| | A forum -- for discussing the meaning of Rand's description of "The
Concerto of Deliverance" and for discussing real examples of such music
-- is now open for public subscription. (It was originally for a small
private group of musicians and philosophers.) Particularly, listeners of
John Mills-Cockell's "Concerto of Deliverance" may be interested in the
discussion.
Note that the Rand passage is a description of, not only a special
quality of music, not only a special way of facing the music, but also a
special way of facing life. This is the passage:
"She sat listening to the music. It was a symphony of triumph.
The notes flowed up, they spoke of rising and they were the rising
itself, they were the essence and the form of upward motion, they seemed
to embody every human act and thought that had ascent as its motive.
It was a sunburst of sound, breaking out of hiding and spreading open.
It had the freedom of release and the tension of purpose. It swept space
clean, and left nothing but the joy of an unobstructed effort.
Only a faint echo within the sounds spoke of that from which the music
had escaped, but spoke in laughing astonishment at the discovery that
there was no ugliness or pain, and there never had had to be.
It was the song of an immense deliverance."
['Concerto of Deliverance', Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957]
What could the topics be for discussion? The following excerpts are from
posts in the archive.
---
The context of this forum is: "a news & discussion list on the meaning
and value of music to one's life, and on its value in catalyzing
cultural change. The main focus is on music that could be inspired by
Rand's statement above, and, in particular, on the new work by John
Mills-Cockell called, "Concerto of Deliverance".
You are all musicians in some way, so you would be sensitive to the
importance of music for a quality life. You may also be interested in
examining this Concerto of Deliverance for its benefits in re-stylizing
the mind, heart, and body. Or, you may want to challenge the claim
itself, that the music is of much or any significance at all.
---
"Concerto of Deliverance", as used in the story is an abstract, literary
statement describing the themes of a music: "of triumph, ascension,
sunburst of sound, of breaking out, spreading open, of purpose, tension,
release, of sweeping clean, unobstructed effort, of joy, of echoes
within, of laughing astonishment that: no ugliness, no pain, never had
had to be".
---
Rand’s statement of the theme(s) of the song of deliverance is an
abstract (and exalted) description of the constituents of the means to
and the meaning of triumph and deliverance -- to be musically expressed
in dominant motifs of ascension, tension, and release. Musicians who
were to compose real-world concretization of these themes should draw
from and apply to the world as it is, even while they express a vision
of what should be.
---
Even if John's Concerto may not be regarded by some as "a realization of
Rand's Concerto of Deliverance", as depicted by Richard Halley's 5th in
Atlas Shrugged -- still, the fact is that there isn't any other known
real-live Concerto of Deliverance created before now. If another
composer could conceive of, and produce, a better realization, I'd be
among the first to embrace it.
---
So, this work should be heard in this context: that it is an original
work to be regarded as an independent object, not as a rendering or
transcription of another work, musical or otherwise. Almost as
important, however, it's also a work with vital, real-world, causal
connections to the themes in Ayn Rand's description, a connection best
named by "Concerto of Deliverance".
---
I apologize if I was read as "covertly suggesting" something that I
thought was taken for granted as an obvious fact: that we all may be
"rigid" and restricted in our judgment, in some way, especially in
esthetics, because of our accustomed preconceptions and biases. So,
I thereby stated it outright. We are bound somewhat by our past, but
could we change, do we have a choice? If a music is not my "cup of tea",
could I change my cup or my tea, or the way I drink it? And, should
or should I not change, in a particular case?
---
I do not agree that there are "a priori desires", and an objectivist
would know why. I agree that the analyst of a piece of music would be
influenced by his own sense of life, just as in other arts, but that is
why a conceptual vocabulary is essential for an objective examination
and communication. Note that a total, objective analysis of a piece of
music is more than an appraisal of the technical merits or "quality" of
the "musical structure". It also includes the analysis of what the
melodic entity is, its emotional content, and what sense of life it
expresses.
The analysis of the musical object should be distinguished from a
specific listener's personal appraisal of whether one likes or dislikes
the music; otherwise, it would not be objective.
---
... [C]ontrary to your statement that "music is the supreme integration
of object and subject" and the subjectivism it could lead to, I want to
distinguish the musical object from the musical experience. The former
is crucial to understanding what music itself is, in order to develop
(and change) one's musical experience, i.e., one's perception and
appreciation of it. Emotional reactions are not irreducible, or
unalterable phenomena. They can change with understanding and
application of that understanding, however difficult at times
that might be.
---
I think the points raised so far are just the beginning of something
wider, or could be, and that the subject is about more than this music
called Concerto of Deliverance. It's also about the nature, role, and
importance of music to one's well-being -- and how we recognize such
good music when we hear it. If a music is "not my cup of tea", could I
change my cup or my tea? Should I? Why or why not? What does music have
to do with one's soul, one's intelligence, morality, and achievement? If
Roark had designed in classical styles, would there have been a
Fountainhead? If Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead is not my cup of tea,
does it matter? Should I learn to like it? Are there universal values in
art, and are there artworks that should be valued universally?
---
> What does music have to do with one's soul, one's intelligence, morality,
> and achievement?
Soul? It can certainly affect one's mood, and if the effect is prolonged
enough it can change one's overall outlook. But the source of this
effect is not completely in the music. For example, for many years I
couldn't stand to listen to pop music that was written when I was a
child, because it depressed me. That had nothing to do with the music,
really, and everything to do with memories of my home. But the causation
can go in the other direction too: At last I decided that it was time to
change this effect, due to the fact that the nostalgia of other people
meant I would continue to hear this music forever; so I started
listening to that same music in small doses, in very happy settings,
deliberately to associate the music with something different. It worked,
thus demonstrating that the mood is not in the music, but in the
relationship between the music, the listener, and everything else that
is going on in one's life, and that this relationship can be controlled
through the exertion of will. And to exert and direct the will in a
particular way is a skill that one can learn; it is painful and requires
a lot of effort at first, but so what?
Intelligence? Music gives one yet another way to tap into resources, and
helps one to make more and better use of the intelligence that one has.
It provides context for associations. It helps with memory, which helps
with everything.
Morality? I haven't seen any noteworthy connection between a person's
morality and their musical favorites. But if what I said about
intelligence and music is true, then music can indirectly enable one to
handle difficult moral questions simply by providing more context for
associations and tapping into more resources. And whatever a person's
favorites, that music is there to provide resonance during easy times
and strength during difficult ones.
Achievement? Similarly, if music is a part of your life, then it can
help you to achieve in other areas. I don't think that the particular
kind of music matters in this regard, since music is in such large part
what you make of it. It is its temporally extended, flowing, systematic
form that seems to be what makes it useful.
> If Roark had designed in classical styles, would there have been a
> Fountainhead?
The above question is phrased as though Roark existed, and then someone
decided to write a book about him. Let me rephrase it: If Roark had
designed in classical styles, could FOUNTAINHEAD still have been an
interesting book?
Obviously, Roark is symbolic of progress and change and individuality in
art, so it would have been a very different book if he designed in
classical styles. Perhaps Peter Keating would have been the hero of this
work, if traditional styles and previously defined forms are the
standard. Here's Peter, copying from the masters, adhering to prescribed
formats, trembling at the thought of creating an unconventional work
lest it violate accustomed tastes, and beautifully delivering the
reproductions that everyone has come to expect. Perhaps he recombines
old forms in new ways, but not in a way that upsets anyone's
expectations. There is nothing wrong with this. As an inexperienced
repairer of broken irrigation, I often find myself yearning for a set of
standards that would ensure that all irrigation parts fit all other
irrigation parts so that I wouldn't have to put effort into something
I'm not interested in in order to fix the irrigation with unobstructed
effort. You COULD portray Peter as a hero; all you'd have to do is say
nasty things about Roark and complimentary things about Peter. You could
call Roark a second hander because he studied architecture without
bothering to really understand why the old masters had perfected certain
forms and why architecture today use those forms; and you could laud
Peter for his extensive understanding of those forms and for bringing
his designs into conformity with that understanding. Roark is not the
hero of that book because of what he does, but because of how Rand
portrayed him. She portrayed him as an innovator, rather than as an
uneducated ignoramous.
> If Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead is not my cup of tea,
> does it matter? Should I learn to like it?
There is a difference between liking a work, and understanding and
benefiting from it. You can do either one, without doing the other, as
we can plainly see. The majority of people who read ATLAS like it as a
story and a novel but don't benefit from it as philosophy; I benefited
from it as philosophy, but didn't particularly like it as a story or a
novel. I've read it five times, not because I thought it was such a
great story but because I wanted to study it for varying reasons;
through the rereading of it, I found that the presence or absence of
certain elements became less annoying, and I suppose that this might be
classed as an impoverished kind of coming to like something more. Books
might be different from music. Music is always playing everywhere,
whereas you have to bother to spend time on a book; music I don't like
can accost me at any time, whereas literature I don't like can be safely
ignored pretty much forever. So I'm more likely to benefit by broadening
my musical tastes than I am by broadening my literary tastes, simply
because the former is so much more intrusive into everyday life. I
suppose my direct answer to your question would have to be, "I should
give it a good try, at least."
> Are there universal values in art,
As expression of what is on the artist's mind, one might expect that
there would be some commonalities between what one human being expresses
and what other human beings get from it. But some common context is
required to ensure that this happens.
> and are there artworks that should be valued universally?
I think the answer depends on what is being used as the standard of
value. If the standard is how well artists succeed in their purposes,
then maybe so; but if that's the case then clearly some study of an
artist's context and intent is required in order to judge the worth of
the work. To put it another way, if a work is to be valued universally,
then it must be understood universally. To make a loose analogy (the
intention of which is not to call art a language), to ask someone to
value PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, you'd have to ask them to read English. You
can't place the book in the hands of illiterate persons and expect them
to be ennobled or delighted by it. You can't expect to make someone
happy by giving them a credit card, if the only thing they've ever heard
of using for exchange is cash. They have to be educated, or gradually
accustomed to the idea.
---
A brief word about the passage from ATLAS: The most reasonable reading I
can give this passage is not that pain and discomfort don't exist; the
passage doesn't even suggest that they should be ignored where they do
exist. It says that there are some kinds of pain that are needlessly
self-inflicted, and when you finally get a clue and extricate yourself
from such a situation, you can look back and realize that you had been
pretty silly to have kept yourself in that position. This is how Dagny's
friends all see her. They see this challenge she's taken up and they all
know she can't pull it off, because it's impossible. She keeps trying to
reason with people who are too comfortable with their lazy and
preconceived notions, to show them what's good, to set an example for
them, and to give them alms in hopes that the feast will change their
tastes and wake them up. The more she gives of herself to them, the more
petulantly they reject her. She endures this pain because she expects a
big payoff, in the form of new opportunities to create and use the
latest technology, increasing profits, cool friends, stimulating
conversation, and maybe even admiration. She thinks that her deliverance
will involve fixing the people around her. It doesn't work. It never
works. Deliverance for Dagny involves the recognition that she is
talking to a brick wall, laughing at how silly she's been, and walking
away to a place where people live more consciously and have more fun.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Concerto of Deliverance forum is at
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/Concerto_Deliverance/
-Monart
|
|
