Why Do So Many Smart People Listen to Such Terrible Music?

[BaalChatzaf]

Likewise, shouldn't composers and singers who have aesthetic integrity, at least according to Objectivism, make use of all of the textures, volumes and tones of the human voice, rather than conforming to a style which was designed to be heard over an orchestra, and heard all the way to the back seats of a large, echoing performance hall without modern electronic amplification?

J

Did any of the characters in -Atlas Shrugged- sing? I know that Franscisco whistled in one scene. So did the brakeman on the Taggart Comet.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jonathan]

Did any of the characters in -Atlas Shrugged- sing? I know that Franscisco whistled in one scene. So did the brakeman on the Taggart Comet.

Didn't Dagny experience something close to ecstasy while listening to the melody whistled by the worker? And wasn't she was able to hear, in her mind, an entire orchestra accompanying the melody?

I think that if she had heard the exact same melody played on a Stratocaster through a Marshall stack she would have felt nothing (except perhaps revulsion), would have imagined no accompanying structure, would have rated the melody as "trash," and then might have pondered why people listen to such terrible music.

J

[Barbara Branden]

Dragonfly:"Now you might perhaps object that you only respond to the melodies, but I seriously doubt that. I think that you can perhaps more easily conceptualize (I don't know if that's the right word, but perhaps you'll get my meaning) the melodic aspect, that the workings of harmony and counterpoint are more hidden from your "conscious view", but that doesn't mean that they don't have an effect! I think that if you listened to only the melody, one single voice, that you'd find that it had much less impact on you than the complete composition."

That makes sense to me -- especially because when some of Chopin's music has been turned into popular songs that one can sing, I don't like it nearly as much as I like the original (although I've sometimes found myself compulsively humming it). You've given me something to think about.

Barbara

[Barbara Branden]

Barbara, you wrote,

It's quite true that many literary scholars and critics believe Rand's novels are mediocre or bad. Some probably have standards from which they believe this estimate follows, others are allowing their response to be influenced by their estimate of her ideas. But there is little question that one could argue with the former from the perspective of reasonably well-established standards of literary excellence. One could establish that they are wrong -- even, in many cases, according to their own standards of excellence.

And one could argue that Rand's novels contain things which make them a lesser grade of art according to her own standards. I've seen many people, including Objectivists who love her novels and ideas, complain that some of the speeches that she put into her characters' mouths interrupt the art and veer off into didacticism or something more like propaganda than art.

And it is relevant that many knowledgeable critics who disagree with her ideas nevertheless recognize that her novels are indeed high art.

Sure, I think that most serious critics would agree that her novels are "high art" (as opposed to being something akin to dime store "bodice rippers"), but most critics don't seem to agree with Objectivists that her novels are the greatest ever written, let alone among the top 100.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan, you seem to think that if I were defending Rand's novels, I would be saying they are perfect. That is not what i would say. Novels that are generally considered to be great are not said to be without any flaw; perfection is not a requirement of greatness, let alone of excellence, which is what I've been discussing.

Further, I would not be arguing that her novels are the greatest ever written, only that they conform to generally accepted standards of excellence, Among the top 100? Yes, particularly (leaving aside my own emotional attachments) We the living.

Barbara

[Brant Gaede]

Rand's novels are almost sui generis. You compare them to the great Russian novels and Hugo's. You don't compare them to Hemingway or Joyce or Faulkner or Dickens. As American novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are sui generis.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, you seem to think that if I were defending Rand's novels, I would be saying they are perfect. That is not what i would say. Novels that are generally considered to be great are not said to be without any flaw; perfection is not a requirement of greatness, let alone of excellence, which is what I've been discussing.

No, I wasn't thinking that you would require perfection in a novel in order to consider it great art. I don't think that Rand's critics would demand perfection either. In fact, their criticisms are usually about aspects of her novels that they believe rise above the level of minor flaws or imperfections. I think that to serious fans of literature who've read hundreds or thousands of great works of fiction prior to reading Rand's, her work can come across as rather abrasive, preachy or message-heavy, lacking in psychological depth and subtlety, etc. You could say that they seem to view Rand's novels much in the same way that certain music composition academicians view rock music.

J

[Barbara Branden]

Jonathan: “When listening to operas, I often can't help but wonder how much of the genre's styles and techniques have been influenced by external forces that have nothing to do with the individual creator's unique perspective on life and existence. I often think that a composer in the genre is more constrained by its rules and traditions -- by the arbitrarily imposed aesthetic tastes of long-dead monarchs and other patrons, and even by technical considerations such as the size of the halls and audiences -- than any architect's expressions might be hampered by historic influences or a building's utilitarian issues.”

Barbara: “Yes, there are conventions that composers of operas abide by -- just as there are conventions in every art form. But an artist chooses to work in one particular form because he feels that it is within those conventions that he can best express himself. If you listen, say, to Wagner's "Tristan and Isolde" and Puccini's "Turandot." it will be evident that each composer has magnificently expressed his unique perspective on life and existence.”"

Jonathan: "But does that square with Rand's (and Howard Roark's) vision of individual artistic creativity? I mean, if an architect felt that the conventions of particular past styles were best suited to expressing himself, I think he'd receive a rather angry lecture from Rand/Roark about not having an independent vision or individual artistic integrity, etc. He might be called a second-hander or postmodernist for creating in styles that have nothing to do with modern materials. Likewise, shouldn't composers and singers who have aesthetic integrity, at least according to Objectivism, make use of all of the textures, volumes and tones of the human voice, rather than conforming to a style which was designed to be heard over an orchestra, and heard all the way to the back seats of a large, echoing performance hall without modern electronic amplification?”

I don’t know why you say that the conventions of opera are necessarily arbitrary. Would you say that no one should sing, because it is a requirement of that art that the singer should be heard by his audience – whether before or after the invention of the microphone? Was Caruso a second-hander because he didn’t go on stage and whisper? A novelist might have his characters whisper to each other; composers of songs cannot. Are playwrights Peter Keatings because they don’t have their characters mumble inaudibly? You don’t paint, I assume, with invisible ink; are you therefore lacking in artistic integrity and pandering to the convention that paintings should be seen??

The wonder of opera is that, at its best, it seamlessly unites so many of the arts – music, singing, acting, playwriting, even ballet. And opera certainly has become more modern over the years – listen to Mozart and then Puccini to observe some of the changes. Many still more modern operas have been and are being written. Or listen to America’s opera, the musical. Rand and Roark would have no reason to complain about a lack of independent vision in Bernsteins’s West Side Story or in My Fair Lady.

Barbara

[Barbara Branden]

Jonathan, you seem to think that if I were defending Rand's novels, I would be saying they are perfect. That is not what i would say. Novels that are generally considered to be great are not said to be without any flaw; perfection is not a requirement of greatness, let alone of excellence, which is what I've been discussing.

No, I wasn't thinking that you would require perfection in a novel in order to consider it great art. I don't think that Rand's critics would demand perfection either. In fact, their criticisms are usually about aspects of her novels that they believe rise above the level of minor flaws or imperfections. I think that to serious fans of literature who've read hundreds or thousands of great works of fiction prior to reading Rand's, her work can come across as rather abrasive, preachy or message-heavy, lacking in psychological depth and subtlety, etc. You could say that they seem to view Rand's novels much in the same way that certain music composition academicians view rock music.

J

Jonathan, I'm a serious fan of literature who has read hundreds (there aren't thousands) of great works of fiction, and that's not how her work comes across to me. All sorts of different people think all sorts of different things, What is that relevant to?

Barbara

[Jonathan]

I don’t know why you say that the conventions of opera are necessarily arbitrary.

I don't think that all conventions of opera are necessarily arbitrary. Some are and some are not. It's been a long time since I've read about the history of the various operatic forms, but I recall that there were quite a lot of outside, arbitrary, personal tastes imposed, generally from rulers and other patrons who had political power over composers. A king might dislike a certain vocal effect, forbid it and demand another instead, or expect a solo at a certain point in each of the operas that were to be performed in his presence; a pope or emperor and his musical advisers might ban what they had determined was a displeasing or unholy chord, too repetitive a motif, too frivolous an ornamentation, or too clichéd or too original a passage, etc. The rules that a composer might have to follow were often quite numerous, specific and silly. Many have remained, and these arbitrary influences have affected traditional notions of musical beauty.

Would you say that no one should sing, because it is a requirement of that art that the singer should be heard by his audience – whether before or after the invention of the microphone? Was Caruso a second-hander because he didn’t go on stage and whisper?

No. It's not just an issue of the vocal volume, but of opera's specific acoustic considerations which also helped to determine things such as the preferred timbre, the amount of vibrato, and the style of attack and sustain, etc., and whose influence spilled over, inappropriately, into other acoustic contexts of singing.

I think that the "acquired taste" of operatic voice is often difficult for people to acquire because they're usually not hearing it in the conditions under which it was designed to be perceived as beautiful. Listen to a tenor singing into a microphone which is directly in front of him (as Pavarotti is singing Nessun Dorma

). The effect is not at all the same as hearing a tenor's unamplified voice from the middle of a concert hall over the volume of a chorus and orchestra (or even hearing a recording in which the microphone was placed, in your stead, in the middle of a concert hall rather than directly in front of the singer).

Judging opera's vocal styles as beautiful under all acoustic conditions is like judging opera makeup as beautiful under all conditions, and allowing it to influence our notions of beauty in the other visual arts. Yet opera's acoustic concerns (as well as it's arbitrarily imposed taste concerns mentioned above) have had just such an influence on all traditional Western styles of vocal performance and on mankind's general concept of what is and is not vocally beautiful: it's as if some old Italian paintings had faces like Tammy Faye Baker's, and even though they were meant to be viewed from a great distance, people eventually lost track of the original context, and, after generations of being exposed to the images close up, began to define great visual beauty as a very heavily painted face.

Rand and Roark would have no reason to complain about a lack of independent vision in Bernsteins’s West Side Story or in My Fair Lady.

My point was more about extending generosity of aesthetic judgment to traditionalist architects, not applying Rand's harsh judgments of traditionalist architects to composers, singers and musicians. There are many contemporary architects who borrow from or conform to the styles and traditions of the past. They bring their own original interpretations to proven aesthetic forms. Must they be Peter Keatings, or might they be more like modern composers of operas who abide by traditions yet manage to express their unique artistic visions?

J

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, I'm a serious fan of literature who has read hundreds...

Prior to having read Rand's novels?

...(there aren't thousands) of great works of fiction...

I'm not familiar enough with all of the world's fiction to know how much of it is great. I have very little knowledge of Asian literature, for example, but, assuming that some of it is probably great, I thought that there may indeed be thousands of great works of fiction existing in the world, despite my never having heard of it.

...and that's not how her work comes across to me. All sorts of different people think all sorts of different things, What is that relevant to?

I've gotten the impression that people who were exposed to Rand at a younger age are more likely to rate her as a great novelist than those who discovered her later in life after having read a great many other writers first. Again, very much like rock music.

J

[BaalChatzaf]

I've gotten the impression that people who were exposed to Rand at a younger age are more likely to rate her as a great novelist than those who discovered her later in life after having read a great many other writers first. Again, very much like rock music.

J

I came across Robert A. Heinlein earlier than I came across Ayn Rand. I think his earlier works are better than Rand's. His later stuff is not so good. I think he went soft in the head, later in his life. I also think Ursula Laguin is a better writer than Ayn Rand. However I like -Atlas Shrugged- well enough. It is reasonably good alternate time line fiction (my favorite genre).

If I want to study philosophy I read the philosophical works of philosophers. I regard fiction as a form of entertainment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

I've gotten the impression that people who were exposed to Rand at a younger age are more likely to rate her as a great novelist than those who discovered her later in life after having read a great many other writers first. Again, very much like rock music.

J

I came across Robert A. Heinlein earlier than I came across Ayn Rand. I think his earlier works are better than Rand's. His later stuff is not so good. I think he went soft in the head, later in his life. I also think Ursula Laguin is a better writer than Ayn Rand. However I like -Atlas Shrugged- well enough. It is reasonably good alternate time line fiction (my favorite genre).

If I want to study philosophy I read the philosophical works of philosophers. I regard fiction as a form of entertainment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I'm calling you both out. Baal, if you only "regard fiction as a form of entertainment",then you are out of the loop. Jonathan, what to you is a great novel and why?

--Brant

[Jonathan]

I'm calling you both out. Baal, if you only "regard fiction as a form of entertainment",then you are out of the loop. Jonathan, what to you is a great novel and why?

A great novel -- or any other type of art -- to me is one that allows me to experience something that is very intellectually and/or emotionally stimulating and satisfying.

J

[Brant Gaede]

I'm calling you both out. Baal, if you only "regard fiction as a form of entertainment",then you are out of the loop. Jonathan, what to you is a great novel and why?

A great novel -- or any other type of art -- to me is one that allows me to experience something that is very intellectually and/or emotionally stimulating and satisfying.

J

That's very subjective, of course, which is not a criticism. Could you name two or three? I'd like to try them.

--Brant

[Reidy]

I also find it too subjective. Some problem cases that come to mind are a novel or poem in a language I don't read, a painting if I'm blind or a piece of music if I'm deaf. Or I'm not in the right mood, or my taste just doesn't run along those lines. Would you really want to disqualify these? The conditions you might add to get out from under these objections - or to explain the difference between "allows me to experience" and "makes me experience" - might be a theory of what great art is.

[Jonathan]

I'm calling you both out. Baal, if you only "regard fiction as a form of entertainment",then you are out of the loop. Jonathan, what to you is a great novel and why?

A great novel -- or any other type of art -- to me is one that allows me to experience something that is very intellectually and/or emotionally stimulating and satisfying.

J

That's very subjective, of course, which is not a criticism. Could you name two or three? I'd like to try them.

--Brant

Great Expectations

The Age of Innocence

The Sound and the Fury

J

[Jonathan]

I also find it too subjective.

I'm to the point where I don't think that it's possible to judge a work of art, as art, objectively. I think we can objectively synopsize, and we can objectively evaluate technical aspects of an artwork (while subjectively presuming that the artwork was intended to conform to the technical standards that we've chosen to apply to it), but, since art is primarily about the experience it evokes -- the feelings -- I think that any evaluation of it, as sum of the parts, will inevitably be highly subjective.

Some problem cases that come to mind are a novel or poem in a language I don't read, a painting if I'm blind or a piece of music if I'm deaf.

I'd have to be able to experience an artwork in order to evaluate it as good or bad. If I were blind and deaf, paintings and music would cease to be art to me, and would be beyond my ability to judge. Likewise, if space aliens were to visit us, and we were to discover that they had telepathic art forms that we couldn't experience with our mere human senses, obviously it would not be art to us, and we therefore wouldn't be able to evaluate it by any objective or subjective standards.

Or I'm not in the right mood, or my taste just doesn't run along those lines. Would you really want to disqualify these?

A work of art doesn't have to comply with my tastes in order for me to be deeply intellectually and/or emotionally stimulated or satisfied by it. I might be perplexed or even revolted by a work of art yet still find it very stimulating.

J

Edited November 22, 2008 by Jonathan