually forbid themselves to enjoy a movie that had been reviewed negatively by Rand or by members of her inner circle. In what I call "The Psycho-Epistemological Twist," to enjoy a movie that expressed a bad "sense of life" (as judged by Rand) was to reveal some ugly things about one's own psycho-epistemology. And who wants to take that risk?

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

I don't think Rand ever published anything about jazz specifically, but she may have discussed it with members of her inner circle. And if she did, it is possible, given her moralistic attitude about forms of art she disliked, that the word filtered down from on high that rational people should not like jazz.

Alan Greenspan played Jazz clarinet professionally before meeting Rand, and still likes it, according to his memoir.

http://www.amazon.com/Alan-Greenspan-s-Top-10-Classical-and-Jazz-Favorites/lm/R3N9YQYWFZWK94

And Peikoff is known to play Jazz piano, albeit amateur level.

Oh no, I just had to do a YouTube search. Haven't heard it yet, fasten your seatbelts:

Conclusion, O'ism on Jazz: it's A-OK. QED.

[Jonathan]

I don't have the data needed to answer your question about the popularity of jazz among O'ists relative to the general population. But I know that for nearly 50 years I have only encountered a relative handful of jazz buffs among O'ists.

I agree that it's rare to find jazz buffs in O-land, but that's also true outside of O-land.

Personally, I've seen comparatively little bitching about/condemning of jazz by Objectivists (compared to their condemning of other art forms, styles, etc.). It's often not their favorite thing, but I've seen many who say that they enjoy it, or at least some of it.

J

[Jonathan]

Conclusion, O'ism on Jazz: it's A-OK. QED.

Maybe that's it. Perhaps O-ists were given permission to enjoy jazz just prior to the time that I started observing which art forms they ranted about?

J

[George H. Smith]

Oh no, I just had to do a YouTube search. Haven't heard it yet, fasten your seatbelts:

Conclusion, O'ism on Jazz: it's A-OK. QED.

I listened to the first tune, but by the end I was squirming so much that I could not continue. I may give it another try later, but for now I strongly recommend that the pianist not give up his day job. Maybe a cowbell would help. 8-(

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

If your first encounter with jazz was with watching the video, posted above, by the Andrew Lewis Trio, I fear you may have been scarred for life and never listen to jazz again. As a tonic and illustration that even Objectivist-types can play top-notch jazz, here is our own Roger Bissell from a few months ago.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Conclusion, O'ism on Jazz: it's A-OK. QED.

Maybe that's it. Perhaps O-ists were given permission to enjoy jazz just prior to the time that I started observing which art forms they ranted about?

J

Or maybe O'ists were only given permission to enjoy truly crappy jazz. 8-)

Under what conditions do you suppose that Roger would be invited to perform at a function of the Ayn Rand Institute? None that I can think of, unless he first publicly confessed and recanted his heresies, and begged the forgiveness of whomever has that kind of power nowadays at ARI.. After this cleansing of Roger's psycho-epistemological soul, ARI would probably conclude that Roger's musicianship had improved considerably, even measuring up to the standards set by the Andrew Lewis Trio, so then, but only then, they might invite him to perform before a gathering of the Saints. 8-)

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

I strongly recommend that the pianist not give up his day job.

I beg to differ. Consider (and provided) that the more time he spends practicing the less he spends on:

http://www.peikoff.com/2016/02/01/a-case-of-a-transgendered-entity-worse-than-b-j/

So I say it's time to ditch that shopworn Kantian Categorical Imperative about truth-telling, and lead him to believe that with a lot more practice he will be producing this:

Though he'll never, alas, be any match for Wendy Carlos.

[Brant Gaede]

I listened to LP briefly. It's been awhile. He sounds like he's been drinking. Maybe it's meds. He talked about transgenderism.

Why do philosophers so easily become experts respecting so many other things? Ayn Rand "had the power of certainty." Maybe certainty extended too far is faux expertise? Personally, I do a lot of waddling through--if not only in. My whole life is one big waddle.

--Brant

waddle expert, but I don't know enough to teach it; I'd change but I'd be at war with what I am (re LP)

[George H. Smith]

My whole life is one big waddle.

I suspect that your waddle looks to many people like a determined and purposeful sprint. Herbert Spencer sometimes condemned himself for his "indolence." Yet his published works easily fill an entire bookshelf.

I also view myself as a fundamentally indolent person. If I had been a trust baby and didn't need to work, I may never have published anything. As it is, I can only prod myself to work by getting myself interested in a topic. I cannot write, or at least not write anything worth reading, unless I can throw myself heart and soul into what I am writing about. Thus does my "rational hedonism" govern even my work.

Marilyn can testify to all this. Early each week she asks how my next L.org essay is going. And on more one occasion I have replied that I haven't been able to begin the writing yet--not because I don't know enough about the topic (that is almost never a problem) but because I haven't been able to "immerse" myself in the subject matter yet. It's a little difficult to explain exactly what I mean by "immerse," but anyone who undertakes creative projects in any field will probably be able to identify with my statement.

I sometimes think of my weekly essays as the written equivalent of an improvised jazz solo. I follow a basic chord structure, write quickly and spontaneously, and then hope the outcome doesn't stink up the place.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

I'm still waiting for you to find Jesus.

[Jonathan]

Conclusion, O'ism on Jazz: it's A-OK. QED.

Maybe that's it. Perhaps O-ists were given permission to enjoy jazz just prior to the time that I started observing which art forms they ranted about?

J

Or maybe O'ists were only given permission to enjoy truly crappy jazz. 8-)

Under what conditions do you suppose that Roger would be invited to perform at a function of the Ayn Rand Institute? None that I can think of, unless he first publicly confessed and recanted his heresies, and begged the forgiveness of whomever has that kind of power nowadays at ARI.. After this cleansing of Roger's psycho-epistemological soul, ARI would probably conclude that Roger's musicianship had improved considerably, even measuring up to the standards set by the Andrew Lewis Trio, so then, but only then, they might invite him to perform before a gathering of the Saints. 8-)

Ghs

Yeah, that's pretty much how the Objectivist method of judging artistic talent works.

J

[dldelancey]

My personal experience with jazz is that you have to be there to truly appreciate it. To listen to audio only... meh, whatever. To be in the front row at the New Orleans House of Blues and experience Trombone Shorty with my very own eyes and ears or standing room only at Preservation Hall for pretty much any ol' jazz trio... that's what dreams are made of.

[9thdoctor]

I also view myself as a fundamentally indolent person.

Theme song: Nearer, My Couch, to Thee. Wonder how that'd sound in a Jazz arrangement.

https://www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/18/reviews/pynchon-sloth.html

I'm still waiting for you to find Jesus.

He just needs to get another dog.

[Brant Gaede]

OMG!

LOL

[Jonathan]

I also view myself as a fundamentally indolent person. If I had been a trust baby and didn't need to work, I may never have published anything. As it is, I can only prod myself to work by getting myself interested in a topic. I cannot write, or at least not write anything worth reading, unless I can throw myself heart and soul into what I am writing about. Thus does my "rational hedonism" govern even my work.

Marilyn can testify to all this. Early each week she asks how my next L.org essay is going. And on more one occasion I have replied that I haven't been able to begin the writing yet--not because I don't know enough about the topic (that is almost never a problem) but because I haven't been able to "immerse" myself in the subject matter yet. It's a little difficult to explain exactly what I mean by "immerse," but anyone who undertakes creative projects in any field will probably be able to identify with my statement.

That's the essence of the creative process. It has to fester and ferment. You have to stay away from it, and maybe even be repulsed at the idea of going anywhere near it for a while. It needs lots of subconscious or semiconscious (or whatever) input and processing. It needs to play and fuck around, and it'll let you know when it's done.

J

[Brant Gaede]

I also view myself as a fundamentally indolent person. If I had been a trust baby and didn't need to work, I may never have published anything. As it is, I can only prod myself to work by getting myself interested in a topic. I cannot write, or at least not write anything worth reading, unless I can throw myself heart and soul into what I am writing about. Thus does my "rational hedonism" govern even my work.

Marilyn can testify to all this. Early each week she asks how my next L.org essay is going. And on more one occasion I have replied that I haven't been able to begin the writing yet--not because I don't know enough about the topic (that is almost never a problem) but because I haven't been able to "immerse" myself in the subject matter yet. It's a little difficult to explain exactly what I mean by "immerse," but anyone who undertakes creative projects in any field will probably be able to identify with my statement.

That's the essence of the creative process. It has to fester and ferment. You have to stay away from it, and maybe even be repulsed at the idea of going anywhere near it for a while. It needs lots of subconscious or semiconscious (or whatever) input and processing. It needs to play and fuck around, and it'll let you know when it's done.

J

Ironically, you also need to saturate yourself in the subject.

--Brant