RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : The "Immorality" of a Concerto of Deliverance

Sunday
August 15, 2004

The "Immorality" of a Concerto of Deliverance by Monart Pon

The title of the album I’m presenting is not “The Concerto of Deliverance”, indicating a supreme or ultimate or sui generic status. It is also *not* a depiction of Richard Halley’s Fifth Concerto. It is: “Concerto of Deliverance” -- implying that it is *a* “Concerto of Deliverance”, an original work inspired by a contemplation of Rand’s description of such music. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (27 messages)

Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 4:12am

Monart,

There comes a time when a person just needs to thank his critics for their thoughtful concerns and then press forward with what he himself wants to do in accordance with his own values. As Charles Givens would say, "If you are not getting criticized, you are not doing anything important."

I have learned in my years on boards like this that argumentation often drains values rather than builds them. So now I clearly understand my two fundamental choices:

Spending my time through engaging in argumentation against my critics, followed by doing what I want.
Saving my time through resisting argumentation against my critics, followed by doing what I want.

Experience has taught me that the latter usually produces greater long range value for me than does the former. I suspect it will do the same for you.

Warm regards,

Luke Setzer

Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 8:55am

As to the question of Mr. Pon's "morality" in picking "Concerto of Delieverance" for a work that represents a sincere effort on his part, I stand 100% with him. He honors her by doing this.
As to Rand's taste in music, I am less impressed. It appears to me that she didn't spend much time with music. She liked what she liked, but didn't try to justify her taste beyond that. Unfortunately, as with many other subjects, her personal opinions were taken way to philosophically seriously by many ( including, I am afraid, by her). For example, Beethoven has a malevolent sense of life, or some such drivel as that. If your IQ is anything higher that that of an average parrot, you recognize on ONE listen that the Ninth Symphony represents a monumental struggle through life's pitfalls into the sunlight of one of the most glorious sense of life experiences a human being can have. To dismiss Beethoven as having a negative sense of life in the Ninth Symphony is a greater crime than to say that Rand had a negative sense of life in the Fountainhead because she created Ellsworth Toohey.
As to "The Concerto of Deliverance", I would expect anything that had this title to be in the Beethoven Ninth category. What AR herself thought of it would hold no weight with me, knowing her track record in evaluating music. Without hearing it, I purchased it and have listened to it thoroughly. You have the opportunity to listen to parts of it before purchasing it, which I recommend you. do. It is not my purpose to critique it here.

Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 12:21pm

"If your IQ is anything higher that that of an average parrot, you recognize on ONE listen that the Ninth Symphony represents a monumental struggle through life's pitfalls into the sunlight of one of the most glorious sense of life experiences a human being can have."

heh heh. i guess i'm a parrot then?

i never really thought anything about beethoven's 9th.

did miss rand recognize it as you say we should? did she have the iq of a parrot?

you speak of her taste in music as being opinion, and say that people take it way too philosophically, yet you denounce as fools any who disagree with you on beethoven's 9th?

maybe music is either objectively good or bad, and maybe you're right in this case, that beethoven's 9th is objectively good, but all you've offered is opinion too, instead of some kind of evidence for its objective goodness (though i have no idea what form that evidence would take).

on the subject of the concerto... i'm uncertain as to the morality of naming it the "concerto of deliverance."

if he had produced and sold a movie of atlas shrugged, w/o having purchased the rights to it, we would probably be in agreement that he was wrong (though if it was a good movie, miss rand may have approved anyway, as i read that she did with the unauthorized movie "we the living").

but all he really took here was a name...

is using that name a copyright violation? i don't know..

: |
eli

Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 6:39am

Monart,

I concur with your reasoned arguments and salute your independence and integrity. You've done nothing wrong. Keep moving forward.

Monday, August 16, 2004 - 7:04pm

My thanks to you, Luther Setzer, Jim Kilbourne, and Bob Palin, for your support and encouragement. You add to what I've received from others: an appreciation for the goodwill I'm offering by way of the album "Concerto of Deliverance". I'm only slightly appalled that this goodwill was being returned with such unreasoned resentment and hostility from some circles supposedly sympathetic to objectivist values. But, my efforts to reason with them was less for their benefit than for the benefit of the numerous other silent readers there at Objectivism Online and other forums.

I'm appending here a message I've posted elsewhere, reporting on my final outcome at Objectivism Online.

-Monart
-------

Aug 14, 2004

This is for the interest of those following the events surrounding the charges from certain objectivist circles that the production and presentation of the album, Concerto of Deliverance, is "immoral" or at least "arrogant". I assume your interest includes the more general issues of which my particular venture with the album is one example.

Since I posted my response to the detractors last weekend at Objectivism Online, my "warning meter" has been raised to 40% from 20% by the moderators there, while the meters of the detractors, with their repeated insults, smears, and no answering arguments, continue to be at 0%. It's as if ridicule, sarcasm, and such (and a juvenile level at that) are to be encouraged, while cool, calm, civil reasoning is not.

On August 12, the final act of the administrator of the site was to "lock" the thread, closing it to any further posting from anyone, for the stated reason that "far too much time and bandwidth has been wasted on it already". This administrator is some kid called "Greedy Capitalist", whose thread-ending post is full of statements that conflict with each other and with his screen name.

He's right about one thing: the thread has been read 1254 times (the count just now) since it was started Aug 1), accelerating from the time of my "Immorality..." post last weekend; no other single thread there, (that began just as a new subscriber's introduction) has attracted so much attention in so short a time. No wonder the "Greedy Capitalist" has noticed the bandwidth being consumed. Except, his "greed" operated in reverse when he closed down a thread that brought so much traffic so quickly to the site -- a traffic that ought to be a desirable capitalist trend. A lot of people came to see the "far-out" Pon in action and see the likes of Stephen Speicher, and his ridiculous attempts at ridicule, being evaporated "like a laser beam going through a pile of horseshit".

That the not-so "Greedy Capitalist" closed the thread at the time he did, and just after I had the last word, saves me the trouble of having to keep minding the posts there, so I can then move on to other venues. Mark up one round for the good guys!

(I'll be compiling a report of the follow-up posts to "Immorality...", but for those who haven't been there yet, or recently, for an educational and entertaining study of impotent mediocrity, here's the link http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=1291&st=40 )

-Monart

Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 9:53pm

As far as I know, US and International Copywright law doesn't extend to a set of words, e.g. Fox doesn't own the phrase "fair and balanced".

If my knowledge is correct, then there's no legal issue here.

As for the moral issue, how is what you're doing different from someone who writes a book about their position on freedom, and then puts in a quote by Ayn Rand and footnotes it with a reference to one of her books?

That is certainly legal.

Would the people that disagree with you state that that is a "moral crime" of theft or fraud too?

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 3:20am

I must say, Monart, that on listening to the sample of "Prelude" on your site, my sweetie and I couldn't help but tango for a good ten minutes. We let it run on a continuous loop and had a wonderful time.

I'll be sending for my copy very soon. Personally, I thank you.

Antony

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 3:50am

The only potential "immorality" here is in Monart spending too much time and effort answering such coldly hateful, decidedly malicious "critics." Altho' I 'm not familiar with 'Objectivism Online,' those 'Concerto of Deliverance' detractors cited above seem like the usual dismal, sorry lot of ARIan robots, shamelessly displaying their closed minds and empty souls. Too bad they ever happened upon Rand in the first place because they'd be a lot happier in the Taliban!

While it is possible for an honest critic to view this new album (actually, the title alone) as presumptuous or overreaching, on the whole I think this is a wonderfully ambitious and valiant effort by Mssrs. Mills-Cockell and Pon, and something the Objectivist movement and world needs much more of!

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 6:33am

"As for the moral issue, how is what you're doing different from someone who writes a book about their position on freedom, and then puts in a quote by Ayn Rand and footnotes it with a reference to one of her books?

That is certainly legal.

Would the people that disagree with you state that that is a "moral crime" of theft or fraud too? "

eh? a better analogy would be if he named the book "Galt's Gulch", or something, and then had an asterix next to the title. heh heh.

: )
eli

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 7:46pm

eli sacks -
If you are wondering how to solve the problem of determining what to think of Beethoven's ninth, I suggest, radical as it may seem, that you listen to it. You will need neither a reasoned argument nor a poll after that. Better yet, go to it.
Why should you bother? I can't answer that, other than to say that it has lifted men's spirits since 1827 and is still sold out almost every time it is performed. Proof that it is great? No, but, but I mean..heck. Can't you just try it? LIVE, for Chrissakes!
I seriously doubt AR ever heard it, as I am sure that she would have loved it. I know she loved another favorite of mine, La Boheme. I believe she would have ADORED Turandot for its heroism and grandeur.

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 8:08pm

eli sacks wrote, "on the subject of the concerto... i'm uncertain as to the morality of naming it the "concerto of deliverance."

I went into depth about the issue in my article, what uncertainty do you have? I'd sincerely like to know.

-Monart

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 8:11pm

Jason Kauppenin wrote,"As far as I know, US and International Copywright law doesn't extend to a set of words. If my knowledge is correct, then there's no legal issue here."

No, there isn't a legal issue here, as I've noted in my article: "The US copyright laws says this: 'Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks.' See US Copyright Office http://www.loc.gov/copyright
And there is no registered trademark for 'Concerto of Deliverance'."

-Monart

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 8:20pm

Antony Reed wrote, "on listening to the sample of "Prelude" on your site, my sweetie and I couldn't help but tango for a good ten minutes. We let it run on a continuous loop and had a wonderful time. I'll be sending for my copy very soon. Personally, I thank you."

You're welcome, Antony. That's really all that the music is for: "a wonderful time". The Prelude, with its hymn-march-tango, is a warmup, an icebreaker, for the immense journey of "discovery, remembrance, and arrival", i.e., pleasure and enjoyment. I'm smiling at the image of you and your sweetie tangoing around. That alone is worth my putting that sample on the site. (The full tango portion of the Prelude is about 4-5 minutes, and the album is 79 minutes.)

-Monart

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 8:36pm

Andre Zantonavitch (hi Andre!) wrote, "The only potential 'immorality' here is in Monart spending too much time and effort answering such coldly hateful, decidedly malicious 'critics'."

As I wrote in my first reply here, "my efforts to reason with them was less for their benefit than for the benefit of the numerous other silent readers there at Objectivism Online and other forums." I noticed that people are still going there to read it, even though the thread has been "locked" by the adminstrators.

Andre further wrote, "While it is possible for an *honest* critic to view this new album (actually, the title alone) as presumptuous or overreaching, on the whole I think this is a wonderfully ambitious and valiant effort by Mssrs. Mills-Cockell and Pon, and something the Objectivist movement and world needs much more of!"

Thanks for the encouragement, Andre, even if I don't agree that the album is "presumptious or overreaching". As I've written in the article and elsewhere, it's not pretending to be what it isn't, nor is it reaching for what it can't achieve. It depends on what standard you are measuring it by, and whether you can justify that standard. There have been several and diverse reviews on the website about the album, and a recent one by Douglas Wagoner at Atlasphere http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/040812_wagoner_concertoofdeliverance.php

- Monart

Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 7:17am

james wrote:

"If you are wondering how to solve the problem of determining what to think of Beethoven's ninth, I suggest, radical as it may seem, that you listen to it. You will need neither a reasoned argument nor a poll after that. Better yet, go to it.
Why should you bother? I can't answer that, other than to say that it has lifted men's spirits since 1827 and is still sold out almost every time it is performed. Proof that it is great? No, but, but I mean..heck. Can't you just try it? LIVE, for Chrissakes!"

lol, i have heard it. multiple times. i just never really thought about it.

but i still wonder:

why is ms. rand's taste in music just opinion, that shouldn't be taken philosophically, but your taste in music is perfect, and those who disagree with you (about the 9th, at least) are fools?

monart wrote:

"I went into depth about the issue in my article, what uncertainty do you have? I'd sincerely like to know."

i am uncertain where one should draw the line. intellectual property rights are tricky (morally, i mean. it's already been stated by many that what you did wasn't illegal).

would it make a difference if miss rand were still alive? what if she intended to produce such a piece herself? or what if she openly objected to you making one?

my second favorite author (terry goodkind) has explicitly stated that he does not want his fans creating things (such as a statue, or a sword) based off of his books. would his fans be wrong to ignore him in this?

i'm merely reserving moral judgement until i understand it better. i've thought about intellectual property rights quite a bit, throughout my life, and it's a tough subject.

it doesn't sound as though you've done anything wrong though... and i can't think of arguments to say that you have done something wrong..

eli

Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 2:33pm

quote Since I posted my response to the detractors last weekend at Objectivism Online, my "warning meter" has been raised to 40% from 20% by the moderators there, while the meters of the detractors, with their repeated insults, smears, and no answering arguments, continue to be at 0%.

They have *warning meters* at Objectivism Online! Hahahahaha! The very thought has me buckled over in a belly laugh!

Then again, maybe a warning meter is something the moderators should consider tacking onto Stolyarov's posts? Perhaps it's not so silly after all.

Seriously though, Monart, you're completely in the right on this issue, and it's definitely refreshing to see someone taking on the ARIans on their home turf.

Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 7:20pm

eli sacks wrote:

"would it make a difference if miss rand were still alive? what if she intended to produce such a piece herself? or what if she openly objected to you making one?"

It would depend on how and to what she'd be objecting. If her objections would be like those I encountered at OO, then I'd answer her with the same reasons I gave them, and hope she'd demonstrate me wrong, if I were wrong.

To ask the opposite hypothetical: What if she wouldn't object? What if she supported such ventures? And yes, to ask: what if she produced a "Concerto of Deliverance" today, what would it sound like? Like something from the 19th century, or something respecting that tradition but also reflecting modern advances?

-Monart

Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 7:34pm

Andrew Bissell wrote,

"They have *warning meters* at Objectivism Online! Hahahahaha! The very thought has me buckled over in a belly laugh!"

What's even funnier is that the meters work in reverse! Just like the "Greedy Capitalist" behaving backwards by closing a thread that was (and still is somewhat) bringing lots of traffic to the site.

You also wrote,

"Seriously though, Monart, you're completely in the right on this issue, and it's definitely refreshing to see someone taking on the ARIans on their home turf."

Thank you, Andrew. I like that attitude. (I think I know of you? -from my daughters at TOC Vancouver.)

It may not be obvious, but I enjoyed my sojourn there. Something good was gained.

-Monart

Friday, August 20, 2004 - 2:17pm

"Monart Wrote: "No, there isn't a legal issue here, as I've noted in my article: "The US copyright laws says this: 'Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks.' See US Copyright Office http://www.loc.gov/copyright
And there is no registered trademark for 'Concerto of Deliverance'.""

So where's the moral issue?

If "Concerto of Delliverance" isn't a piece of someone's property then that's that, isn't it?

I really don't see where these other people are coming from and I'm trying to.

Friday, August 20, 2004 - 2:47pm

Yes, Monart, your daughters really schooled me in my discussion with the VORTEX delegation on free will, and Aura and I were both stumped for a half hour by the infuriating "Petals Around the Rose." Of course, as embattled Objectivists in academia, we also traded campus war stories. One of the highlights of TOC-Vancouver was meeting the lovely Aura and adorable Nova!