Art as Microcosm (2004)


Roger Bissell

Recommended Posts

Eventually, I may give up trying to append my views to Objectivism and come up with a name for my own (more-or-less) system of thought.

That's just what my recommendation is that you do. I think the strengths in what you're saying come much more from you trying to fix what Rand wrote than from Rand's actual theories and that you could emphasize the strengths in your approach better while weeding out the weaknesses if you'd present the ideas sailing under your own flag (whatever you want to title that flag; "Bissellism" has been used pejoratively by certain folks we know, but why let them set terms? ;-))

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 501
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For example, Roger -- continuing from my post #26: your idea that the "microcosm" theory is the "real" meaning of Rand's (a)esthetics (I think I'll continue to use "esthetics"; it is easier to type). I think that one has to do some significant stretching here and squeezing there to get "microcosm" theory from Rand's actual words. And something I myself have no interest in becoming enmeshed in a debate about is the extent to which the creation of a symbolic "microcosm" is or isn't what Rand meant by "selective re-creation of reality." On the other hand, the "microcosm" theory of itself I find a good one to pursue.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And another thing, your proferred definition: "an artwork is a symbol that conveys basic perspectives on the world and man by embodying them in an imaginary world."

I think that that's a signficant improvement on Rand's definition. Where I'd quarrel with it is on the "basic perspectives" issue. I think that art conveys much more than "basic perspectives," that limiting art's function to presenting "basic perspectives" is too narrow. I might also quarrel with "embodying"; sort of depends on just what you mean by that.

Ellen

PS: And I shouldn't be writing about art. I have something else I should be writing about. But put a penny in when it comes to art, and I have difficulty getting my circuits to stop whirling.

PPS: I agree with Dragonfly that thinking of the fate of a melody in music as analogous to the action of a character in literature carries the comparison between music and literature too far, although there are some general comparisons of form which can be made between literature and music.

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, Roger -- continuing from my post #26: your idea that the "microcosm" theory is the "real" meaning of Rand's (a)esthetics (I think I'll continue to use "esthetics"; it is easier to type). I think that one has to do some significant stretching here and squeezing there to get "microcosm" theory from Rand's actual words. And something I myself have no interest in becoming enmeshed in a debate about is the extent to which the creation of a symbolic "microcosm" is or isn't what Rand meant by "selective re-creation of reality." On the other hand, the "microcosm" theory of itself I find a good one to pursue.

Ellen

___

I'm glad that you see the merit in exploring a "microcosm" theory of art. And while you may be correct that Rand herself did not mean this when she spoke of "re-creation of reality," I think that several Objectivists (other than myself) thought otherwise -- and in a time frame that suggests that they were indeed taking their cue from Rand herself.

In my 2005 JARS essay on the parallels between Langer, Camus, and Rand, I wrote:

Allan and Joan Mitchell Blumenthal (1974) remarked that the ancient Greeks viewed music as a microcosm, and Peikoff (1976) acknowledged that the artist “creates a universe anew.” Peikoff first publicly stated the microcosm view, with Rand’s endorsement, in his book on Nazi Germany (1982). In it, he described how the work of artists in a given culture or period of history “becomes a microcosm embodying and helping to spread further the kinds of beliefs [advocated by] the prevailing consensus (or some faction within it)” (169). The explicit integration of the “re-creation” and “microcosm” views of art, however, was not officially made until 1991, in a passage that is largely a reworking of material from a 1976 lecture course in which Rand participated. Peikoff (1991, 417) wrote:
The artist is the closest man comes to being God. We can validly speak of the world of Michelangelo, of Van Gogh, of Dostoyevsky, not because they create a world ex nihilo, but because they do re-create one. Each omits, rearranges, emphasizes the data of reality and thus creates the universe anew, guided by his own view of the essence of the original one. . . . The result is a universe in microcosm.5 (emphasis added) [Note 5. Also see Peikoff 1991: “Since art is a re-creation of the universe from a personal perspective, it offers man, in effect, a new reality to contemplate . . .” (448; emphasis added). Further see Peikoff (in Rand [1957] 1992): “[A] novel (like a statue or a symphony) does not require or tolerate an explanatory preface; it is a self-contained universe, aloof from commentary, beckoning the reader to enter, perceive, respond” (ix).]

Self-contained universe...microcosm...creating the universe anew...re-creating a world...a new reality to contemplate. All the connections are there, at least in OPAR. Too bad he didn't finish it 10 years earlier, so that Rand could have officially endorsed his explicitly stating that art is a microcosm. But I strongly suspect that this was in fact her view as well. In any case, it certainly is ~mine~ and has been for over 3 decades!

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And another thing, your proferred definition: "an artwork is a symbol that conveys basic perspectives on the world and man by embodying them in an imaginary world."

I think that that's a signficant improvement on Rand's definition. Where I'd quarrel with it is on the "basic perspectives" issue. I think that art conveys much more than "basic perspectives," that limiting art's function to presenting "basic perspectives" is too narrow. I might also quarrel with "embodying"; sort of depends on just what you mean by that.

Ellen

PS: And I shouldn't be writing about art. I have something else I should be writing about. But put a penny in when it comes to art, and I have difficulty getting my circuits to stop whirling.

PPS: I agree with Dragonfly that thinking of the fate of a melody in music as analogous to the action of a character in literature carries the comparison between music and literature too far, although there are some general comparisons of form which can be made between literature and music.

___

Quick points, Ellen:

1. My hasty attempt to re-phrase Rand's definition of art does not mean to ~limit~ art's function, just to state the ~essence~ of its function. For instance, suppose that the fundamental point of a sonata movement form or a novel was to dramatize the idea that life is about surmounting obstacles and achieving values -- that success is not automatic, but it is possible to humans -- that does not rule out that a musical piece or novel can also present other ideas and values of a less fundamental kind. I am not, and Rand is not, trying to narrow art's function by either of these definitions, any more than we would try to narrow man's function to the exercise of reason by identifying his essence as being a rational animal. Many Objectivists do, unfortunately, forget that we are also ~animals~, and that we do many other things than simply think, things that are very important and valuable. But thinking is the central thing we do that guides and organizes the other things. Similarly, presenting fundamental ideas about the world is why art exists and the feature of art around which all of its other functions are centered.

2. "Embodying" -- there are two kinds of symbols and two ways of retaining abstractions. One is linguistic symbols, and these work by automatized association of the symbol with an idea. There is no perceivable similarity between a linguistic symbol and the idea it symbolizes (with the trivial exception of onomatopoeia). The other is what I call an "imaginal" symbol, which is based on resemblance between the symbol and the idea. For instance, you can see a painted or sculpted image of a brave man, which is similar in appearance to a real brave man. An artwork is a special kind of imaginal symbol that actually presents not just a thing, like a man or a bowl of fruit or a landscape, but a whole world in miniature. (Even if the image of the bowl of fruit is all that is visible to the viewer, looking into the frame of the painting is in effect looking into another world, an imaginary world, and the central focus is the bowl of fruit in that imaginary world.) Now, there is no way of getting around the fact that once you present your own vision of a world, your own imaginary world, you also convey something of ~how~ you think that world is. Painting vibrant, healthy trees vs. decaying, puny, diseased trees -- that conveys a world in which successful living is possible vs. a world in which death is the norm. The imaginary worlds of the paintings, and specifically the trees in them, embody those respective abstractions about the basic nature of the world. The abstractions are not automatically drawn up from one's internalized verbal/conceptual glossary (as they would be in a philosophical essay about the nature of the world and life), but instead are evoked by the sight of something that looks like it exemplifies those ideas.

[The above is really difficult to explain briefly. I spent a lot more time trying to nail it down in both my 1997 Objectivity essay and my 2004 JARS essay. They are both on my website, in case you change your mind about reading my pieces. :-) ]

3. As for the comparison between the fate of a dramatic character and the fate of a melody, I'll just quote Allan Blumenthal from his and Joan's 1974 course on music (which you attended, correct?):

Throughout these lectures, I have mentioned a number of similarities between a musical composition and a work of fiction. Continuing that comparison, I would like to point out that a musical theme serves the same function as a leading character or protagonist in a novel. Both are the subjects of the work, and both are necessary for the action.

Just as most novels feature many characters – the hero, the heroine, the villain, and other secondary figures – so a musical composition usually contains many themes: the principal theme, the secondary theme, and often additional minor themes.

The plot structure of the composition leads the various themes through a variety of adventures, during the course of which they are altered. In musical terms, these adventures constitute the development. By the end, a given theme may gain power or be weakened, it may dominate or become subservient, it may triumph or be vanquished.

You may wonder if this is simply a sop to Rand, to her idiosyncratic way of viewing music. But it is far more broadly accepted a viewpoint in the musical and artistic community than that. Numerous music aestheticians and critics have similar ideas about the parallels between literature and music, and in particular between character development and multiple musical thematic development. (Not all music, of course -- just dramatic music, of the sonata-movement form and similar types -- but then not all literature has this kind of development either. We are comparing sweet apples and sweet oranges, as against sour apples and sour oranges, or bitter apples and bitter oranges. :-) )

4. If you have something else you should be writing about, then do it -- and share it with us, if you can! But I'd say that you are putting your "penny" where your mouth is. Seems to me that you value understanding about the arts fairly highly!

Best,

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. As for the comparison between the fate of a dramatic character and the fate of a melody, I'll just quote Allan Blumenthal from his and Joan's 1974 course on music (which you attended, correct?):

[From Blumenthal music course] Throughout these lectures, I have mentioned a number of similarities between a musical composition and a work of fiction. Continuing that comparison, I would like to point out that a musical theme serves the same function as a leading character or protagonist in a novel. Both are the subjects of the work, and both are necessary for the action.

Just as most novels feature many characters – the hero, the heroine, the villain, and other secondary figures – so a musical composition usually contains many themes: the principal theme, the secondary theme, and often additional minor themes.

The plot structure of the composition leads the various themes through a variety of adventures, during the course of which they are altered. In musical terms, these adventures constitute the development. By the end, a given theme may gain power or be weakened, it may dominate or become subservient, it may triumph or be vanquished.

You may wonder if this is simply a sop to Rand, to her idiosyncratic way of viewing music. But it is far more broadly accepted a viewpoint in the musical and artistic community than that. Numerous music aestheticians and critics have similar ideas about the parallels between literature and music, and in particular between character development and multiple musical thematic development. (Not all music, of course -- just dramatic music, of the sonata-movement form and similar types -- but then not all literature has this kind of development either. We are comparing sweet apples and sweet oranges, as against sour apples and sour oranges, or bitter apples and bitter oranges. :-) )

I don't recall his saying that in the 1974 course, but there's a lot I've forgotten of what he said. What I mostly remember is certain ways he handled certain composers, walking a fence between his own tastes and judgments of merit and Rand's. I said to myself, in these words, at the time, "He's either going to have to split with her or lose his soul. A person can't so precisely walk a fence without knowing that the fence is there. He's going to fall off one direction or the other." (To my delight, a few years later, he did "fall off" -- on his side of the fence.)

Unfortunately, by mistake I threw out -- precisely, burned -- my lecture notes from the music course and some later stuff I'd written to Allan. I got that material mixed in with a pile of manuscript xeroxes and other detritus from my editing job. The apartment I was living in then had a fireplace. The papers went up the chimney in smoke.

As we've discussed before, the 1974 version of the course is not the one which is on the tapes which are sold. The course was redone, and Joan does part of the talking. She helped with the writing in the first version (she's a better writer than he is), but she didn't do any of the talking. I don't know if the material you quote was in the original course or was added. It would be nice to find someone who attended the original course and kept notes of it. I have rued the day when I made the mistake of incinerating my notes.

I'm tired tonight and can't write any more, and I do have to get about disciplined work on my project. 'Tis true, however, as you surmised, that I "value understanding about the arts fairly highly!" So I might return to the thread sooner than I ought.

Double-checking, since you didn't reply to my post #26: I hope you saw that. I'm serious in suggesting that you might do well to sail your ideas under your own flag, so to speak. Something to keep in mind as a possibility anyway.

Cheers,

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, God. Here I am again. Something just came back. Allan did talk in his course about how the chord (and progressions of chords) is the basis of tonal drama.

A memory: One night I was talking with him some months before he gave the course. One of the subjects was about the basis of the tonal system. I remember his saying he'd tried to explain to Rand and she hadn't understood about how the sort of melody she liked couldn't be developed until the tempered system, and the full panoply of tonal drama thus made possible, was developed, how the progression of chords was the basis for her preferred type of melody. He said that she thought of melody as the basis of music. I'm not (at least now) remembering any other details on what he might have said she'd said about melody.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. As for the comparison between the fate of a dramatic character and the fate of a melody, I'll just quote Allan Blumenthal from his and Joan's 1974 course on music (which you attended, correct?):

[From Blumenthal music course] Throughout these lectures, I have mentioned a number of similarities between a musical composition and a work of fiction. Continuing that comparison, I would like to point out that a musical theme serves the same function as a leading character or protagonist in a novel. Both are the subjects of the work, and both are necessary for the action.

Just as most novels feature many characters – the hero, the heroine, the villain, and other secondary figures – so a musical composition usually contains many themes: the principal theme, the secondary theme, and often additional minor themes.

The plot structure of the composition leads the various themes through a variety of adventures, during the course of which they are altered. In musical terms, these adventures constitute the development. By the end, a given theme may gain power or be weakened, it may dominate or become subservient, it may triumph or be vanquished.

You may wonder if this is simply a sop to Rand, to her idiosyncratic way of viewing music. But it is far more broadly accepted a viewpoint in the musical and artistic community than that. Numerous music aestheticians and critics have similar ideas about the parallels between literature and music, and in particular between character development and multiple musical thematic development. (Not all music, of course -- just dramatic music, of the sonata-movement form and similar types -- but then not all literature has this kind of development either. We are comparing sweet apples and sweet oranges, as against sour apples and sour oranges, or bitter apples and bitter oranges. :-) )

I don't recall his saying that in the 1974 course, but there's a lot I've forgotten of what he said. What I mostly remember is certain ways he handled certain composers, walking a fence between his own tastes and judgments of merit and Rand's. I said to myself, in these words, at the time, "He's either going to have to split with her or lose his soul. A person can't so precisely walk a fence without knowing that the fence is there. He's going to fall off one direction or the other." (To my delight, a few years later, he did "fall off" -- on his side of the fence.)

Yes, that is exactly how I remember Allan's dealing with Rand's non-favorites, too. He was using Randian rhetoric to campaign for composers she did not approve of, or at least did not think much of -- such as Beethoven, I especially recall. Yes, he was walking a tightrope, and I too am glad that he ended up being his own man. The fact that I happen to agree with him is icing on the cake. But I always admire someone who goes by his/her own lights, rather than caving in to an authority. (In this case, especially, to an authority who was trying to elevate her uneducated sense of life preferences to the status of Truth.)

I will say one thing: I think that Rand is right, that there is something extremely important, philosophically, in the goal-oriented (harmonic progression) aspect of music and in the "rising" (upward trending melody) aspect of music. There is great, good, and not so good music of this sort, of course -- just as there is of music that does not emphasize (or even contain) this feature. Just as Rand eschewed literature that was weak on plot, even though strong on characterization and descriptive prose and poetic qualities, she also eschewed music that fit this general description. To each his/her own, of course. And it's always appropriate to call attention to the heroic (goal-oriented, rising) aspects of art, in case someone is suffering from a deficiency of them in their life and needs a litle nudge or pointer to guide them to a way to satisfy their spiritual needs. But to badger and brow-beat people because they have likes and dislikes that do not fit this mold? Aggggh. I wouldn't have lasted as long as the Blumenthals did under that kind of pressure. (So I imagine, anyway. Who knows how long I might have put up with it, in order to soak up the intellectual energy and excitement of working near someone of Rand's caliber -- however overbearing she also was. I only know that, being a Cornfield Objectivist growing up and going to college in the Midwest, I was blessedly insulated from such dilemmas.)

Unfortunately, by mistake I threw out -- precisely, burned -- my lecture notes from the music course and some later stuff I'd written to Allan. I got that material mixed in with a pile of manuscript xeroxes and other detritus from my editing job. The apartment I was living in then had a fireplace. The papers went up the chimney in smoke. As we've discussed before, the 1974 version of the course is not the one which is on the tapes which are sold. The course was redone, and Joan does part of the talking. She helped with the writing in the first version (she's a better writer than he is), but she didn't do any of the talking. I don't know if the material you quote was in the original course or was added. It would be nice to find someone who attended the original course and kept notes of it. I have rued the day when I made the mistake of incinerating my notes.

That is a shame. But yes, you're correct: the version being sold is the "redone" version. Joan does quite a bit of the talking. Since the material I quoted was spoken by Allan, I presume that it appeared in the original version. The added material may have been more of the cultural-historical details that Joan spoke in the recorded version I have.

I'm tired tonight and can't write any more, and I do have to get about disciplined work on my project. 'Tis true, however, as you surmised, that I "value understanding about the arts fairly highly!" So I might return to the thread sooner than I ought.

Well, take your time. This is a nice, relaxed atmosphere here at OL. As you may have noticed, I take sabbaticals from OL and find to my chagrin that the discussion has gone on without me, and that there are various points I could perhaps have clarified that are now long gone. So be it. The really interesting topics keep recycling anyway. And here, we have a system and structure that allows the special interest topics that irritate people so much on other lists to be discussed in a nice, neat folder that doesn't spill over into other areas. (I'm thinking particularly of the abortion and free will issues.)

Double-checking, since you didn't reply to my post #26: I hope you saw that. I'm serious in suggesting that you might do well to sail your ideas under your own flag, so to speak. Something to keep in mind as a possibility anyway.

Oh, I saw it, all right! I have definitely considered giving a name to my own set of ideas. Being fond of coining labels and names for things, I have batted it around quite a bit, but not come up with anything that I'm comfortable with yet. When the philosopher is ready, the name shall appear. :-) But my principal problem is not deciding on a name, but deciding on the scope of what to write and for whom to write it. I have outlined a number of book-length ideas, but until I get clear on who my audience is and why I think they need to hear what I have to say, I will probably continue writing essays rather than books. Anyway, thanks for the encouragement.

Cheers back at you,

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, God. Here I am again. Something just came back. Allan did talk in his course about how the chord (and progressions of chords) is the basis of tonal drama.

A memory: One night I was talking with him some months before he gave the course. One of the subjects was about the basis of the tonal system. I remember his saying he'd tried to explain to Rand and she hadn't understood about how the sort of melody she liked couldn't be developed until the tempered system, and the full panoply of tonal drama thus made possible, was developed, how the progression of chords was the basis for her preferred type of melody. He said that she thought of melody as the basis of music. I'm not (at least now) remembering any other details on what he might have said she'd said about melody.

Yes, I'm glad you're remembering these details, especially your conversation with Allan.

I already quoted this point from his lectures:

The plot structure of the composition leads the various themes through a variety of adventures, during the course of which they are altered. In musical terms, these adventures constitute the development. By the end, a given theme may gain power or be weakened, it may dominate or become subservient, it may triumph or be vanquished.

A few paragraphs earlier, he was discussing four important, interdependent principles that "govern the effectiveness of musical structure." He said:

The first is purpose. Purposeful progression is essential to all the arts that have a temporal element. A musical composition must have the equivalent of plot, i.e., a logical development of musical ideas or themes. This development must hold the listener’s attention, create anticipation, lead to climaxes, and end in a resolution.

Now, I think Allan is over-generalizing here, and in that respect has given in too much to the quasi-Randian notion that music without climaxes is not effective or worthwhile. As we now, temporal arts can be dramatic, but they can also be poetic or descriptive (or any combination of the three). If I were advising him, I would suggest he rewrite that point as: Purposeful progression is essential to all the arts that have a dramatic temporal element. A dramatic musical composition must have the equivalent of plot (etc.).

However, his point is well taken. Harmonic-melodic progression ~is~ like a plot in literature, and it ~is~ why we respond to dramatic music as though we were following a story with value-pursuit, conflict, etc. True, you can only stretch the comparison so far -- but the similarity is real and powerful. Many critics and theorists have acknowledged this feature of dramatic music.

Those who reject or deny it do so for various reasons. Some simply don't get it; they are tone-deaf to the heroic, goal-oriented aspect of music. Some are reacting against the people who assign intricate concrete detail to every musical phrase and note and dynamic, as though there were a one-to-one correspondence between every musical nuance and some aspect of a literary story (or real-life situation). Some are reacting against the hegemony of Romanticists who tout dramatic music as "the best" (even for "man qua man"), some are reacting against the hegemony of Romanticists who tout dramatic music as "the only real music" (Rand apparently referred to Mozart as "pre-music"--ackkkk!), while some apparently just hate such music.

Quite a menagerie of people who are uncomfortable with the musical-literary analogy! Makes it difficult to engage in productive dialogue, when you have to sort out all these possibilities and make the appropriate assurances along with arguing your case. And on the other side, you have the hide-bound Randians and other Romanticists, who are part of the reason for the hackles being raised in the first place. To Rand's credit, she did point out that music is very general in its meaning. But that did not stop her from claiming that Beethoven, for instance, was "malevolent" (as well as her ridiculous Mozart comment, or her equally ridiculous comment that the popular song "Here's That Rainy Day" has no melody). If there were no other reason for outsiders to think that Objectivists are a bit nutty, that alone would suffice. :-/

REB

P.S. -- There are good reasons for arguing that "Beethoven was a Kantian." Someday I'll post this essay to OL. However, none of that gainsays the remarkable achievement and incredible listening value in his music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[....] What I mostly remember [from Allan B.'s 1974 music course] is certain ways he handled certain composers, walking a fence between his own tastes and judgments of merit and Rand's. [....]

Yes, that is exactly how I remember Allan's dealing with Rand's non-favorites, too. He was using Randian rhetoric to campaign for composers she did not approve of, or at least did not think much of -- such as Beethoven, I especially recall.

The opposite: he pandered to her dislikes by downplaying some composers he loved (Bach, Mozart, and Brahms) and thought were much better composers than Rand thought they were -- and on the other side to her likes by upplaying the strengths of composers he thought weren't as good as she did (especially Tchaikovsky, but to an extent Rachmaninoff as well). On Beethoven, though he did credit Beethoven with being a great composer, he pandered to her view of Beethoven as "malevolent."

I particularly remember three of the "touches" he used to color Beethoven in a light pleasing to Ayn. All three statements were accurate to his (or in one case to Joan's) reactions (or opinion), but there were so many other things which he could have said instead -- and which he had said in conversations with me.

One was his comment that ever since he'd first heard the "Ode to Joy," he wondered: "This is joy?" He said that with the wrinkled-nose distaste expression NB described in Judgment Day but left out of MYWAR. I know exactly the expression NB meant, and one of the occasions on which I saw that expression was re "Ode to Joy," both in private and during his comments in the course. Allan finds that music too strident and square-formed for his liking; it sounds to him strained not joyous. So what he was saying was something he really felt, but on the other hand he did NOT say, as he had to me in private, a remark such as, "I have played all the Beethoven [piano] concerti, and I can't play the 4th without thinking [a kind of yearning expression on his face], "This is something very fine."

A second was his comment about the Waldstein. He described this as technically masterful but said dismissively that he thought it was mainly pianists who liked it.

The third was his description of the effect of Beethoven playing in the background on Joan's work if she was engaged in painting. He said that she would report if he was practicing Beethoven for a performance that it bothered her concentration. Well, surprise, surprise. Contrast the nature of Beethoven's "universe of sound," to use your terminology, and that of Joan's delicate-palleted watercolors. One can't be in both of those mental frames at once. Furthermore, even for someone who loves Beethoven intensely, as do I, Beethoven is rather too demanding of attention, much of his music, to suit well as background music. Furthermore, as I happened to know, Joan's favorite musical period is the Baroque, not a rave of Ayn's.

So...it isn't that what he said was inaccurate as far as it went. But through his selection ("selective re-creation"? ha) of what he did say versus everything he thought (as I knew from private conversations) and didn't say, he skewed the appearance of his beliefs in a direction slanted to AR's.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. -- There are good reasons for arguing that "Beethoven was a Kantian." Someday I'll post this essay to OL. However, none of that gainsays the remarkable achievement and incredible listening value in his music.

Beethoven was interested in philosophy and he studied Kant. Kant was "the rage" among the intelligentsia of the time. He was still alive and actively writing during about the first half of Beethoven's life -- Kant died in 1804; Beethoven was born in 1770.

I do not consider calling someone "a Kantian" the equivalent of calling that person a Sinner. I don't want to get side-tracked into a discussion of Kant, but my point is, So, what if he was? Also, I'm not sure what specifics in Beethoven's views you're referring to. If for instance, you have in mind his comments about his late music revealing a wisdom beyond all philosophy (I don't have the exact words immediate to recall; I think it was something like, "The person who understands this music has found a wisdom beyond all of man's philosophy"), I feel that I understand just what he meant, and I agree. Late Beethoven is the profoundest artistic realm I personally know of. (Some of Bach gets to that realm also, and parts of two of Schubert's works, Death and the Maiden and one of his string quintets...in C minor? Dragonfly will probably know the composition I mean. But late Beethoven in toto accesses that realm, I feel.)

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say one thing: I think that Rand is right, that there is something extremely important, philosophically, in the goal-oriented (harmonic progression) aspect of music and in the "rising" (upward trending melody) aspect of music.

But, Roger, what I was pointing to in the memory I posted was that Rand did not understand the issue of harmonic progression. She thought the issue was the melody. She didn't understand that the kind of melody she liked wouldn't even have been possible prior to development of the tonal system. She thought that the reason people in earlier musical eras (and in other musical cultures) didn't write that kind of melody was their sense of life. Now I might be somewhat exaggerating her ignorance, but she wasn't swift on musical issues.

[From Blumenthal music course] Throughout these lectures, I have mentioned a number of similarities between a musical composition and a work of fiction. Continuing that comparison, I would like to point out that a musical theme serves the same function as a leading character or protagonist in a novel. Both are the subjects of the work, and both are necessary for the action.

Just as most novels feature many characters – the hero, the heroine, the villain, and other secondary figures – so a musical composition usually contains many themes: the principal theme, the secondary theme, and often additional minor themes.

The plot structure of the composition leads the various themes through a variety of adventures, during the course of which they are altered. In musical terms, these adventures constitute the development. By the end, a given theme may gain power or be weakened, it may dominate or become subservient, it may triumph or be vanquished.

You may wonder if this is simply a sop to Rand, to her idiosyncratic way of viewing music. But it is far more broadly accepted a viewpoint in the musical and artistic community than that. Numerous music aestheticians and critics have similar ideas about the parallels between literature and music, and in particular between character development and multiple musical thematic development.

Roger, can you specify the names of some of the persons you mean? Although I agree with a sketchy general comparison, in the sense of the possibility of dramatic form in music, the details of what you quote from Allan I find carrying this too far, as if there's some sort of conflict amongst melodies, the protagonist and the villian, that sort of thing.

The main problem I had with your article about music (I've forgotten what was the title of that) was this same sort of problem; I thought you were carrying the analogy too far.

You say in your next post:

True, you can only stretch the comparison so far -- but the similarity is real and powerful. Many critics and theorists have acknowledged this feature of dramatic music.

Those who reject or deny it do so for various reasons. Some simply don't get it; they are tone-deaf to the heroic, goal-oriented aspect of music. Some are reacting against the people who assign intricate concrete detail to every musical phrase and note and dynamic, as though there were a one-to-one correspondence between every musical nuance and some aspect of a literary story (or real-life situation). Some are reacting against the hegemony of Romanticists who tout dramatic music as "the best" (even for "man qua man"), some are reacting against the hegemony of Romanticists who tout dramatic music as "the only real music" (Rand apparently referred to Mozart as "pre-music"--ackkkk!), while some apparently just hate such music.

Again, can you give some names of "the people who assign intricate concrete detail to every musical phrase and note and dynamic, as though there were a one-to-one correspondence between every musical nuance and some aspect of a literary story (or real-life situation)"?

I'm not saying that you yourself go that far in going "too far." We'd probably need some detailed discussion of compositions to sort it out. I hope I can return to the subject later.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not consider calling someone "a Kantian" the equivalent of calling that person a Sinner. I don't want to get side-tracked into a discussion of Kant, but my point is, So, what if he was?

Wasn't Mises a Kantian? That would mean that Rand recommended the works of a Kantian...

(Some of Bach gets to that realm also, and parts of two of Schubert's works, Death and the Maiden and one of his string quintets...in C minor? Dragonfly will probably know the composition I mean.

String quintet in C major, especially the Adagio. Some of his music for piano duet has the same character, like the Fantasy in f minor and the Variations sur un thème original in A flat major, D 813.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, here's a question for you, re your (imo) overcrediting Rand with insight in your interpretations of her "selective re-creation of reality."

How do you account for this? (The quotes are from "Art and Cognition." I picked them up from MSK's post #228 on the "Art and Subobjectivity" thread.)

Music does NOT deal with ENTITIES, which is the reason why its psycho-epistemological function is different from that of the other arts, as we shall discuss later. [emphasis added]

...

The fundamental difference between music and the other arts lies in the fact that music is experienced as if it reversed man's normal psycho-epistemological process.

The other arts create A PHYSICAL OBJECT (i.e., an object perceived by man's senses, be it a BOOK or a painting) and the psycho-epistemological process goes from the perception of the object to the conceptual grasp of its meaning, to an appraisal in terms of one's basic values, to a consequent emotion. The pattern is: from perception—to conceptual understanding—to appraisal—to emotion. [emphasis added]

The pattern of the process involved in music is: from perception—to emotion—to appraisal—to conceptual understanding.

Counter to your view that it's a mistake to think of her as speaking of the "re-creation" as being of "entities," there she is talking for all the world as if that indeed is what she's saying.

And: "The other arts create a physical object...be it a book or a painting." Eyes roll. The story is not the book, and it is not perceived. Nor do I think it's correct to speak of the visible image depicted in a painting (or even the subject of a statue) as being "perceived," at least to the extent it's serving an artistic function. The statue might be perceived as something not to walk into, but interpreting it as a statue I think requires seeing it as "significant form"; I doubt that the pigeons that perch on statues "see" those objects AS "statues." In any case, argue that one as you will, I think the gaffe about "a book" is huge and indicative that she didn't understand the process even in her own field, literature. I think if she had, she'd neither have formulated the definition the way she did, nor then been faced with the apparent anomaly of music.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't Mises a Kantian? That would mean that Rand recommended the works of a Kantian...

Yes, he was. She recommended his work, but warned against the Kantianism. And she said nasty things about him in her marginalia. ;-)

Thanks re the Schubert quintet; also for adding some other examples from his work. He was more than a bit amazing, to have accomplished so much and penetrated so far in so short a life.

Ellen

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some simply don't get it; they are tone-deaf to the heroic, goal-oriented aspect of music.

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. It's only a small fraction of music that has a heroic aspect (or the meaning of "heroic" is mightily stretched). Neither do I see what the goal-oriented means, is it the purpose to reach a blaring fortissimo chord in major at the end, signifying the triumph of the hero (like the finale of Beethoven's fifth symphony, a piece that I really detest, he has written much better things than that)? Now good music has of course a logical structure from the beginning to the end, but I wouldn't call that "goal-oriented", that sounds far too programmatic to me. And why should art always be heroic? It would mean an enormous impoverishment if we could only enjoy heroic art. To me that evokes images of Nazi art, with muscled men with big chins and a determined look, a very limited universe indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[....] What I mostly remember [from Allan B.'s 1974 music course] is certain ways he handled certain composers, walking a fence between his own tastes and judgments of merit and Rand's. [....]

Yes, that is exactly how I remember Allan's dealing with Rand's non-favorites, too. He was using Randian rhetoric to campaign for composers she did not approve of, or at least did not think much of -- such as Beethoven, I especially recall.

The opposite: he pandered to her dislikes by downplaying some composers he loved (Bach, Mozart, and Brahms) and thought were much better composers than Rand thought they were -- and on the other side to her likes by upplaying the strengths of composers he thought weren't as good as she did (especially Tchaikovsky, but to an extent Rachmaninoff as well). On Beethoven, though he did credit Beethoven with being a great composer, he pandered to her view of Beethoven as "malevolent."

Well, in the revised version of the lectures, anyway, Joan spoke rather more highly of those composers than you heard Allan characterize them when Rand was present. Here are some examples:

[Joan said, regarding Bach]Johann Sebastian Bach is regarded by the majority of musicians as the most significant figure in the history of music...With the exception of opera, he composed in every form known during his lifetime and made important innovations in each. His musical output was enormous. In Bach, we have quality and quantity. Perhaps his greatest accomplishment is the perfection of the fugue. Working within this rigid form, he produced music of great power and emotional impact....As you heard, Bach was highly skilled in the creation of expressive, romantic, melodic lines. Here’s another outstanding example in his orchestral music, the poignant Aire from his Suite #3. [excerpt] The works of Johann Sebastian Bach range from the delicate and sensitive to the rich and complex, dramatic and grand. Bach continues, and will continue, to be highly esteemed, not primarily for his many innovations, although they are very significant, but because his music, whether intimate or gigantic in scope, displays a masterly perfection of form and a wide range of human emotion.
[Joan said, regarding Mozart]Mozart was not primarily a musical innovator. His great reputation rests on his expertise in the use of various compositional forms, his understanding of musical instruments and the resources of the orchestra, and his virtually unlimited melodic inventiveness. The Mozart style is perfect in structure, refined, subtle in nuance, and deeply expressive. His greatest symphonies are the last three – numbers 39, 40, and 41. These works are magnificent. They are richly melodic, they are marvels of orchestration, and they embody feelings of nobility and majesty....The 27 concertos for piano and orchestra demonstrate his genius in the creation of expressive melodies and his ability to integrate virtuoso keyboard technique with orchestral sonority, producing eloquent and highly dramatic music.
[Joan said, regarding Brahms]Although his Classical structures are as solid as architectural forms, I would say that the structure is always a means to an emotional end. In this sense, he is truly a Romantic....[Regarding his 1st piano concerto] The work is grand in scale and at times almost fierce in its dramatic intensity. [Regarding his 1st symphony] other critics called it “too intellectual,” “too emotional,” “too heavy,” “too square.” In my opinion, it’s perfect. The melodies are impassioned, the harmonizations rich and complex, and the overall effect is strong, intense, and exciting. [summarizing] Whether we call Brahms a Romantic or a Neo-Classicist, the importance of his music is undisputed. His legacy was a style of composition stressing opulence in melody, harmony, and orchestration – a style that profoundly influenced many of the later Romantic composers.

As for Allan's evaluation of Beethoven, here is what he said in the revised lectures:

...Historians have compared him with the other titan, Michelangelo Bonaratti, because of the scope and the profundity of their creations and because of their extraordinary ability to express, in powerful, complex terms, the struggle against what each saw as the tragedies within human existence. Like Michelangelo, Beethoven pushed the boundaries of the expression of ill-fated aspiration, tension, and drama beyond anything that had been attempted before; and it was Beethoven who created the bridge between Classicism and the glorious music of the Romantic era.....[T]he works of the Second Period mark the emergence of the full Beethoven style. The symphonies are monumental and powerful....The late music of Beethoven reflects his family difficulties, his increasing pessimism, and the thoroughly understandable distress caused by his deafness. The music is generally more introspective and contemplative. It is also freer in structure. Beethoven’s works bear the marks of a strong personality. One is not likely to mistake his style for any other. So great is their power that his compositions arouse in the listener every emotion except indifference. One either likes them or dislikes them, usually in the extreme.

I don't know how different this is from the original lectures, but it sounds as though Allan is trying to give Beethoven his due, while still slipping in the well-known point about his increasing negativity (aka "malevolent sense of life").

Thanks, by the way, for sharing your reminiscences of comments Allan made "off the record" about Beethoven. I agree with his opinion about "Ode to Joy" from the 9th Symphony. I happen to like the Waldstein Sonata, technical or not, as well as the Appassionata Sonata.

BTW, my favorite movement of the Moonlight Sonata is not the snooze-inducer that every girl in junior high school learns, but the blood and guts movement which compares favorably with Chopin's Scherzo in B Minor. Now ~that~ is Beethoven at his finest, IMO -- defiant, thundering, striving, generally mad as hell and not going to take it any more! :-)

So...it isn't that what he said was inaccurate as far as it went. But through his selection ("selective re-creation"? ha) of what he did say versus everything he thought (as I knew from private conversations) and didn't say, he skewed the appearance of his beliefs in a direction slanted to AR's.

Well, all the more reason to be glad that Joan took more of a hand in revising the lectures and putting in some substantial balancing material for composers like Brahms, Mozart, Bach, etc. Like you, I think it would be great if we had the earlier lectures to compare with the "Breaking Free" version that is currently being marketed.

REB

PS -- "Breaking Free" alludes to Branden's second book, the first one written after his break with Rand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. -- There are good reasons for arguing that "Beethoven was a Kantian." Someday I'll post this essay to OL. However, none of that gainsays the remarkable achievement and incredible listening value in his music.

Beethoven was interested in philosophy and he studied Kant. Kant was "the rage" among the intelligentsia of the time. He was still alive and actively writing during about the first half of Beethoven's life -- Kant died in 1804; Beethoven was born in 1770.

I do not consider calling someone "a Kantian" the equivalent of calling that person a Sinner. I don't want to get side-tracked into a discussion of Kant, but my point is, So, what if he was? Also, I'm not sure what specifics in Beethoven's views you're referring to. If for instance, you have in mind his comments about his late music revealing a wisdom beyond all philosophy (I don't have the exact words immediate to recall; I think it was something like, "The person who understands this music has found a wisdom beyond all of man's philosophy"), I feel that I understand just what he meant, and I agree. Late Beethoven is the profoundest artistic realm I personally know of. (Some of Bach gets to that realm also, and parts of two of Schubert's works, Death and the Maiden and one of his string quintets...in C minor? Dragonfly will probably know the composition I mean. But late Beethoven in toto accesses that realm, I feel.)

Nah, I don't want to get into the Kant/Beethoven debate either. I was just suggesting that Rand may have engaged in a little guilt by association there.

The more important point is about Beethoven's (alleged) malevolent sense of life aka pessimism. Certainly he had some cause for feeling less than rosily optimistic -- as did Rachmaninoff, for that matter. But he rose above it to create a huge, wonderful output of great music.

But Rand probably heard very little of Beethoven's music. What she probably did hear was pieces like the 5th Symphony, which is arguably his most well known piece. Perhaps she said (to herself), if this is the essence of Beethoven, I will judge him on this piece. If so, she very well could have been justified in concluding that he had a "malevolent sense of life." That is basically what comes out of the first movement of that symphony, when I listen to it -- a very grim, determined, pessimistic worldview.

Here are the comments I made to a gathering at the 2006 Summer Seminar in Orange, CA:

This is a vast oversimplification, but it is very clarifying to think of music along two dimensions: the more positive mood of major keys vs. the more negative mood of minor keys and the more striving, yearning character of upward melodic motion vs. the more settled, accepting character of downward melodic motion. These two dimensions work together to create four very broad categories of melodies. And we’ll illustrate them in a moment.

But as an aside, I think this gives us a very helpful insight into why Ayn Rand regarded Beethoven as having a malevolent or pessimistic sense of life. His arguably most famous musical statement is that very defiant opening theme in the 5th Symphony that we just played. It moves upward and it is in minor. This connotes pessimistic striving. It is the hallmark of what Rand regarded as a Byronic sense of life: you can control your character, your seeking of values, but the world is stacked against you; you can’t win, but you still are driven to try. Perhaps this aspect of Beethoven’s music is what Rand zeroed in on when she made her infamous remarks about Beethoven. It may be as simple as that.

Perhaps Rand was much more well-versed in Beethoven's music than that. Personally, though, knowing how sloppy her scholarship was (she critiqued John Rawls based on a book review of him, for Christ's sake!), I wouldn't be surprised if she generalized from one (or very few) examples.

REB

PS -- The quoted material above is part of a project I'm working on involving the emotional and philosophical meaning of the melodies of popular songs and classical music themes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say one thing: I think that Rand is right, that there is something extremely important, philosophically, in the goal-oriented (harmonic progression) aspect of music and in the "rising" (upward trending melody) aspect of music.

But, Roger, what I was pointing to in the memory I posted was that Rand did not understand the issue of harmonic progression. She thought the issue was the melody. She didn't understand that the kind of melody she liked wouldn't even have been possible prior to development of the tonal system. She thought that the reason people in earlier musical eras (and in other musical cultures) didn't write that kind of melody was their sense of life. Now I might be somewhat exaggerating her ignorance, but she wasn't swift on musical issues.

Oh, I see your point now. If Rand didn't understand harmonic progression's role in emotion (and plot) in music, then it's no wonder she couldn't appreciate pre-tonal (especially pre-Romantic) music for what it ~was~ able to convey. Which is sad and ironic, considering how hard Objectivists have bent over backward, letting earlier philosophers and cultures off the hook for what they couldn't have understood, given their context of knowledge. (E.g., the Greeks thinking slavery was OK because they were inferior.)

[From Blumenthal music course] Throughout these lectures, I have mentioned a number of similarities between a musical composition and a work of fiction. Continuing that comparison, I would like to point out that a musical theme serves the same function as a leading character or protagonist in a novel. Both are the subjects of the work, and both are necessary for the action.

Just as most novels feature many characters – the hero, the heroine, the villain, and other secondary figures – so a musical composition usually contains many themes: the principal theme, the secondary theme, and often additional minor themes.

The plot structure of the composition leads the various themes through a variety of adventures, during the course of which they are altered. In musical terms, these adventures constitute the development. By the end, a given theme may gain power or be weakened, it may dominate or become subservient, it may triumph or be vanquished.

You may wonder if this is simply a sop to Rand, to her idiosyncratic way of viewing music. But it is far more broadly accepted a viewpoint in the musical and artistic community than that. Numerous music aestheticians and critics have similar ideas about the parallels between literature and music, and in particular between character development and multiple musical thematic development.

Roger, can you specify the names of some of the persons you mean? Although I agree with a sketchy general comparison, in the sense of the possibility of dramatic form in music, the details of what you quote from Allan I find carrying this too far, as if there's some sort of conflict amongst melodies, the protagonist and the villian, that sort of thing. The main problem I had with your article about music (I've forgotten what was the title of that) was this same sort of problem; I thought you were carrying the analogy too far.

Quoting from my microcosm essay:

Citing Schoenberg (1922) and McClary (1991), Scruton notes that “the ‘narrative’ character of tonal music has been frequently remarked on” (271; emphasis added).{35} Quoting Rosen (1988, 8), Storr (1992) notes that the sonata form of the Classical and Romantic eras
provided “an equivalent for dramatic action”: a story in sound which had a definable beginning, middle and end comparable with the form of a saga, novel, or short story. (81; emphasis added) [A pattern similar to that of t]he pattern of contrast, conflict, and final resolution [of themes] so characteristic of sonata form . . . underlies many novels. (83) It is surely no coincidence that when music finally emancipated itself from words composers increasingly used forms which can be related to human stories . . . (84; emphasis added)

Meyer (1989) concurs, writing in regard to Romanticism that:

Even in the absence of an explicit program, motivic continuity created a kind of narrative coherence. Like the chief character in a novel, the “fortunes” of the main motive—its development, variation, and encounters with other “protagonists”—served as a source of constancy throughout the unfolding of the musical process. (201; emphasis added)

One of the above authors (Storr?) cited a number of other authors and works referring to the sonata-novel analogy. But I think the above suffices to show that the idea is out there in the culture. When I first started ruminating about all of this in the late 60s, it jumped out at me, and I was astonished that Rand didn't make anything out of it, or even refer to it. Instead, she made a 90 degree turn over into analyzing the cognitive processes involved in perceiving and (somehow) grasping music and claimed that integrating music perceptually stirred our emotions because it was like integrating sense data into entities. (Huh?)

I mean, consider the irony of someone like Rand arguing that volition is the essence of Romanticism, that her favorite music is (somehow) Romantic, and she "hears" the yearning and striving in the music, yet she apparently doesn't have a clue as to why she hears this. Any first-year music theory student who is not totally closed to the idea knows how it works. The Blumenthals explained it, at least briefly, in their music lectures. Deryck Cooke (The Language of Music) and Leonard B. Meyer (Music, the Arts, and Ideas), both of whom wrote prior to Rand's "Art and Cognition" gave valuable leads to explaining it. Yet, instead of availing herself of the work that had been done in the field by well known authors -- or even her own associates -- instead she buried her nose in Helmholtz's book on acoustics! It's useful, as I show in my 1999 essay, but Rand doesn't even make proper use of it in explaining how melody works. As a result, because Rand felt unable to go beyond the "subjective" level of experiencing music, she had no basis for arguing that Romantic music, like Romantic literature, embodies important philosophical values. Yet, she continued to pressure people about their musical tastes! That is not legitimate behavior for an Objectivist!!

You say in your next post:

True, you can only stretch the comparison so far -- but the similarity is real and powerful. Many critics and theorists have acknowledged this feature of dramatic music.

Those who reject or deny it do so for various reasons. Some simply don't get it; they are tone-deaf to the heroic, goal-oriented aspect of music. Some are reacting against the people who assign intricate concrete detail to every musical phrase and note and dynamic, as though there were a one-to-one correspondence between every musical nuance and some aspect of a literary story (or real-life situation). Some are reacting against the hegemony of Romanticists who tout dramatic music as "the best" (even for "man qua man"), some are reacting against the hegemony of Romanticists who tout dramatic music as "the only real music" (Rand apparently referred to Mozart as "pre-music"--ackkkk!), while some apparently just hate such music.

Again, can you give some names of "the people who assign intricate concrete detail to every musical phrase and note and dynamic, as though there were a one-to-one correspondence between every musical nuance and some aspect of a literary story (or real-life situation)"?

I'm not saying that you yourself go that far in going "too far." We'd probably need some detailed discussion of compositions to sort it out. I hope I can return to the subject later.

I'm speaking more anecdotally here. You know how some choreographers capture many musical nuances in their dance routines. Each dance step or gesture relates to something in the music. They arrived at this correlation by allowing the music to suggest steps and gestures to them. Well, it's not a stretch to imagine that some people might "act out" a piece of music during a romantic encounter, using each melodic motif to correspond to a caress, a deep kiss, etc. (Supply other relevant gory details on your own!) Or, someone might hear a tone poem and imagine that a certain texture connotes a sunny fall day, the flute motif a birdsong, the murmuring strings a babbling brook, etc. To me, that kind of programmatic overkill turns a musical experience into some kind of translation nightmare. Just listen to the music and savor it! If it suggests to you that life is (or can be) serenity or challenge or despair or exaltation, etc., and you're curious about what elements in the music might be responsible for that impression, then you can delve into it -- and, I'm convinced, get answers, if they're there to be found. (That is, if your emotion is not just due to experiential imprinting -- i.e., an echo of having previously heard the music during some deeply emotional experience in the past.)

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, here's a question for you, re your (imo) overcrediting Rand with insight in your interpretations of her "selective re-creation of reality."

How do you account for this? (The quotes are from "Art and Cognition." I picked them up from MSK's post #228 on the "Art and Subobjectivity" thread.)

Music does NOT deal with ENTITIES, which is the reason why its psycho-epistemological function is different from that of the other arts, as we shall discuss later. [emphasis added]

...

The fundamental difference between music and the other arts lies in the fact that music is experienced as if it reversed man's normal psycho-epistemological process.

The other arts create A PHYSICAL OBJECT (i.e., an object perceived by man's senses, be it a BOOK or a painting) and the psycho-epistemological process goes from the perception of the object to the conceptual grasp of its meaning, to an appraisal in terms of one's basic values, to a consequent emotion. The pattern is: from perception—to conceptual understanding—to appraisal—to emotion. [emphasis added]

The pattern of the process involved in music is: from perception—to emotion—to appraisal—to conceptual understanding.

Counter to your view that it's a mistake to think of her as speaking of the "re-creation" as being of "entities," there she is talking for all the world as if that indeed is what she's saying.

In my microcosm essay, I refer to re-creation of reality (i.e., of a world) as being the primary re-creation and re-creation of things from the world as being a secondary re-creation. They necessarily go together in art. You can't have a microcosm without something to populate it and to carry the metaphysical meaning. And for a re-creation of things from the world to function as the carriers of fundamental ideas about the world and life, they must be experienced not just as icons, but as things existing in a broader setting, an imaginal (imaginary) world.

As for Rand, I do think that she focuses too much on the "representational" level, i.e., on the secondary re-creation level, with all of her talk about entities. It sounds as though she thinks that something must present an image of physical, visual-tactile entities in order to be art. Certainly that applies to literature, painting, and sculpture (and the dance, I suppose). But she stumbles badly in extending this thinking to music. Where are the visual-tactile entities?? She recovers partly by coining the term "auditory entity" to refer to melody. I think this is correct. But she doesn't consider other auditory entities such as chords, and the musical actions (harmonic-melodic progression) of those auditory entities. Hence, she misses a golden opportunity to understand how melody and harmony work in creating a dramatic progression keyed to certain emotions (and the values they imply).

For me, the secondary re-creation level ("representation") does not need to be visual/tactile, just something that behaves generally (very generally) like physical entities. So, Rand is off the hook, IMO -- but only partly.

Also, the primary re-creation level (microcosm) does not need to be visual/tactile either, just something that contains things that behave generally like physical entities -- i.e., similar in a very general way to a world of things with certain natures engaging in certain actions.

And: "The other arts create a physical object...be it a book or a painting." Eyes roll. The story is not the book, and it is not perceived. Nor do I think it's correct to speak of the visible image depicted in a painting (or even the subject of a statue) as being "perceived," at least to the extent it's serving an artistic function. The statue might be perceived as something not to walk into, but interpreting it as a statue I think requires seeing it as "significant form"; I doubt that the pigeons that perch on statues "see" those objects AS "statues." In any case, argue that one as you will, I think the gaffe about "a book" is huge and indicative that she didn't understand the process even in her own field, literature. I think if she had, she'd neither have formulated the definition the way she did, nor then been faced with the apparent anomaly of music.

Let me sort this out a bit.

"The other arts create a physical object...be it a book or a painting." A book and a painting are both physical objects. But these physical objects are not the story (imaginary progression of events involving characters) or the subject (image of person in the painting). Agreed. But there is no problem here.

The images in literature and in painting have to be induced by cognitive engagement of a certain kind with the physical object. You have to read the words in the book, then imagine what they are describing, then evaluate and respond accordingly. (I think that we empathically identify with characters and respond "as if" it were happening to us. Rand referred to a much more cerebral process of "identification" between ourselves and the characters, which perhaps aggravated her inability to see the similarities between dramatic music and dramatic literature. I mean, if you don't realize that you're empathically identifying with a dramatic character, you're probably not going to realize that you're empathically identifying with a musical theme either.)

But it's important to realize that when Rand refers to a book or a painting as a "physical object," she is not using the term in the same sense as when she refers to the subject/character of a book or painting as an "entity." A book or painting ~is~ a physical object, while a symphony is not. A character or subject of a book or painting ~is~ an image of an entity, while a melody is not (though it is something ~like~ an entity, in certain respects). These are two different comparisons and two different issues.

You have put your finger on a problem in Rand's aesthetics, but it is not (IMO) a problem for her definition of "art."

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some simply don't get it; they are tone-deaf to the heroic, goal-oriented aspect of music.

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. It's only a small fraction of music that has a heroic aspect (or the meaning of "heroic" is mightily stretched). Neither do I see what the goal-oriented means, is it the purpose to reach a blaring fortissimo chord in major at the end, signifying the triumph of the hero (like the finale of Beethoven's fifth symphony, a piece that I really detest, he has written much better things than that)? Now good music has of course a logical structure from the beginning to the end, but I wouldn't call that "goal-oriented", that sounds far too programmatic to me. And why should art always be heroic? It would mean an enormous impoverishment if we could only enjoy heroic art. To me that evokes images of Nazi art, with muscled men with big chins and a determined look, a very limited universe indeed.

What an impoverished view of Romanticism! :-)

First of all, by goal-oriented music, I am referring to the expectations that certain harmonic progressions generate in an experienced listener. There are ways to draw out or to thwart or to unexpectedly fulfill such expectations. We composers like to keep these methods secret, otherwise everyone will be doing it, and the market will be flooded with competitors. :-) But these methods are analogous to (but only very generally so) the methods that authors use in constructing a literary plot, with its conflicts, unexpected twists, climaxes, and resolutions. Even pessimistic striving music relies on such methods. Even sedate, non-striving music relies on such methods. If you think that calling this "goal-oriented" attaches too much "extra-musical" signicance to such techniques, that's your privilege. But I think that even though authors often become so adept at writing and plotting that they don't even think in terms of conflict-resolution, they are still automatically embedding just that in their stories -- along with the implicit message that values can be pursued and attained (or not). And similarly, I think that composers know full well that they are able to manipulate their listeners' expectations, and that the listeners experience the music as going somewhere, that there are surprise twists and turns in the journey, delays, etc. -- and that even when they automatize this kind of process, they are still intending to present that kind of imaginary world to the listeners, along with the implied metaphysical meanings.

I'm not aware that Beethoven's 5th has ever been cited as an example of "triumph of the hero." I'm more familiar with the fatalistic interpretation of the 4-note motif in its opening movement. That movement is a perfect example (as is the finale of his Moonlight Sonata or Chopin's Scherzo in B minor) of Byronic defiant, pessimistic striving. Rand included that within her panoply of Romantic styles in literature, and I think it's no stretch at all to attach this characterization to upward melody/minor tonality themes.

As for upward melody/major tonality themes, we can give examples all day long, but I like to also toss in popular songs to get the point across quickly. For instance, there is "The Impossible Dream" and "I've Gotta Be Me." Very heroic, striving, chin-out, non-Nazi-thank-you-very-much, quintessentially American songs.

But forget the testosterone-induced bravado of these examples. Consider instead the popular song "My Heart Stood Still." It has wonderful upward sweeping phrases in major, and they convey a lush, yearning, surging feeling that completely fits the lyrics. There are many popular songs just waiting for case studies that pick apart their melodic and harmonic structure, and that show them to be representing a certain outlook toward life (or at least a particular situation or relationship). Some are of relatively pure type while others are mixed types. They're all fascinating, including the pessimistic and morose ones, such as "If You Go Away" or "Autumn Leaves." Especially it's fascinating to see how well they do or don't fit their lyrics.

But, I maintain, there are people who are also tone-deaf to yearning, surging melodies, to morose, pessimistic melodies, etc., too. They just stomp their feet and say that music does not represent emotion or convey emotion, it just "is," and it is to be appreciated for its "significant form" or some such rot. Well, I think that the real refutation of this notion is found by a good look at popular songs. ~Why~ do the lyrics fit the melodies so well? Why are certain types of melodies time after time paired with certain types of lyrics? What is it in the melodies that makes them such a good fit for those lyrics, rather than their antitheses? Once you answer those questions, you can drop the lyrics and turn to the great melodic themes of the past several hundred years and figure out what ~they~ mean. And they ~do~ mean something real and objective, not just idiosyncratic to the listener. This is where Hanslick and his 20th century "formalist" disciples have gone off track.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger, I'll respond to some of the further material you posted. Then I MUST stop, though I hate to while the going is this good. ;-)

Thanks much for quoting Joan on Bach, Mozart, and Brahms. The wording improves the picture over what I recall having been conveyed.

As for Allan's evaluation of Beethoven, here is what he said in the revised lectures:

[Allan B., music course]...Historians have compared him with the other titan, Michelangelo Bonaratti, because of the scope and the profundity of their creations and because of their extraordinary ability to express, in powerful, complex terms, the struggle against what each saw as the tragedies within human existence. Like Michelangelo, Beethoven pushed the boundaries of the expression of ill-fated aspiration, tension, and drama beyond anything that had been attempted before; and it was Beethoven who created the bridge between Classicism and the glorious music of the Romantic era.....[T]he works of the Second Period mark the emergence of the full Beethoven style. The symphonies are monumental and powerful....The late music of Beethoven reflects his family difficulties, his increasing pessimism, and the thoroughly understandable distress caused by his deafness. The music is generally more introspective and contemplative. It is also freer in structure. Beethoven’s works bear the marks of a strong personality. One is not likely to mistake his style for any other. So great is their power that his compositions arouse in the listener every emotion except indifference. One either likes them or dislikes them, usually in the extreme.

I don't know how different this is from the original lectures, but it sounds as though Allan is trying to give Beethoven his due, while still slipping in the well-known point about his increasing negativity (aka "malevolent sense of life").

That's basically what I remember him saying of an "informational" kind, though I think what you quoted is a bit more flatteringly worded than in the original. What he says does give room for the "malevolent sense of life" interpretation. The denegrating was in the particulars of what he said about examples, as per my previous post.

Thanks, by the way, for sharing your reminiscences of comments Allan made "off the record" about Beethoven. I agree with his opinion about "Ode to Joy" from the 9th Symphony. I happen to like the Waldstein Sonata, technical or not, as well as the Appassionata Sonata.

BTW, my favorite movement of the Moonlight Sonata is not the snooze-inducer that every girl in junior high school learns, but the blood and guts movement which compares favorably with Chopin's Scherzo in B Minor. Now ~that~ is Beethoven at his finest, IMO -- defiant, thundering, striving, generally mad as hell and not going to take it any more! :-)

I know others who also feel that way about "Ode to Joy." I can understand the reaction, but I find the music so immense in its diapason [have I spelled that right? not going to look it up right now], it electrifies me. Also, I like the 4-squarishness which Allan doesn't.

Re the Moonlight, Franz Liszt described the composition as "a flower between two [abysses]*." Perfect, I think. (The first movement is powerful IF it's played right, but playing it right needs a much better pianist than "every girl in junior high school.")

[....] Like you, I think it would be great if we had the earlier lectures to compare with the "Breaking Free" version that is currently being marketed.

Yes, it would be. Maybe one of these days I'll dare to hear the revised lectures. I haven't dared because I haven't wanted to risk becoming angered with Allan again. I'm fundamentally very, very fond of him, and my irritations with him died down over the years, and I'd rather keep it that way.

Ellen

* Edit: I originally wrote "chasms," but that was a misquote; see my post #58.

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interjecting a comment to Dragonfly.

[....] (like the finale of Beethoven's fifth symphony, a piece that I really detest, he has written much better things than that)?

That strong a negative reaction, huh? "Detest." I love his fifth symphony, though these days I don't want to listen to it more than every now and then. He himself thought, and I agree, that his fourth symphony was every bit as good a symphony, and he was reportedly somewhat irritated at the fifth's getting more attention.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, I don't want to get into the Kant/Beethoven debate either. I was just suggesting that Rand may have engaged in a little guilt by association there.

The more important point is about Beethoven's (alleged) malevolent sense of life aka pessimism. Certainly he had some cause for feeling less than rosily optimistic -- as did Rachmaninoff, for that matter. But he rose above it to create a huge, wonderful output of great music.

But Rand probably heard very little of Beethoven's music. What she probably did hear was pieces like the 5th Symphony, which is arguably his most well known piece. Perhaps she said (to herself), if this is the essence of Beethoven, I will judge him on this piece. If so, she very well could have been justified in concluding that he had a "malevolent sense of life." That is basically what comes out of the first movement of that symphony, when I listen to it -- a very grim, determined, pessimistic worldview.

I wouldn't be the least surprised if she didn't know of Beethoven's reading Kant. I doubt that she knew much of anything about him, except mostly whatever she learned from Allan.

I think it's pretty sure that she had little familiarity with his music. Someplace on this website is a story I told about a girl named Julie who asked Rand the Beethoven question at a Ford Hall Forum in the early '70s. (I think Rand was asked the question again in a later Forum appearance and wasn't quite as strong in her answer. The first time she explained briefly about "malevolent" and "benevolent" senses of life, and said that "Beethoven was a giant of the malevolent sense of life, which is the opposite of mine.")

In the question line -- I was standing behind and to the side of Julie in order to overhear what happened -- Julie, who was a joyous, open, sparklingly-innocent sort of person, just the right person to appeal to Rand, said, "But, Miss Rand, have you heard [and she listed several compositions, the 6th and 4th symphonies, I think, maybe The Emperor and the sonata called 'The Tempest' -- I'm not sure of the specific compositions she chose, but all of them were ones which I, along with Julie, thought would be hard to describe as 'malevolent']?"

"I don't know," Rand told her. Julie arranged to send Rand some samples.

The rest of the story I can't vouch for; I heard it from someone who said he'd heard it either from Julie or from friends of hers. Rand listened and sent Julie a reply critical of the music, and worded in such a way that Julie decided to hell with that kind of stuff (my way of putting it) and dropped out of O'ist circles. I'd like to know if this report of the end of the tale is accurate, but I don't know.

Regarding Rachmaninoff, I think a MUCH better case for "malevolent" sense of life (granting any meaning to the term, which I hardly do) could be made in his case. He did tend to be morose and beset by melancholy, and I think that there's a fair amount of "melancholy" in his music.

I have a theory of my own about Rand's dislike of Beethoven. I think it's because of how Germanic in style the music is. For all that Rand wouldn't hear of crediting Russian influence with any role in Rachmaninoff, his music is unmistakable Russian. Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky, and the French sort of style of Chopin, some Liszt, a bit of Mendelsohn, a few other things. The Germanic style she seems mostly to have disliked.

I think it's important to keep in mind when thinking about her musical tastes that she was NOT musical; she basically had "a tin ear." She liked what she liked, but even there, not necessarily for reasons that someone musically inclined would share. E.g., the Butterfly Etude: it's light charmingness I think is what she responded to. I doubt that she had any understanding of how compositionally brilliant that work is.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now