About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


Post 60

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 8:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz,

You are a shameless tease, totally beyond redemption.:-)


Post 61

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 9:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan, you wrote:

"Reading your article, I sense that you don't enjoy the style of pop music from the 60s on. Maybe you should pick up the "Symphonic Music of Yes" - a symphony orchestra playing Yes music (not a great album but at least the style won't get in the way). But, if you're looking for anything in pop music to approach what you get in romantic symphonies or operas, you're wasting your time."

I don't know if this suggestion really helps, because, besides the fact that most of these symphonic rock albums (starting with ORCHESTRAL TUBULAR BELLS) lose a lot in the translation of electric and electronic instruments to orchestral instruments (there are just some things that violins and horns can't do), the experiment was to see if James could connect with rock music on its own terms. I do think that it is a good idea in itself to see if rock music can translate at all with orchestral treatments, and it may be a good litmus test for greatness to subject different kinds of music to alternative treatments of arrangement and instrumentation (like a jazz rendition of a Bach piece or a Gaelic treatment of a jazz song). Sometimes I've heard melodies that I like in a different setting and loved the results, other times I can't believe it's the same things. And recording techniques affect this also, I rarely like cover songs because the original production was so integral to the overall piece. (Which makes you wonder how much of the greatness is in the melody itself as opposed to the style, the manner in which it's presented.

But to get back on point, about the suggestion of the symphonic Yes. Bill Martin, in his book MUSIC OF YES: Structure and Vision in Progressive Rock, the author addresses this issue regarding Rick Wakeman's first solo album THE SIX WIVES OF HENRY VIII:


"SIX WIVES is a pivotal moment in what we might call the 'campaign' of progressive rock, its march toward a more general musical credibility. This was the sort of album we got our music teachers in high school, and other 'adults' who had some experience with 'serious music,' to listen to-and we were happy when they pronounced Wakeman's effort good, and even 'valid.' The funny thing was that we gave these adults too much credit. They were able to relate to some of these musical structures because they were coming from the keyboard; other instruments common in rock music, especially electric guitars, bass guitars, and drums, they couldn't relate to so well. Therefore, constrained by some rather silly ideas of what it takes to make good music (orchestral instruments, pianos, and operatically trained voices, apparently,) they were impressed by SIX WIVES, and yet not impressed by other rock music that was far more adventurous.


There is something very "Roarkian" about this, in the sense of trying to do something with the new technology that was not possible with acoustic instruments, and the "we" in the above paragraph show a "Keating" tendency in the appeal to traditional classical styles. It is not unlike the ordeal Hank Reardon faces in the introduction of Reardon Steel.

(Incidentally, THIS is why I did not recommend CLOSE TO THE EDGE or RELAYER by Yes to James; GOING FOR THE ONE is much more "conservative" in its instrumentation and tonality.)


Jordan also asked: " It's interesting to me that a lot of Objectivists like Yes. I haven't put my finger on the connection."

In case you haven't seen it, there was a Symposium in THE JOURNAL OF AYN RAND STUDIES on Rush, Rand, and progressive rock featuring an article on Yes and Rand by Peter Saint Andre: (Chris must have fallen asleep on the link alert!)

http://www.saint-andre.com/thoughts/rr.html


(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 5/08, 9:50am)


Post 62

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 4:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Philip: "I think this is all just a communist plot to convert sensitivity impaired beer-swilling rednecks to opera."

You have no idea what a joy is in store for you when you are converted by us communists. Despite the fact that literature is my first and last passion, I truly believe that opera is the greatest of all the art forms.At its best, it has the power to create a height of exaltation that I have never experienced through any other art. Why don;t you get a DVD of "La Boheme" (with Jose Carreras) and give it a try?

Barbara


Post 63

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 4:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for those tips, James [#54]!

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 64

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 5:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, at least I tried to listen to opera with an open mind.  I can't say it did much for me though. I listened to Paul McCartney's Liverpool Oratorio. The music is fine, but I can't handle opera singing, especially the women sopranos. I know, I know, opera is an acquired taste. This one was at least in English and by one of my favorite "tenors" so I'll listen to it a few more times and see if it grows on me.  It just wasn't a freebird moment.

Anyone see my Pearl CD?


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 65

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 5:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Katdaddy - don't let these guys snowball you - the superiorism of opera is an elitist myth.
(Edited by robert malcom on 5/08, 5:27pm)


Post 66

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 5:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> Why don;t you get a DVD of "La Boheme" (with Jose Carreras) and give it a try?

Barbara, but this means I'd have to trade in my hound dawg for a DVD *player* first.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 67

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 10:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Be brave, Philip. It's in a good cause.

Good God! I turned on an Elvis show on television, and I can hear it from my desk. Why on earth is that man bellowing something about a hound dog?!

Barbara

Post 68

Monday, May 9, 2005 - 2:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dr. Diabolical Dialectical wrote:

Oh, and in anticipation of any criticism from the esteemed founder of SOLO, who provides the very forum that allows people to engage in discussion here... the very forum that allows people to even criticize said founder... DON'T LET HIM FOOL YOU.  Even he responds to the circumstances of a particular time and place, and that response does not in any way detract from his love of Mario Lanza.

Item:  I witnessed him SWIVELING HIS HIPS on the Coney Island Boardwalk to the DISCO sounds of "Saturday Night Fever" and the Bee Gees.  This photo was taken immediately preceding said incident. 

I rest my case.


Oh yes, I swivelled my hips & shook my booty. That's because, as someone else noted above, I'm a shameless tease. Suffice it to say that on this occasion, the teased one was mesmerised. So mesmerised he dropped his camera & failed to get a photo of this historic event. He's such a pushover!

Uh, uh, uh, uh, stayin' alive, stayin' alive ... :-)

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 69

Monday, May 9, 2005 - 10:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sorry I dropped off here for a day, but the last few weeks I have had the COLD FROM HELL. Yesterday, I couldn't breathe or sit at the computer- today is better. I won't try to catch up with everything now, but let me say that if you think of this thread as a microcosm of society, it is a great argument for a FREE society. We all learn from each other.

Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 70

Monday, May 9, 2005 - 11:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
OK Linz, you shake your booty to the Bee Gees.

Would you shake it to Mario Lanza?

Or is that another kind of passion? Seems to me that the Bee Gees' music is vastly superior to Lanza for booty-shaking.

And now you James, instead of rejecting most popular music for not being the Lanza kind of passion, why not recognize that most Ameircans (and other people for that matter) like to shake their booties a lot? The billions of dollars in the extremely capitalistic music industry is all the evidence you need to see that. People like the stuff and buy tons of music to shake their booties with. They like to do it everywhere too, at home, work, on the road, out eating, everywhere. It makes them feel good.

It is not a sign of moral decadence - it is very life affirming to shake your booty.

Why not fight for fostering more Lanza kind of passion AS ANOTHER KIND OF ESTHETIC PLEASURE instead of railing against aural booty-shaking delights?

They are not mutually exclusive and one does not negate the other.

And Barbara, er... I don't want to disagree or anything ever with my heroine, but if you can't shake you booty you will always be a "metaphorical" hound dog lying around all the time. And it is awfully hard to catch rabbits that way.

(Ergggh... God!... There I did it again... I just can't keep a lid on my trap...)

Michael


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 71

Monday, May 9, 2005 - 12:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Booty shaking is clearly Kantian and evil.  My evidence a song from long ago. (I've forgotten the "artist.")

Shake shake shake,
Shake shake shake,
Shake your booty.
Shake your booty.
Shake shake shake,
Shake shake shake,
Shake your booty.
It's your duty.

There we have it.  Even Linz fell for it.  "It's your duty."

It was definitely a Kantian plot.  Either that or duty was the only word that would rhyme with booty.

Bill


Post 72

Monday, May 9, 2005 - 1:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael wrote:

Why not fight for fostering more Lanza kind of passion AS ANOTHER KIND OF ESTHETIC PLEASURE instead of railing against aural booty-shaking delights?

I believe you've decribed what I do precisely. The fact that I'm anti-headbanging caterwauling most certainly doesn't mean I'm anti-booty-shaking. Whatever would give anyone that idea? There's plenty one can shake one's booty to other than HC. Indeed, it's nice to S one's B without being deafened, insulted & assaulted at the same time. Of course, the most glorious booty-shaking occurs in various forms of ballroom dancing. But plain ol' untutored hip-swivelling is just fine by me. My railings against HC have nothing to do with booty-shaking. Weird how folk get so defensive!

Linz

Bill, I'm going to report you to your superiors at TOC for using the word "evil." :-)



Post 73

Monday, May 9, 2005 - 2:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And now, we dance...the LAMBADA!!!!!

Post 74

Monday, May 9, 2005 - 3:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hey! that's a great dance!  don't knock it. :-)

(Edited by robert malcom on 5/09, 3:49pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 75

Monday, May 9, 2005 - 5:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ahem...

Linz...

Er...

So you contend that most people bang their heads and caterwaul in order to shake their booties?

Hmmmm...

What an interesting view on human mating habits...

//;-)

Michael


Post 76

Monday, May 9, 2005 - 8:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm serious, now we do the "forbidden dance" (at least I would, but I have two left feet and less agility then I used to.) I really do marvel at Latin dancing. And the "hand jive" dance sequence in GREASE.

Did anyone see Dubya's little booty shaking in Russia on the news tonight?
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 5/09, 8:29pm)

(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 5/09, 8:30pm)


Post 77

Monday, May 9, 2005 - 8:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I rise up only long enough to say that there has been more shaken booty under the influence of Mario Lanza than under all the Spanish flies in history.

Post 78

Monday, May 9, 2005 - 9:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shaken booty, there, James?  Perhaps...and perhaps you meant another adjective? ;-)  Oops, maybe that belongs on our other thread.

Jason


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 79

Monday, May 9, 2005 - 10:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James, I enjoyed your article very much.

Categories for music are largely ineffective. Pink Floyd and Yes and Metallica are different in their approach and execution and yet they fall into the category of "Rock." Those 3 bands are closer in kind perhaps than they are to Britney Spears but, really, we haven't learned very much from that.

Even the category "Romantic" is very difficult to define for music. Rand defined Romantic Art (I assume she is referring to literature primarily) as presenting man as possessing the power of volition. Rush very definitely does that. Sting does that. Pink Floyd and Tool are a mix but their lyrics are predominantly nihilistic. I'm not familiar enough with Lanza to comment and I don't know what he is singing about. My sense is (and I could easily be wrong!) that there is something in the Lanza performance that knocks your socks off and less from the creative side. Is that true?

Lyrically speaking, Rush and Pink Floyd and Sting present (at their best) man in a genuinely artistic way. They effectively present man as either heroic or doomed, efficacious or a pawn of fate. Most modern lyrics are absolutely terrible and these writers are very much the exception. (Paul Simon is another, Paul McCartney presents a joyous, if simplistic at times, sense of life).

As for the music, this is where things get dicey. The guitar is an aggressive instrument. It's hard to be subtle on the thing. Drums and bass too. A string section and a warm vocal are soothing in contrast. The first electric bass, the Fender Precision was first sold in 1951. That revolutionized music, for better or worse. No longer was a composer such as myself limited by the lack of a symphony. By the 1950's most anyone could make a hell of a lot of noise with 3 or 4 musicians. The popularity of the guitar makes perfect sense. You can do amazing things on a guitar. In fact, I'd bet dollars to donuts that if I were to guide you on to playing Yes' Mood For A Day or Rush's Red Barchetta or Eric Johnson's Manhatten you'd have an entirely different experience with this "Rock" music.

Back to Yes. Their lyrics are meaningful only in the sense that they select positive images instead of negative ones. They are a sense of life band if there ever was one. I find it inexcusable as a writer to default on a major part of the art work. The music side is so pleasing to me, however, that I cut them a major break. I don't consider it great art but I place them in my second tier. Pleasant background music. Their music makes my life better instead of worse.

Anyhow James, music is such a mystery that there is no reason to ever get bent out of shape about it. If we look for inspiration we find it.


Laure,

You mentioned Seal's song Kiss From A Rose. Did you know that the guy who produced that album is a guy named Trevor Horn who, believe it or not, replaced Jon Anderson as lead vocalist of Yes for the (I think) 1980 release Drama. He did a hell of a job too!

Coincidence?

Absolutely!


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.