# Beethoven's barbaric and malevolent symphonies



## John Galt

I decided to dive into it and discover the world of classical music. Heard it was supposed to be great. I decided to start with Beethoven, one of the greatest composers in history. Today I did a "Beethoven marathon", actively listening to all his symphonies while lying on my bed. 

It was horrible and disgusting! The only symphony I liked was number 6. Everything was well composed and of high quality, I just hated the malevolent and dark mood. It wasn't at all in harmony with my own sense of life. 

Next I will listen to his piano concertos. Hope I will like them better.


----------



## Guest

Well John, if you are not a troll--and there _are_ certain troll-like elements to your post--then be prepared to be treated as a troll.

If you are a troll, you will of course not care, not really. You might pretend to care, I suppose. That's happened before.

If you are not, however, you should be prepared. If you are not, welcome to the forum. If you are not, I do think you will find the piano concertos to be less barbaric and malevolent. Though I must say that I have a very hard time imagining anyone responding that way to Beethoven's 1st, 2nd, or 7th symphonies. And the 8th? Really? Barbaric and malevolent? That utterly charming little creature?

Well, the world is full of surprises, I must say. I woulda never thunk. But then, jumping in to classical music, cold, with a marathon Beethoven symphony session doesn't really seem quite the thing, either. It would help to know what else you've heard, prior to the marathon. And what your "sense of life" is. That's a very mysterious phrase. Explain!


----------



## John Galt

some guy said:


> welcome to the forum.


Thanks! I don't know why you suspect me of being a troll. I just didn't like Beethoven's symphonies, and don't know whether I should feel ashamed of that or not. Since he's that great, how can I not like them? Am I the only one who feels discomfort when listening to this music? I would like to know if there are moer people like me.

Sense of life explained: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sense_of_life.html

I've started listening to his piano concertos, and I immediately found something I enjoyed!

Piano Concerto No. 5 in E flat major Op. 73 - "Emperor": 2. Adagio un poco mosso

This piece is brilliant! Love it!


----------



## echo

this is a technically a sonata

i like this piece for it's beautiful contrasts


----------



## Guest

John Galt said:


> Thanks! I don't know why you suspect me of being a troll.


I don't know that I'd go _that_ far.

I just noticed some troll-like things in your post is all. The notion of just deciding to dive into classical music, the marathon listening session of several hours of unfamiliar music, the contextless "active listening," the assertion that Beethoven was great before you'd even listened to any, the rather startling conclusion of "horrible and disgusting," the provocative nature of the words "horrible and disgusting" (as well as of "barbaric and malevolent"), the willingness to offer up these opinions after only one listen, indeed, the willingness to offer up these conclusions, in provocative language, to the members of a classical music discussion board, who will very likely not agree with you, even if they too do not particularly "like" Beethoven's symphonies.



John Galt said:


> don't know whether I should feel ashamed of that or not. Since he's that great, how can I not like them? Am I the only one who feels discomfort when listening to this music? I would like to know if there are moer people like me.


There are probably many people who feel discomfort listening to Beethoven. Probably not very many of them are people who post to TC. I guess we'll find out soon enough. In any case, the "greatness" or not of any particular person's music is no indication of whether any particular listener is gonna like what they're hearing or not.

Sense of life explained: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sense_of_life.htmlSure, but what I was really wanting was what. What is your sense of life? How is it that Beethoven's symphonies do not fit with that? Not _that_ they don't fit but _why do you think that_ they don't fit.



John Galt said:


> I've started listening to his piano concertos, and I immediately found something I enjoyed!
> 
> Piano Concerto No. 5 in E flat major Op. 73 - "Emperor": 2. Adagio un poco mosso
> 
> This piece is brilliant! Love it!


I guessed as much. Though it was only a guess. We still don't know anything about your musical background. Not even a hint. (Another troll-like thing, just by the way.) So what have you been listening to up to your decision to "dive" into classical? What caused you to decide? That gives us a wee bit context for understanding your reactions. Without that, they're just some random reactions with no meaning. With that, we can understand and appreciate your reactions, whether we agree with them or not.


----------



## Skilmarilion

John Galt said:


> Everything was well composed and of high quality, I just hated the malevolent and dark mood. *It wasn't at all in harmony with my own sense of life.*


If I haven't mistaken what you're trying to say:

That is why some of us listen to classical music -- for our "sense of life" to be challenged and ultimately, reinvented, over and over again.


----------



## John Galt

some guy said:


> What is your sense of life? How is it that Beethoven's symphonies do not fit with that?


What Beethoven's symphonies (except number 6) conveys to me is a universe where man is helpless and doomed. This is not how I perceive reality. In my view, success, happiness and achievement are possible.



> So what have you been listening to up to your decision to "dive" into classical?


Not that it's relevant, but mostly rock music. And anything on the radio. Not that I like it, but I'm forced to at work 



> What caused you to decide?


So many people have told me that I miss out on something fantastic since I don't listen to classical music.


----------



## John Galt

Skilmarilion said:


> That is why some of us listen to classical music -- for our "sense of life" to be challenged and ultimately, reinvented, over and over again.


For me art is more about re-affirmation and strengthening of the already-established values and sense of life.


----------



## Giordano

It may be helpful to think of Beethoven's music as showing you aspects of the universe you may not yet understand. Since so many people like, and revere, Beethoven, it would not be too far fetched to temporarily accept that view as a "working hypothesis."

This is not exactly an analogy, but... for example, a large meteor speeding through space may appear barbaric and malevolent from someone's perspective; the meteor itself is just being its neutral energetic self, playing its role in the movements of the universe.


----------



## Giordano

John Galt said:


> For me art is more about re-affirmation and strengthening of the already-established values and sense of life.


hmm... That would be "art" I am not interested in...


----------



## John Galt

I think some people like Beethoven because they share the premise that the world is a horrible place where evil is potent, and man is doomed to misery, suffering and failure. Listening to Beethoven's symphonies made me feel depressed, not happy.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

I wouldn't call many of Beethoven's, or Brahms for that matter, 'comfortable' at any rate. In fact for the longest time it struck me as unnatural and forced, rather static melodies pushed by direct and even abrupt harmonic, dynamic and rhythmic means. Some have claimed Beethoven to be 'universal music' when there's hardly anything more German; the subtleties of Mozart, however, seem to be praised everywhere more or less equally.


----------



## John Galt

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I wouldn't call many of Beethoven's, or Brahms for that matter, 'comfortable' at any rate. In fact for the longest time it struck me as unnatural and forced, rather static melodies pushed by direct and even abrupt harmonic, dynamic and rhythmic means. Some have claimed Beethoven to be 'universal music' when there's hardly anything more German; the subtleties of Mozart, however, seem to be praised everywhere more or less equally.


I will listen to Brahms and Mozart when I'm finished with Beethoven. Of course, it's impossible not to have heard some of Mozart's music, and from what I can remember it conveys a much more optimistic sense of life than does Beethoven's. I don't know about Brahms'.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Whatever you do, WHATEVER you do... Do NOT listen to Bartok's String Quartets or Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_. You might faint.

As for Beethoven, avoid the 6th Symphony "Pastoral" at all costs, the most barbaric and malevolent symphony of all time. :lol:

Stay away from his chamber music, too, which is known for its gratuitous violence and hatred.

In all seriousness, I don't know, try Mozart, or Brahms, or Schubert.


----------



## Stavrogin

John Galt said:


> What Beethoven's symphonies (except number 6) conveys to me is a universe where man is helpless and doomed. This is not how I perceive reality. In my view, success, happiness and achievement are possible.


Whatever you do, never, NEVER say to the user "some guy" anything that suggests the idea that music can convey something that is not music itself.
That is way worse than being a troll, to his eyes.


----------



## Skilmarilion

Stavrogin said:


> Whatever you do, never, NEVER say to the user "some guy" anything that suggests the idea that music can convey something that is not music itself.
> That is way worse than being a troll, to his eyes.


It's easy for new members to simply treat some guy as some guy.

Of course in due time, they'll come to realise that some guy isn't just some guy.


----------



## GGluek

I personally find Beethoven in general to be one of the most life-affirming composers who ever lived. But to each his own.


----------



## Guest

John Galt said:


> I think some people like Beethoven because they share the premise that the world is a horrible place where evil is potent, and man is doomed to misery, suffering and failure. Listening to Beethoven's symphonies made me feel depressed, not happy.


Well this is clearly wrong. For one, Beethoven's music does not convey to its fans that the world is a horrible place where evil is potent et cetera but that the world is a glorious place full of variety and goodness et cetera.

The world _is_ a horrible place where evil is potent and man doomed to misery, suffering and failure. Always has been.
The world _is_ a wonderful place where good is powerful and man free to explore and create and enjoy. Always has been.
Oh, and I enjoy Beethoven's symphonies, and I perceive them as being all quite different from each other.

That Beethoven's symphonies make you depressed is neither here or there. Beethoven certainly wasn't setting out to make you miserable. Why, he didn't even know you! You experience is yours, but you cannot draw a conclusion about people who like Beethoven from your experience with a first run-through of the symphonies. Why, you seem not to have noticed that the ninth ends with a setting of Schiller's Ode to Joy. Not Ode to Misery or Ode to Failure. Ode to Joy. Now, that section does depress some people, but it does so on musical grounds, not philosophical ones. Be fair, who doesn't like a bit of joy now and again?

Just out of curiosity, why do you think that your previous musical experiences are not relevant? Those experiences create expectations, do they not? Experiences with rock music, at least of the top forty kind, probably contain nothing useful for someone trying to enter the world of classical. Experience with rock might, however, mean that some fairly ordinary things that Beethoven does could strike a neophyte as being strange and nonsensical, even, dare I say it, horrible and disgusting. So yeah. Relevant. I had a friend once who heard Beethoven as "heavy" and "violent." Even the eighth symphony, I asked. Well, she didn't know Beethoven well enough to answer that.

As for your first run-through, well, do another. And another. See if your experiences, if your perceptions, change at all over time. Not that changing or not changing will prove anything one way or another. After all, if you are stubborn, subsequent listenings will simply confirm what you already perceive. If you are flexible, subsequent listens may or may not confirm your current ideas. No matter what you are, you may simply never like Beethoven.


----------



## Fagotterdammerung

No-one _has_ to like Beethoven. I do enjoy some Beethoven, but I'll admit he isn't my top pick of composers I seek out to listen to.

 For more life-affirming music, I'd suggest listening to Penderecki's _St Luke Passion_.


----------



## EdwardBast

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am going to guess you are a person of tender age? First of all, Ayn Rand was a belligerently ignorant writer on aesthetics. "Sense of life" as an aesthetic criterion will be singularly unhelpful in appreciating and understanding classical music, or any other art form for that matter. The first thing you need to do is to put it and its creator out of your head when you listen. Just because a piece of music conjures malevolent and barbaric forces or sounds malevolent or barbaric to you, doesn't mean it reflects a dark view of life. Sometimes dark forces are there to be overcome. In fact, historically speaking, Beethoven's best known symphonies, 3, 5, and 9, have all been interpreted as quintessentially heroic or ultimately optimistic. Even Stalin liked them and he was very nearly as misguided on aesthetic issues as Rand was. Most important, how it makes you feel doesn't necessarily reflect anything about the aesthetic qualities of the work, it more often will reflect what you bring to it.


----------



## Krummhorn

KNOCK IT OFF ... 

If a member suspects trolling report the post to the staff ... do not call out any member on the open board in this fashion.

Stick to the topic ...

[some posts have been deleted]


----------



## GreenMamba

I actually appreciate that the OP comes out and says he doesn't like Beethoven rather than pretends to like him because he thinks he's supposed to. "Barbaric and malevolent" is a very surprising criticism, however. 

I'd suggest setting Beethoven aside for now and trying someone else.


----------



## Blancrocher

GreenMamba said:


> I actually appreciate that the OP comes out and says he doesn't like Beethoven rather than pretends to like him because he thinks he's supposed to.


As an aside, I've been to sold-out concerts that included Beethoven's 1st Symphony in the 2nd half and heard delightful remarks such as "what the **** was that?" from people who went for the LVB but were obviously expecting something different, more recognizable perhaps. I didn't mind, though, because I'm all for honesty as well.


----------



## PetrB

John Galt said:


> For me art is more about re-affirmation and strengthening of the already-established values and sense of life.


You are going to have to pick and choose very carefully, then. I have no idea of what particular musical syntax, harmonic use, style would 'affirm' whatever general aspects of "already established values and sense of life" -- so vague as to beg guesses, which should not be forthcoming since it is supposedly 'your' sense of all that you wish to communicate.

This idea that art should be uplifting, noble, the best aspect of man sort of aesthetic and belief of what any art should be is most defined and had its highest vogue in the late 1800's.

Fact is, from your generalizations, there may be a lot of classical music which you find negative as per what you seek. Some Beethoven is not only great but really pretty damned ugly while being simultaneously glorious, the Grosse Fuga, for example.

I will say anytime I learn that a person is doing this sort of marathon immersion into classical music, one composer, etc. I find it more than a little 'off', and a bit worryingly -- it sounds to me a bit desperate or obsessive, and whatever else comes from that in the way of reaction or opinion I regard with a similar lens. That is maybe or certainly not fair, but that news does color any the approach I take in any kind of further dialogue with that person.

There are _oceans of classical repertoire._ In your further pursuits, to ask for music with these: noun / verb / adjectival qualities without citing several actual pieces of music with which you associate those qualities, music is such a Rorschach blot for one listener to the next that you will get lists of suggestions covering a bewildering array of pieces, many of which will not be at all what you are looking for, since people find x, y, and z qualities in such disparate sounding pieces.

Beethoven's Fifth piano concerto is a shoo-in of 'bright' music very much in a major key, and is one with a very grand-scale and sweeping approach.

The finale of Mozart's Symphony No. 40 is widely thought to be one of the most exciting and uplifting pieces ever written.

I wonder what you would make of this Ravel Piano Concerto in G





Beethoven, Mozart, 'the classical' era, the Baroque era, the renaissance, earlier music, the romantic era, the modern and contemporary eras-- you've hit the tiniest tip of the iceberg.

I have a hunch that more exposure to film music and the posturing 'dark' sort of pop music could have one thinking doom, gloom, daemonic, etc. for days, and project that upon any of the newly exposed classical pieces, say, simply because they are not in a major key, and then think that is what a lot of classical music is.

I wonder if you would find Prokofiev's Third Piano Concerto 'too modern' or 'dark' etc. -- many find it highly lyrical, lovely, and with a helluva exciting and brilliant final third movement. Being in classical all my life, I could say as an early teen, this sort of music was 'my rock 'n' roll.'





Keep your head and ears open, there is so much music it would be (imho) a shame to only look for that which fits one type of picture in your mind. Anyone may pick and choose from the classical repertoire and select only that which 'illustrates' a story they prefer, 'support' any philosophical or spiritual outlook they want, but that is missing out on thousands of stories you may not have yet even imagined, some dark, some light, some comic, others tragic, etc. To only read the 'happy' literature is one-dimensional, a lot of people would argue that by plumbing _all_ the depths of these various waters, not just one type or style, or selective 'mood,' that wider and deeper survey actually expands the intellectual / emotional breadth and depth of the being who is willing to explore and experience much of it.


----------



## PetrB

Stavrogin said:


> Whatever you do, never, NEVER say to the user "some guy" anything that suggests the idea that music can convey something that is not music itself.


One punishing previous reincarnation as a film composer is enough to do that to anyone.


----------



## Albert7

Back to topic in the interest of disclosure, I don't like Ayn Rand's philosophy or her writings much at all. (John Galt an allusion to the big man in Atlas Shrugged btw).

But to help you:

From an interview:

"Navigator: How about Rand's famous tastes in music?
York: Well, another example of my differences with Rand is her off-hand denunciation of Beethoven. To be fair, if I remember correctly (I was in the audience), she said only that his "sense of life" was the opposite of hers. O.K. But I was still astounded at her words because I could only think that she must never have heard his very romantic quartettes.
In any case, Beethoven was one of the greatest composers ever—I think of him in the same category as Shakespeare—because of his range. He explored and expressed a wide spectrum of subject matter; he was not limited; he explored life as he knew it, and in the process he opened provocative avenues into romanticism and tragedy (as musical art forms) and love and anger (as emotions expressed through music) that were profound and profoundly beautiful. Would we denounce the value of the Greek playwrights because they didn't project our "sense of life" in their tragedies?
Here again (in my view) her term "sense of life" as a primary aesthetic judgment is asked to bear too much evaluative weight. Like every other art, music has an objective aesthetic "language" of its own and can be enjoyed and "felt" (depending on how well you understand the "language") via its integration of melody, harmony, rhythm, and so forth, all of which are arranged to express the intent of the composer. Given the delicious and seemingly infinite complexities of music, I feel that many of Rand's writings on music were both too far-reaching and too closely subjective at the same time, sometimes taking on moral rather than aesthetic overtones.
Navigator: To the end of her days, apparently, Ayn Rand loved light classical music, such as French operettas, more than she liked the works of heavyweight composers. Would you say, "That's a valid taste"? Or would you say that such a person was missing out on something important?
York: I would say "both.""

Alexandra York would suggest that if you wanted to listened to what Rand listened to, Beethoven wouldn't the starting point. Perhaps you should try Lehar's The Merry Widow or Offenbach?


----------



## PetrB

EdwardBast said:


> ...Ayn Rand was a belligerently ignorant writer on aesthetics.


I don't know whether you were there ^^^ brave or crazy brave, but, saluting you and Apollo bless you, man.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Whatever you do, WHATEVER you do... Do NOT listen to Bartok's String Quartets or Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_. You might faint.
> 
> As for Beethoven, avoid the 6th Symphony "Pastoral" at all costs, the most barbaric and malevolent symphony of all time. :lol:
> 
> Stay away from his chamber music, too, which is known for its gratuitous violence and hatred.
> 
> In all seriousness, I don't know, try Mozart, or Brahms, or Schubert.


Or try Wagner, more exactly, the opera preludes, any of them. They will probably seem even more barbaric to you, but then who knows... just try.


----------



## KenOC

John Galt said:


> The only symphony I liked was number 6. Everything was well composed and of high quality, I just hated the malevolent and dark mood. It wasn't at all in harmony with my own sense of life.


John, in real life Beethoven had a strong and often unpleasant personality; he put off a lot of people. Similarly, a lot of people were put off by his music, which presents all sorts of strong personalities -- hopefully not all unpleasant.

I'm sure it's the same today. That's why there are so many flavors of music. To my knowledge, it's never been a crime to like or dislike any of them. A suggestion: Since you seem to like the more lyrical side of Beethoven, try his 4th Piano Concerto and Violin Concerto. No glowering or thundering involved.


----------



## Woodduck

SiegendesLicht said:


> Or try Wagner, more exactly, the opera preludes, any of them. They will probably seem even more barbaric to you, but then who knows... just try.


Ayn Rand didn't like Wagner either, saying that he "destroyed melody" (and she said this in the mid-20th century). Outside of operetta music, her stated tastes in classical music seemed pretty much confined to Russian Romantics, especially Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff, and some Puccini and Saint-Saens. Nearly all of German music from Baroque to Modern was "tragic and malevolent" to her, and she called Mozart "pre-music." As simple expressions of personal taste, none of this is matter for debate, but she did have an unfortunate tendency to see her tastes, and the "sense of life" she thought they embodied, as normative.

I say this only because the OP clearly indicates a positive view of Rand's thinking, not because I want to criticize her thinking in general. Whatever its merits in other areas, her thinking about music has little to offer and is best ignored.


----------



## DavidA

John Galt said:


> I think some people like Beethoven because they share the premise that the world is a horrible place where evil is potent, and man is doomed to misery, suffering and failure. Listening to Beethoven's symphonies made me feel depressed, not happy.


I would say the opposite if anything. Beethoven had his own private well of grief and despair that was deeper than most men. He could also be a pretty horrible man himself. But the hope and optimism of his ideals came out in his music. In Beethoven's music there is usually the sense of struggle but always the human spirit is victorious. It may not be real life but it is there in the music.


----------



## Ukko

Woodduck said:


> Ayn Rand didn't like Wagner either, saying that he "destroyed melody" (and she said this in the mid-20th century). Outside of operetta music, her stated tastes in classical music seemed pretty much confined to Russian Romantics, especially Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff, and some Puccini and Saint-Saens. Nearly all of German music from Baroque to Modern was "tragic and malevolent" to her, and she called Mozart "pre-music." As simple expressions of personal taste, none of this is matter for debate, but she did have an unfortunate tendency to see her tastes, and the "sense of life" she thought they embodied, as normative.
> 
> *I say this only because the OP clearly indicates a positive view of Rand's thinking, not because I want to criticize her thinking in general. Whatever its merits in other areas, her thinking about music has little to offer and is best ignored.*


Rand was, in a rather broad sense of the word, a sociopath. None of her thinking has more than academic value.


----------



## DeepR

Hello and welcome to the forum. What an interesting and rather unusual experience you had with the Beethoven symphonies. All I can do is suggest that you listen to them a lot more, under different circumstances, at different times etc. Give it time and you may, or may not, start to hear and experience more positive aspects about his music.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

I'd like to voice a differing opinion than those saying to give them another try. If your reaction to the symphonies were _that_ strong, _that_ negative, then maybe Beethoven isn't for you (or at least not his orchestral works). Considering you even found the 6th's mood to possess a "malevolent and dark mood". You won't be the first and you certainly won't be the last to not connect with LvB's music.

Don't go back to them now, at least. Perhaps later, try your hand at different composers first.

A couple of thoughts. In all of Beethoven's symphonic output, there are only two genuinely "scary" movements in my opinion, the 1st Mvt of the 5th and the terrifying 1st Mvt of the 9th. Both are "resolved" in the finale with triumph and joy, respectively. Perhaps the 2nd Mvt of the 7th is kind of dark, but again, the "Apotheosis of the Dance" wins over in the rhythmic and jubilant final movement. Beethoven didn't write a single dark or tragic symphony like Brahms or Mahler did, for example. I see his orchestral works as his works for the people, the audience; absolute-musical dramas, with a happy ending. He showcased his extroverted side, his "obvious" side (for you, PetrB, ), his dramatic side. His most personal, intimate, and serene music is to be found his chamber music output (which heavily outweighs his orchestral output). This is why I don't think "drama" or "triumph" or "loud" when I think of Beethoven, because that's just a small percentage of his total oeuvre. Rather, I think of him _primarily_ as a composer of intimate, personal, melodic, peaceful, serene, and sublime music.

That said, of course there's dark music to be found in his chamber music and serene music to be found in his symphonies. Just listen to the 3rd Mvt Adagio Cantabile of the 9th Symphony, for example.

I'm not so sure about KenOC's Piano Concerto #4 recommendation, the atmosphere and mood is pretty dark in the 2nd Mvt.


----------



## Woodduck

Ukko said:


> Rand was, in a rather broad sense of the word, a sociopath. None of her thinking has more than academic value.


Sorry, but that really is a cheap shot. Rand had her personality problems, but they prove nothing about her thinking on any subject, even if they may help to illuminate some of it. I found her a mixed bag intellectually and artistically, but don't intend to debate her philosophies here.


----------



## joen_cph

Giordano said:


> It may be helpful to think of Beethoven's music as showing you aspects of the universe you may not yet understand. Since so many people like, and revere, Beethoven, it would not be too far fetched to temporarily accept that view as a "working hypothesis."


IMO, Giordano nails it in the sense that for most classical listeners, taste will often gradually change, through further listening and listening experiences.

Also, the mood-conditioned aspects of enjoying music are often underestimated; tomorrow you might feel the brighter optimism of the 4th, for instance, unless the chosen recording doesn´t really mediate it. Recordings can mean a lot.


----------



## tdc

In addition to the other suggestions try listening to some *J.S. Bach*, try some Renaissance music, try some early 20th century composers like *Ravel*, *Debussy* and *Stravinsky*. You might just be more interested in the less highly emotionally charged and extroverted aspects of classical music.


----------



## Guest

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Whatever you do, WHATEVER you do... Do NOT listen to Bartok's String Quartets or Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_. You might faint.
> 
> As for Beethoven, avoid the 6th Symphony "Pastoral" at all costs, the most barbaric and malevolent symphony of all time. :lol:
> 
> Stay away from his chamber music, too, which is known for its gratuitous violence and hatred.
> 
> In all seriousness, I don't know, try Mozart, or Brahms, or Schubert.


And I take it _A Survivor From Warsaw_ would result in spontaneous combustion?

Seriously though, a lot of Beethoven's symphonic output is some of the most joyful music these ears have heard. But grab some major key Haydn works if you really need a more "sunny" take. Heck, the guy can barely make a minor key sound depressing.


----------



## PetrB

John Galt said:


> For me art is more about re-affirmation and strengthening of the already-established values and sense of life.


Coming back after being in actual life for other business, your above struck me again.

It is really a bad idea to look at music, something without words, to somehow support your view of 'art.' Art reflects artists, and whatever 'content' is in the music is usually highly indeterminate, only to be somehow deduced in the listening. You want something which affirms that which you want reaffirmed, start searching through literature, not music.

Beethoven, many think, is life affirming because we hear a very real human being's struggle within it, and that music often is filled with some kind of struggle, then transcends it, and often ends up triumphant if not merely good-natured and ebullient.

Music is a Rorschach blot, whatever you think is in a piece is then within that piece, for you.

There are some who use music like a medicine -- to alter or further enhance a mood; there are some who use it like a fan -- pleasant air moving about the room; and others consider it food, and eat their vegetables along with the protein sources and dessert.

I would advise not looking for music specifically to 'meet your agenda' but first try to listen to it for what it is, then sort and choose as to your personal preference, or to the manner in which you see fit to use it.

I would imagine coming from one or several genres of rock / pop and film music, a lot o classical music from all sorts of eras, which was otherwise intended and is generally perceived very differently than you did the Beethoven Symphonies in this moment, just might all sound a bit 'gothic.'

Let your expectations go, meet it head on. However you use it after that is your own affair.


----------



## Ukko

Woodduck said:


> Sorry, but that really is a cheap shot. Rand had her personality problems, but they prove nothing about her thinking on any subject, even if they may help to illuminate some of it. I found her a mixed bag intellectually and artistically, but don't intend to debate her philosophies here.


I'm sure that the sociopathy is shoved to the side by many Randians. I don't intend to debate her "philosophies" anywhere.


----------



## Bulldog

Ukko said:


> Rand was, in a rather broad sense of the word, a sociopath.


I don't know aout that. My take is that Rand's main thrust is to advocate maximum individual freedoms. Nothing unhealthy there.


----------



## PetrB

Ukko said:


> Rand was, in a rather broad sense of the word, a sociopath. None of her thinking has more than academic value.


Not to mention as well, basically, a near to embarrassingly bad writer.

That she was reactionary in extreme to socialism, communism, is perfectly understandable.

She also appeared on the scene in near perfect timing and sync with the American ethos which accompanied and was the outcome which resulted from involvement in WWII and especially 'harmonious' with the ensuing after period of the cold war against 'godless communism.'

The ideas she put forth also fit the American heavily promoted near mythos about individualism, and that non-socialist 'every man for himself,' sort of mind frame like a glove. Kind of the perfect storm to overlook the rest, the poor quality of the writing itself, and the one-dimensional cartoon-dimension of most of her advocated beliefs / tenets.


----------



## Albert7

My official Ayn Rand classical music playlist:


----------



## Albert7




----------



## EdwardBast

Ukko said:


> I'm sure that the sociopathy is shoved to the side by many Randians. I don't intend to debate her "philosophies" anywhere.


I think there are a great many teens who profit from exposure to Rand, specifically, to her stance on personal responsibility, independence of thought, and rejection of mysticism and superstition - particularly helpful to those detoxing from a religion overdose in childhood. Many grow out of the infatuation.


----------



## PetrB

EdwardBast said:


> I think there are a great many teens who profit from exposure to Rand, specifically, to her stance on personal responsibility, independence of thought, and rejection of mysticism and superstition - particularly helpful to those detoxing from a religion overdose in childhood. Many grow out of the infatuation.


Exactly, some real positive and dramatic influence, best ingested in ones teens to, latest, early twenties, after which the flaws, sloppy stitching, the uneven and bulky seams show prominently.


----------



## KenOC

Without being a great Rand fan, I think her ideas may have good and necessary effect on kids who are mostly taught to depend on Momma Gummint and to sink half-senseless into the arms of the State, which will nurture and take care of them until the end of time. Some Heinlein may help too!


----------



## Guest

Who are these nameless, faceless kids?

There are only about 250 people who are really and truly taken care of by the government, no questions asked. 

You know, Bill Gates, David Koch, Charles Koch, Donald Trump, Mitt Romney. A Walton or two. Maybe a few dozen CEOs and a handful of representatives.

Anyone who has made it big on their own, unaided efforts--plus being born into a rich family and getting government subsidies and being able to duck taxes with impunity or even at the encouragement of the government. But otherwise, totally unaided. And no help from any of those pesky employees who contribute nothing--except for grossly underpaid labor--but who cost the company crippling amounts of money. Yeah. Those people.

I'm guessing that's not who you're referring to. But without any names, it's only a guess.

Anyway, Beethoven! Yeah!!

(Nice save, eh?)


----------



## Piwikiwi

EdwardBast said:


> I think there are a great many teens who profit from exposure to Rand, specifically, to her stance on personal responsibility, independence of thought, and rejection of mysticism and superstition - particularly helpful to those detoxing from a religion overdose in childhood. Many grow out of the infatuation.


As long as they are not exposed to her terrible writing. I've read both the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. The Fountainhead was okay (if you aren't to bothered by the rape fantasies), but Atlas Shrugged is just terrible; the plot is extremely black-and-white, the characters are one dimensional and it really is too long.

I find her philosophies to be interesting but ultimately just as naive as Marxism.


----------



## Ukko

EdwardBast said:


> I think there are a great many teens who profit from exposure to Rand, specifically, to her stance on personal responsibility, independence of thought, and rejection of mysticism and superstition - particularly helpful to those detoxing from a religion overdose in childhood. Many grow out of the infatuation.


The issues are simple for me. I an a humanist, she was antihumanist - a would be plutocrat.


----------



## EdwardBast

Piwikiwi said:


> As long as they are not exposed to her terrible writing. I've read both the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. The Fountainhead was okay (if you aren't to bothered by the rape fantasies), but Atlas Shrugged is just terrible; the plot is extremely black-and-white, the characters are one dimensional and it really is too long.
> 
> I find her philosophies to be interesting but ultimately just as naive as Marxism.


Agreed to all of your points about her writing. Except I think the plotting in Atlas Shrugged is reasonably clever and well done - for a ridiculously overwritten sci-fi thriller. The characterization, descriptions, rape scenarios on the other hand  Sorry, there was no puke emoticon.

But back to music: Her hero composer in _Atlas Shrugged_ (I forget his name) is pretty much a stand in for Rachmaninoff - four piano concertos, each better and more sense-of-life-correct than the last, and then the glorious Fifth Piano Concerto! I like Rachmaninoff, but her more general musical tastes, which I just learned of in this thread, are disappointing. Her taste in literature isn't all that bad though. I think her favorite novelist is Hugo, whose work I really like.


----------



## John Galt

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Whatever you do, WHATEVER you do... Do NOT listen to Bartok's String Quartets or Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_. You might faint.
> 
> As for Beethoven, avoid the 6th Symphony "Pastoral" at all costs, the most barbaric and malevolent symphony of all time. :lol:
> 
> Stay away from his chamber music, too, which is known for its gratuitous violence and hatred.
> 
> In all seriousness, I don't know, try Mozart, or Brahms, or Schubert.


That was barbaric! 

Finished with Beethoven now. Here's what I liked:

6th symphony
Opus 19: Piano Concerto No. 2 in B-flat major, third movement
Opus 37: Piano Concerto No. 3 in C minor 
Opus 73: Concerto No. 5 for Piano and Orchestra in E-Flat Major, "Emperor": II
Triple Concerto
Op. 54 Piano Concerto No. 4, first and third movement
Op. 61 Concerto for Violin and Orchestra in D major, third movement
Opus 50: Romance for Violin and Orchestra No. 2 in F major
Opus 113: The Ruins of Athens, Turkish March
Op. 11, Piano Trio, third movement
Opus 16: Quintet for piano and winds in E-flat major, third movement
Op. 13, Piano Sonata No. 8 in C minor, second movement
Op. 53, Piano Sonata No. 21, first movement

Good taste or not?


----------



## Couchie

John Galt said:


> I decided to dive into it and discover the world of classical music. Heard it was supposed to be great. I decided to start with Beethoven, one of the greatest composers in history. Today I did a "Beethoven marathon", actively listening to all his symphonies while lying on my bed.
> 
> It was horrible and disgusting! The only symphony I liked was number 6. Everything was well composed and of high quality, I just hated the malevolent and dark mood. It wasn't at all in harmony with my own sense of life.
> 
> Next I will listen to his piano concertos. Hope I will like them better.


Beethoven acknowledges humanity's existential angst. That is the most fundamental, naked sense of life that we all coat with life's pleasant distractions, wishful thinking, and delusions.


----------



## John Galt

some guy said:


> Beethoven's music does not convey to its fans that the world is a horrible place where evil is potent et cetera but that the world is a glorious place full of variety and goodness et cetera.


We can agree to disagree on that. But I found some pieces that are not as malevolent as the symphonies.



> The world _is_ a horrible place where evil is potent and man doomed to misery, suffering and failure. Always has been.
> 
> The world _is_ a wonderful place where good is powerful and man free to explore and create and enjoy. Always has been.


Contradictory claims.



> Beethoven certainly wasn't setting out to make you miserable.


I agree. He probably just wrote music for his own enjoyment.



> Why, you seem not to have noticed that the ninth ends with a setting of Schiller's Ode to Joy. Not Ode to Misery or Ode to Failure. Ode to Joy.


I'm talking about the music, not the title 



> Just out of curiosity, why do you think that your previous musical experiences are not relevant?


Because I couldn't see any reasons why they would.



> Those experiences create expectations, do they not?


Perhaps. I guess the science of music has not come far enough to explain why certain music is perceived as depressing and some is perceived as joyful.


----------



## John Galt

PetrB said:


> You are going to have to pick and choose very carefully, then. I have no idea of what particular This idea that art should be uplifting, noble, the best aspect of man sort of aesthetic and belief of what any art should be is most defined and had its highest vogue in the late 1800's.


I'll try listening to music from the 1800s then 



> To only read the 'happy' literature is one-dimensional


Depends what you mean by "happy literature". It it conveys an evil message, I won't like it.



EdwardBast said:


> I am going to guess you are a person of tender age?


Ad hominem.



> First of all, Ayn Rand was a belligerently ignorant writer on aesthetics.


Disagree.



> Just because a piece of music conjures malevolent and barbaric forces or sounds malevolent or barbaric to you, doesn't mean it reflects a dark view of life.


I'm not saying it _reflects _a dark view of life. It _conveys _a dark view of life.



> how it makes you feel doesn't necessarily reflect anything about the aesthetic qualities of the work


I agree. That's why I wrote "it's all high quality, I just don't like it."


----------



## Blake

Maybe Haydn would be up your alley. Check him out. Lots of it, too.


----------



## John Galt

KenOC said:


> Since you seem to like the more lyrical side of Beethoven, try his 4th Piano Concerto and Violin Concerto. No glowering or thundering involved.


The 4th piano concerto was great! Especially the 1st and 3rd movement.



albertfallickwang said:


> Well, another example of my differences with Rand is her off-hand denunciation of Beethoven. To be fair, if I remember correctly (I was in the audience), she said only that his "sense of life" was the opposite of hers. O.K. But I was still astounded at her words because I could only think that she must never have heard his very romantic quartettes.


Yes, that's what I said. Beethoven's symphonies are the malevolent stuff. His piano concerts, quartettes etc. are far more uplifting. (Even if I find most of it quite boring.)


----------



## SeptimalTritone

John, have you heard Beethoven's 8th symphony? It's one of the most wittiest, sparkliest, and intelligent pieces he ever wrote. It's not at all like the fifth.


----------



## Guest

He's heard all of them, or has reported as having heard all of them.

I asked about the 8th, too.

Apparently it's just as malevolent as the ode to joy or the apotheosis of the dance are.:lol:


----------



## amfortas

Piwikiwi said:


> I find her philosophies to be interesting but ultimately just as naive as Marxism.


Not a fan of Ayn Rand. I'm already selfish and self-centered enough; the last thing I need is justification for it.


----------



## John Galt

Woodduck said:


> she called Mozart "pre-music."


I don't know what she meant by that. I'm listening to Mozart now. I think it's great music, but I find it a little boring. But so far I've only listened through symphony 1 to 15. The only thing I've really enjoyed is the 2nd movement of 15.


----------



## Guest

Remind me again why these opinions on the basis of first-time hearings about music that has been listened to and thought about and written about for hundreds of years are worth paying attention to?

Or, better yet, when are you going to justify expressing these opinions?

Anyone can _have_ an opinion. I have two or three myself. But opinions are not self-validating things. Just having them is of no use at all, to anyone. To make them useful, you have to support them.

Jeez. I might as well be back in the classroom, teaching writing. (And yes, that was equally futile. Even the paychecks were pretty futile. Only when I left teaching to become a captain of industry (well, OK, a cabin boy of industry) did I receive paychecks that were valid. As it were.)


----------



## John Galt

Bulldog said:


> I don't know aout that. My take is that Rand's main thrust is to advocate maximum individual freedoms. Nothing unhealthy there.


She is first and foremost an advocate for reason. Advocating for individual freedom is just a consequence of that. And you're right; individual freedom is certainly not unhealthy.



PetrB said:


> Beethoven, many think, is life affirming because we hear a very real human being's struggle within it, and that music often is filled with some kind of struggle, then transcends it, and often ends up triumphant if not merely good-natured and ebullient.


Good thing with the happy ending, but I don't share the premise that life is a struggle. Life is _work_, and _hard_ work too, but it's _enjoyable_ work.

Rand's view was that art (including music) should portray reality as it could be and should be. I agree with her on that.


----------



## John Galt

PetrB said:


> Not to mention as well, basically, a near to embarrassingly bad writer.


Keep in mind that Rand could hardly speak English when she first arrived in the United States, 21 years old. 12 years later she wrote a novel that has sold several million copies, and is still a bestseller to this date. Embarassing? I think not.


----------



## amfortas

John Galt said:


> Keep in mind that Rand could hardly speak English when she first arrived in the United States, 21 years old. 12 years later she wrote a novel that has sold several million copies, and is still a bestseller to this date. Embarassing? I think not.


I see what you mean about the importance of reason: If it sells a lot, it must be high quality.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

albertfallickwang said:


> My official Ayn Rand classical music playlist:


Woodduck mentioned that Alyssa, 'Ayn,' liked Rachmaninov and Tchaikovsky, but she liked the music in the You Tube videos posted above as well; and also her "tiddly-wink" music, as she called it; as well as the march from the _Love of Three Oranges_ and pretty much all of Chopin.

What a cute and happy sense of life.


----------



## Vaneyes

Barbaric? If you want barbaric, I'll give you barbaric. *Xenakis*.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

John Galt said:


> She is first and foremost an advocate for reason. Advocating for individual freedom is just a consequence of that. And you're right; individual freedom is certainly not unhealthy.
> 
> Good thing with the happy ending, but I don't share the premise that life is a struggle. Life is _work_, and _hard_ work too, but it's _enjoyable_ work.
> 
> Rand's view was that art (including music) should portray reality as it could be and should be. I agree with her on that.


Life as it 'should and ought to be'- Paging Aristotle's _Poetics_!

Cheers to that!


----------



## Marschallin Blair

John Galt said:


> Keep in mind that Rand could hardly speak English when she first arrived in the United States, 21 years old. 12 years later she wrote a novel that has sold several million copies, and is still a bestseller to this date. Embarassing? I think not.


I read somewhere that the Library of Congress did a survey and they discovered that more people named _Atlas Shrugged _as the most influential book in their life over any other book. . . except of course for the Bible.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> Woodduck mentioned that Alyssa, 'Ayn,' liked Rachmaninov and Tchaikovsky, but she liked the music in the You Tube videos posted above as well; and also her "tiddly-wink" music, as she called it; as well as the March from the _Love of Three Oranges_ and pretty much all of Chopin.
> 
> What a cute and happy sense of life.


Surely you mean "Alisa."


----------



## John Galt

Piwikiwi said:


> The Fountainhead was okay (if you aren't to bothered by the rape fantasies)


There are no rape fantasies in the book. Only if you look at the alleged "rape scene" by itself, out of context.



> the plot is extremely black-and-white, the characters are one dimensional


That's the point of romantic art. Rand never intended to write naturalism; she didn't aim to create a photographic depiction of life as it is. Romanticism is all about life as it "could be and should be." Not on a concrete level, but very abstractly, in broad principles.


----------



## John Galt

Marschallin Blair said:


> I read somewhere that the Library of Congress did a survey and they discovered that more people named _Atlas Shrugged _as the most influential book in their life over any other book. . . except of course for the Bible.


Yes, she's had a huge influence.



amfortas said:


> Not a fan of Ayn Rand. I'm already selfish and self-centered enough; the last thing I need is justification for it.


Rand didn't advocate self-centeredness. And I doubt you really understand what Rand meant by selfishness


----------



## Guest

So, unsupported assertions is the new black, eh?

What fun!

Well, here's one: Ayn Rand is a stupid noodle-brain.

I don't expect any quibbling with that, now. If you do, then you're persecuting me, and I won't stand for being persecuted!

I'm entitled to my opinions. They're all valid, too, just by me saying them. Why, I don't need even to have read any Ayn Rand to have those opinions, either! Valid opinions, mind. Important for everyone to read and accept.

You're welcome, I'm sure.


----------



## Couchie

Why has a discussion on Beethoven degraded into a discussion on Rand? Can't think of anything more barbaric and malevolent than that.


----------



## John Galt

some guy said:


> Ayn Rand is a stupid noodle-brain.


I think it's great that many people hate Ayn Rand. Of course, it would be even better if they loved her, but the fact that they hate her rather than being indifferent, indicates that they, at some level, understand that she is a threat


----------



## Blake

I never even heard of Rand. You guys are doing a swell job at giving her some free marketing....


----------



## violadude

blake said:


> i never even heard of rand. You guys are doing a swell job at giving her some free marketing....


ha ha ha!...

.......................


----------



## John Galt

Blake said:


> I never even heard of Rand. You guys are doing a swell job at giving her some free marketing....


I sort of envy you. You have some mind-changing reading experiences ahead, if you choose to


----------



## violadude

Hello, political thread, where did you come from?


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Well she's dead and her 'philosophy' has been (poorly or not) portrayed by the media as 'selfish' and also some form of 'intellectual Eugenics' as in the Chinese educational system and some of Germany's Gymnasiums. (Which by the way I don't support but that's not to be discussed here.)


----------



## Marschallin Blair

some guy said:


> Surely you mean "Alisa."


Not when its 'Ayn Rand' _née_ "Alyssa Rosenbaum" its not.


----------



## John Galt

violadude said:


> Hello, political thread, where did you come from?


Guess I should have chosen a different username. Let's go back to music


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Well she's dead and her 'philosophy' has been (poorly or not) portrayed by the media as 'selfish' and also some form of 'intellectual Eugenics' as in the Chinese educational system and some of Germany's Gymnasiums. (Which by the way I don't support but that's not to be discussed here.)


The '2.0 Dinosaur-Pravda Lame-Stream-Sewer-Stream' media (did I just stream-of-consciousness that?) is irrelevant to just about everything; especially intellectual concerns.


----------



## John Galt

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Well she's dead and her 'philosophy' has been (poorly or not) portrayed by the media as 'selfish' and also some form of 'intellectual Eugenics' as in the Chinese educational system and some of Germany's Gymnasiums. (Which by the way I don't support but that's not to be discussed here.)


She certainly advocates selfishness, but selfishness is not what most people think it is. If you want to learn more, see the speech I posted above ("Why be Selfish?").


----------



## Guest

Ah.

Alisa is just the more common transliteration.

Only recently have I ever seen the other two. Recently as in today.

I had never seen her name transliterated as anything but Alisa until today.

And everything I've found that mentions the three (or even Alice) says that Alisa is the usual transliteration.

So we both get to be right.


----------



## KenOC

Ayn Rand tells one side of the story. A true side, but only one side. Altruism is a survival trait and has to exist in any society. Rand's philosophy becomes valuable mostly when it is rejected, as in our Western societies today.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

some guy said:


> Ah.
> 
> Alisa is just the more common transliteration.
> 
> Only recently have I ever seen the other two. Recently as in today.
> 
> I had never seen her name transliterated as anything but Alisa until today.
> 
> And everything I've found that mentions the three (or even Alice) says that Alisa is the usual transliteration.
> 
> So we both get to be right.


Alyssa's the more common spelling- transliteration or none.

She's a genius either way.


----------



## Albert7

KenOC said:


> Ayn Rand tends to tell one side of the story. A true side, but only one side. Altruism is a survival trait and has to exist in any society. Rand's philosophy becomes more valuable the more it is rejected, as in our Western societies today.


Interestingly enough her influence is pretty evident on people like Alan Greenspan.
Fundamentally based on free market economics in the long run.

So back to Beethoven?

Ayn Rand wasn't a fan of Beethoven so her views on music is based on the romantic and rational combined.

So perhaps Webern and Schoenberg then?


----------



## KenOC

Free market? Been a while since we had one of those. Doing economics as if a free market existed is very dangerous. Instead we have an economy snarled in complex and arcane laws, mostly written by the wealthy.

Obligatory music connection: Well, sorry mods, can't think of any!


----------



## Marschallin Blair

KenOC said:


> Ayn Rand tells one side of the story. A true side, but only one side. Altruism is a survival trait and has to exist in any society. Rand's philosophy becomes more valuable the more it is rejected, as in our Western societies today.


Actually, evolutionary biology goes completely against that assertion.

Modern game theory as well.


----------



## John Galt

KenOC said:


> Altruism is a survival trait and has to exist in any society.


This is a common misunderstanding. Altruism means to put others before yourself. This cannot, per definition, be in your self-interest. I suspect that you confuse altriusm with kindness.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

albertfallickwang said:


> Interestingly enough her influence is pretty evident on people like Alan Greenspan.
> Fundamentally based on free market economics in the long run.
> 
> So back to Beethoven?
> 
> Ayn Rand wasn't a fan of Beethoven so her views on music is based on the romantic and rational combined.
> 
> So perhaps Webern and Schoenberg then?


Greenspan went from being a Keynesian in the fifties; to a advocate of a one-hundred percent gold standard and totally free market in the sixties; and back to being an orthodox neo-Keynesian by the seventies- before he was appointed to the head of the Fed by Reagan in the early eighties.

- so for all intents and purposes his methodology is Keynesian and inflationist rather than Austrian and hard-money- which was Rand's stance.

So Greenspan was 'anti-Randian,' to be precise.

Mercantilism isn't capitalism.


----------



## KenOC

Marschallin Blair said:


> Actually, evolutionary biology goes completely against that assertion.
> 
> Modern game theory as well.


I must be missing something. Dawkins goes to great length to prove (using game theory and computer programs in fact) that there is an optimum level of altruism that maximizes the probability of successful transmission of genes. He extends this idea to phenotypes.


----------



## John Galt

albertfallickwang said:


> Interestingly enough her influence is pretty evident on people like Alan Greenspan.
> Fundamentally based on free market economics in the long run.


Greenspan used to be a fan of Rand's philosophy, but he rejected it. Today he is a statist, noe an advocate for capitalism. In a capitalist society, there is no central bank and no government interference in the economy. That's what a _free _market is. It's free from coercion.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

KenOC said:


> I must be missing something. Dawkins goes to great length to prove (using game theory and computer programs in fact) that there is an optimum level of altruism that maximizes the probability of successful transmission of genes. He extends this idea to phenotypes.


You're missing quite a bit.

His overriding thesis in the _Selfish Gene _is that bodies are merely throw-away survival machines for the replication of genes. Any strategy which maximizes the propagation of the genes, and not the species, is the operant principle bethind the blind variation and selective retention of genetic phenotypes.


----------



## KenOC

John Galt said:


> This is a common misunderstanding. Altruism means to put others before yourself. This cannot, per definition, be in your self-interest. I suspect that you coufuse altriusm with kindness.


Not in your self-interest, but in the survivability of your genetic material. This isn't limiting to burning yourself to save your baby but applies in a lot of other circumstances as well. Also in societies, you can find plenty of young males perfectly happy to put themselves in harm's way for the sake of the larger society. Many people give to charities. That is not strictly in their self-interest.

Obviously there are a lot of things that trump self-interest, at least as narrowly defined.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

KenOC said:


> Not in your self-interest, but in the survivability of your genetic material. This isn't limiting to burning yourself to save your baby but applies in a lot of other circumstances as well. Also in societies, you can find plenty of young males perfectly happy to put themselves in harm's way for the sake of the larger society. Many people give to charities. That is not strictly in their self-interest.
> 
> Obviously there are a lot of things that trump self-interest, at least as narrowly defined.


But it absolutely _is _in your self interest: your long-range, conceptual self-interest of creating the type of society that you'd like to live in by your actions towards others.


----------



## echmain

John Galt said:


> I decided to dive into it and discover the world of classical music. Heard it was supposed to be great.


Pfft. Where'd you hear that?


----------



## John Galt

KenOC said:


> I must be missing something. Dawkins goes to great length to prove (using game theory and computer programs in fact) that there is an optimum level of altruism that maximizes the probability of successful transmission of genes. He extends this idea to phenotypes.


Dawkins _does _assert that there is altriustic behavior in nature, but this is actually wrong. Dawkins comes to this conclusion by ignoring the context of the behavior. For example, he claims that it's altriusm when sterile worker bees devote their whole lives to caring for the queen. However, this is not altriusm, since if the bees were not genetically programmed to do this, they would not come into existence in first place.


----------



## SimonNZ

Here's some more free advertising for Genius Ayn Rand, in the hope of converting the unbelievers:






See? What's not to like? She's delightful.


----------



## KenOC

Marschallin Blair said:


> You're missing quite a bit.
> 
> His overriding thesis in the _Selfish Gene _is that bodies are merely throw-away survival machines for the replication of genes. Any strategy which maximizes the propagation of the genes, and not the species, is the operant principle bethind the blind variation and selective retention of genetic phenotypes.


Yes. And in the second Dawkins book you reference, he proves, to his satisfaction, that a successful genetic strategy often involves a degree of altruism. Pure selfishness, says he, is sub-optimal for phenotypes, those throw-away machines. Thus altruism is selected for, to a particular degree, by evolution.

I believe he starts with the prisoner's dilemma, which can be applied in normal male-female societies without the specialization of, say, ants or bees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#In_animals


----------



## echo

SimonNZ said:


> Here's some more free advertising for Genius Ayn Rand, in the hope of converting the unbelievers:


yea Ayn was the man


----------



## violadude

Marschallin Blair said:


> Actually, evolutionary biology goes completely against that assertion.
> 
> Modern game theory as well.


Uh, what? Sorry, not an expert on biology by any means, but I can't imagine any social species (which most mammals are) surviving in the wild very long if one or two dudes are hogging all the resources for themselves.

Or, perhaps you meant that all altruistic actions eventually boil down to a selfish motivation? If that's the case, I agree.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

SimonNZ said:


> Here's some more free advertising for Genius Ayn Rand, in the hope of converting the unbelievers:


Interesting _obiter dicta_ of Rand's; and interesting_ non sequitur_ of your own.

What does a casual off-hand remark of Rand's (one I don't subscribe to incidentally) have to do with the logical content of her philosophic ideas as expounded in her essays and novels?

I won't throw away Plato's _Republic _or Kant's _Critique of Pure Reason_ because the former believed in infanticide and the latter that illegitimate children had no rights.


----------



## John Galt

Marschallin Blair said:


> You're missing quite a bit.
> 
> His overriding thesis in the _Selfish Gene _is that bodies are merely throw-away survival machines for the replication of genes. Any strategy which maximizes the propagation of the genes, and not the species, is the operant principle bethind the blind variation and selective retention of genetic phenotypes.


This is no more right than to claim that individuals are throw-away survival machines for the replication of hearts. Since the hearts survive from generation to generation even if individuals die, Dawkins could have named his book "The Selfish Heart". So even if Dawkins is 100 precent right in everything he writes about evolution, his _perspective _is misleading. Just like hearts, genes don't exist independently, they are just parts of individual animals.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

violadude said:


> Uh, what? Sorry, not an expert on biology by any means, but I can't imagine any social species (which most mammals are) surviving in the wild very long if one or two dudes are hogging all the resources for themselves.
> 
> Or, perhaps you meant that all altruistic actions eventually boil down to a selfish motivation? If that's the case, I agree.


This is very largely the case; and its not _me_ saying it but rather evolutionary biology, modern economics, and advanced game theory. _;D_


----------



## Figleaf

SimonNZ said:


> Here's some more free advertising for Genius Ayn Rand, in the hope of converting the unbelievers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See? What's not to like? She's delightful.


To be fair, I think hers was a pretty mainstream view of gender roles for a person of that generation.

It's exciting to finally be awake for one of these nocturnal mod-baiting sessions on TC, which are inevitably deleted by the time us Brits are awake! Finding it disappointingly tame so far. Must try harder, folks...


----------



## Marschallin Blair

John Galt said:


> This is no more right than to claim that individuals are throw-away survival machines for the replication of hearts. Since the hearts survive from generation to generation even if individuals die, Dawkins could have named his book "The Selfish Heart". So even if Dawkins is 100 precent right in everything he writes about evolution, his _perspective _is misleading. Just like hearts, genes don't exist independently, they are just parts of individual animals.


You'll have to take that up with the Oxford don. The biological mode and mechanism by which he proves his thesis exceeds the already off-topic scope of these posts.

_;D_


----------



## violadude

Marschallin Blair said:


> This is very largely the case; and its not _me_ saying it but rather evolutionary biology, modern economics, and advanced game theory. _;D_


Ya, I would agree with that for the most part. For example, I don't think anyone would be predisposed toward generosity if we didn't get that fuzzy feeling inside that comes with it.


----------



## John Galt

SimonNZ said:


> Here's some more free advertising for Genius Ayn Rand, in the hope of converting the unbelievers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See? What's not to like? She's delightful.


Rand did have some strange personal opinions, but this has nothing to do with per philosophy.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Figleaf said:


> To be fair, I think hers was a pretty mainstream view of gender roles for a person of that generation.
> 
> It's exciting to finally be awake for one of these nocturnal mod-baiting sessions on TC, which are inevitably deleted by the time us Brits are awake! Finding it disappointingly tame so far. Must try harder, folks...


Oh, but I do!

If anything I find my self reigning it in, 'in the interest of others.'

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

Alyssa would have loved that.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

John Galt said:


> Rand did have some strange personal opinions, but this has nothing to do with per philosophy.


_Argumentum ad hominem. _


----------



## Marschallin Blair

violadude said:


> Ya, I would agree with that for the most part. For example, I don't think anyone would be predisposed toward generosity if we didn't get that fuzzy feeling inside that comes with it.


I know you probably wouldn't believe it, but I'm pretty damn generous.

I am to people I love and adore and to people who need a little something extra and deserve it at times.


----------



## Mahlerian

albertfallickwang said:


> Ayn Rand wasn't a fan of Beethoven so her views on music is based on the romantic and rational combined.
> 
> So perhaps Webern and Schoenberg then?


*HA!*



Ayn Rand said:


> Decomposition is the postscript to the death of a human body; disintegration is the preface to the death of a human mind. Disintegration is the keynote and goal of modern art-the disintegration of man's conceptual faculty, and the retrogression of an adult mind to the state of a mewling infant.
> 
> To reduce man's consciousness to the level of sensations, with no capacity to integrate them, is the intention behind the reducing of language to grunts, of literature to "moods," of painting to smears, of sculpture to slabs, of music to noise.


Her musical tastes were towards Russian romanticism, particularly Rachmaninoff.


----------



## KenOC

John Galt said:


> This is no more right than to claim that individuals are throw-away survival machines for the replication of hearts. Since the hearts survive from generation to generation even if individuals die, Dawkins could have named his book "The Selfish Heart". So even if Dawkins is 100 precent right in everything he writes about evolution, his _perspective _is misleading. Just like hearts, genes don't exist independently, they are just parts of individual animals.


Well to be clear, Dawkins argues that complex organisms like ourselves exist for, and _only _for, the benefit of the genes they carry -- specifically, to ensure the survival of those genes from generation to generation. He makes a strong case for an idea that many or most will find objectionable.

Musical connection: Beethoven didn't do so well here. The last in his family's male line, the only son of his brother's son Carl, was also named Ludwig van Beethoven. He worked for the railroad in Chicago and passed away without issue.


----------



## John Galt

Ayn Rand said:


> Decomposition is the postscript to the death of a human body; disintegration is the preface to the death of a human mind. Disintegration is the keynote and goal of modern art-the disintegration of man's conceptual faculty, and the retrogression of an adult mind to the state of a mewling infant.
> 
> To reduce man's consciousness to the level of sensations, with no capacity to integrate them, is the intention behind the reducing of language to grunts, of literature to "moods," of painting to smears, of sculpture to slabs, of music to noise.


Gotta love Ayn Rand! So well put!


----------



## John Galt

KenOC said:


> Well to be clear, Dawkins argues that complex organisms like ourselves exist for, and _only _for, the benefit of the genes they carry -- specifically, to ensure the survival of those genes from generation to generation.


He does, and it is possible to use this as a model to understand evolution. But it is equally possible to focus on the heart and still get evolution and animal behavior to make sense. It doesn't mean, however, that genes or hearts are really selfish. Only individuals are.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

John Galt said:


> Gotta love Ayn Rand! So well put!


I love her- and I'm not even an Objectivist.


----------



## John Galt

Marschallin Blair said:


> I love her- and I'm not even an Objectivist.


You sound like one.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Couchie said:


> Why has a discussion on Beethoven degraded into a discussion on Rand? Can't think of anything more barbaric and malevolent than that.


There's always Marx.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

John Galt said:


> You sound like one.


I was an Objectivist as an undergraduate in college. _;D_


----------



## SimonNZ

> Decomposition is the postscript to the death of a human body; disintegration is the preface to the death of a human mind. Disintegration is the keynote and goal of modern art-the disintegration of man's conceptual faculty, and the retrogression of an adult mind to the state of a mewling infant.
> 
> To reduce man's consciousness to the level of sensations, with no capacity to integrate them, is the intention behind the reducing of language to grunts, of literature to "moods," of painting to smears, of sculpture to slabs, of music to noise.





John Galt said:


> Gotta love Ayn Rand! So well put!


Ah, sorry, I must have missed earlier that your praise of Rand was sarcastic, and that your choice of username was ironical - I definately got it that time.

As you were, then...


----------



## KenOC

Altruism in animals (like humans) is a chancy thing. Optimal strategies are based on benefits, costs, and risks. There is, in any society, an optimum general level of altruism, though the degree of altruism varies by individual. From Wiki:
-------------------------------------------------
Vampire bats are social animals that engage in reciprocal food exchange. Applying the payoffs from the prisoner's dilemma can help explain this behavior:

- C/C: "Reward: I get blood on my unlucky nights, which saves me from starving. I have to give blood on my lucky nights, which doesn't cost me too much."

- D/C: "Temptation: You save my life on my poor night. But then I get the added benefit of not having to pay the slight cost of feeding you on my good night."

- C/D: "Sucker's Payoff: I pay the cost of saving your life on my good night. But on my bad night you don't feed me and I run a real risk of starving to death."

- D/D: "Punishment: I don't have to pay the slight costs of feeding you on my good nights. But I run a real risk of starving on my poor nights."
--------------------------------------------
In other words, you can reward altruism with reciprocal behavior or with betrayal. Computer modeling is widely used to find optimum strategies. "Iterated rounds often produce novel strategies, which have implications to complex social interaction. One such strategy is win-stay lose-shift. This strategy outperforms a simple Tit-For-Tat strategy - that is, if you can get away with cheating, repeat that behavior, however if you get caught, switch."

Musical connection: Uh...


----------



## John Galt

Marschallin Blair said:


> I was an Objectivist as an undergraduate in college. _;D_


I see, what caused the "apostasy"?


----------



## John Galt

KenOC said:


> you can reward altruism with reciprocal behavior or with betrayal.


"Reciprocal altruism" isn't altruism but egoism. You're not altriustic when you give money to the supermarket for the goods you buy. It seems like you have bought into the leftist concept of "egoism", which is a synonyme for lying, stealing and murdering.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

There have been good pessimists and plenty has been said about Barbarism, but is there really a 'philosophy of the malevolent'? (beyond the 'why people do bad things, power, torture, the holocaust, etc')


----------



## isorhythm

Assuming this guy is sincere, I think it's quaint and sort of charming that Beethoven can provoke this reaction in 2015.


----------



## John Galt

Malevolent universe premise:

http://objectivism101.com/Glossary/Malevolent_Universe.shtml

Benevolent universe premise:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/benevolent_universe_premise.html


----------



## PetrB

isorhythm said:


> Assuming this guy is sincere, I think it's quaint and sort of charming that Beethoven can provoke this reaction in 2015.


Sorry, AynRandAynRandAynRand parroting and quoting isn't much interesting to many past their mid-teens.

Me, I've shrugged this one off.


----------



## John Galt

Shrugged it off? You've never understood her philosophy.


----------



## mmsbls

Let's get back to the OP which could include some philosophical ideas _as they apply to Beethoven or other classical music_. Some posts were deleted due to their inappropriate nature (or replies to inappropriate posts).


----------



## SimonNZ

What you Randoids remind me of more than anything is that scene from Monty Python's Life Of Brian:

Brian: "You're all individuals!"
Crowd: (in unison) "We're all individuals!"
Sole dissenter: "Well I'm not..."


(edit): I like Beethoven.

It may take more than a single listen before one is ready to make pronouncements about the value of his works, though.


----------



## isorhythm

I don't know about barbaric and malevolent, but Beethoven is a composer I've always respected more than loved. I know I'm not the only one.


----------



## Woodduck

isorhythm said:


> I don't know about barbaric and malevolent, but Beethoven is a composer I've always respected more than loved. I know I'm not the only one.


I understand. In my case, I respect Beethoven with a respect so enormous that it's hard to distinguish from love, and occasionally actually is love.

Sibelius and Wagner, I simply love.


----------



## isorhythm

Woodduck said:


> I understand. In my case, I respect Beethoven with a respect so enormous that it's hard to distinguish from love, and occasionally actually is love.


Ha, I think I know what you mean about that too. Nine times out of ten I'll reach for Schubert or Mozart over Beethoven, but I've had some really overwhelming moments with Beethoven.


----------



## Bulldog

John Galt said:


> Greenspan used to be a fan of Rand's philosophy, but he rejected it. Today he is a statist, noe an advocate for capitalism. In a capitalist society, there is no central bank and no government interference in the economy.


No need for central bank as long as we have Wells Fargo.


----------



## Nereffid

KenOC said:


> Musical connection: Beethoven didn't do so well here. The last in his family's male line, the only son of his brother's son Carl, was also named Ludwig van Beethoven. He worked for the railroad in Chicago and passed away without issue.


I'm not saying it was worth reading this entire thread just to encounter that piece of information, but thanks! :tiphat:


----------



## SimonNZ

Yahoo Answers tells me that JS Bach had no children so he has no living descendants.


----------



## SimonNZ

...a slightly more reliable source has this: 

"altogether, Johann Sebastian Bach had twenty children, seventeen grandchildren, fourteen great-grandchildren and one great-great-. The last survivor was a great granddaughter, Carolina Augusta Wilhelmine, daughter of Wilhelm Friedrich Ernst. She died on May 13th, 1871. Thus the great Bach line ended."

which calls to mind the opening scene of the film Idiocracy


all of which has nothing to do with Beethoven

or Ayn Rand, who, amazingly, was never fertalized


----------



## PetrB

SimonNZ said:


> Yahoo Answers tells me that JS Bach had no children so he has no living descendants.


Online fora are terrific sources for all sorts of solid information.


----------



## EdwardBast

John Galt said:


> I don't know what she meant by that. I'm listening to Mozart now. I think it's great music, but I find it a little boring. But so far I've only listened through symphony 1 to 15. The only thing I've really enjoyed is the 2nd movement of 15.


In case no one has said this: With Mozart symphonies one should start at the end (#41) and work backward. The early ones are all juvenilia. Maybe stop when they get boring?


----------



## Guest

When you say "solid information" in this way, you aren't by any chance referring to number 2, are you?

And that has nothing to do with Beethoven, except for that anecdote about him comparing the fruits of his visits to the little room to the fruits of a critic's literary efforts.

You know.

I read once online that Hindemith and another composer organized a turntable concert in Berlin in 1930. (Cage was in Europe then, but I don't think he attended this concert. Woulda been cool if he had.*) Anyway, I posted about this on another forum.

Some months later, I wanted to confirm this story and get the name of the other composer, which I had forgotten. When I typed in hindemith berlin turntable, however, the first hit was my post at that music site! Tee hee. My first badly recalled post about it was no confirmation at all.

The other composer was Toch, not Krenek, as seemed more likely to me.

http://www.thomholmes.com/Noise_and...Blog/Entries/2008/9/20_Early_Turntablism.html

And this article is a valuable source of other articles, as well as being pretty good itself:

http://cec.sonus.ca/econtact/14_3/weissenbrunner_history.html


----------



## EdwardBast

John Galt said:


> There are no rape fantasies in the book. Only if you look at the alleged "rape scene" by itself, out of context.
> 
> That's the point of romantic art. Rand never intended to write naturalism; she didn't aim to create a photographic depiction of life as it is. Romanticism is all about life as it "could be and should be." Not on a concrete level, but very abstractly, in broad principles.


You should know that Rand's definition of romanticism, as found in _The Romantic Manifesto_, is wholly idiosyncratic and has nothing to do with historical reality, that is, with the actual nature of Romantic art, literature and music, or with the two centuries of critical writing that have examined it since. If you hope to communicate with people who actually have training and knowledge in fields like aesthetics, the history of art, literature, and music, you must emerge from Rand's solipsistic bubble and join the real world. If you try to use her definition (which she made up out of whole cloth when she should have just invented a new term to comprise her aesthetic values), people will look at you like you have emerged from some isolated religious cult.

If you want to find out what romanticism actually is, especially as it pertains to literature, I would recommend Meyer H. Abrams' classic book, _The Mirror and the Lamp_.


----------



## Giordano

I am extremely irritated because I am not in the mood to be amused. My initial advice is retracted.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

John Galt said:


> It was horrible and disgusting! The only symphony I liked was number 6. Everything was well composed and of high quality,* I just hated the malevolent and dark mood.* It wasn't at all in harmony with my own sense of life.


I take your post seriously and respect your view.....but just be sure to avoid Wagner.


----------



## Blancrocher

I'm surprised that anyone could think the finale of the 9th was "malevolent and dark." In fact, it's the concluding track on one of my favorite compilation albums:









I'd say it's ecstatic, if anything.


----------



## EdwardBast

Blancrocher said:


> I'm surprised that anyone could think the finale of the 9th was "malevolent and dark." In fact, it's the concluding track on one of my favorite compilation albums:
> 
> View attachment 63200
> 
> 
> I'd say it's ecstatic, if anything.


Oh come on, admit it, you made that in Photoshop!


----------



## KenOC

Blancrocher said:


> I'm surprised that anyone could think the finale of the 9th was "malevolent and dark."


Well, they must have used it in _Clockwork Orange _for a reason, eh?


----------



## hpowders

I agree with the OP. I will not listen to the first two movements of Beethoven's Pastoral unless my mummy is there holding my hand, providing the necessary reassurance. Too frightening to listen to alone. Agreed!!


----------



## Dim7

hpowders said:


> I agree with the OP. I will not listen to the first two movements of Beethoven's Pastoral unless my mummy is there holding my hand, providing the necessary reassurance. Too frightening to listen to alone. Agreed!!


I have similar feelings when I listen to Sigmund Freud's Post-Oral Symphony.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

SimonNZ said:


> ...a slightly more reliable source has this:
> 
> "altogether, Johann Sebastian Bach had twenty children, seventeen grandchildren, fourteen great-grandchildren and one great-great-. The last survivor was a great granddaughter, Carolina Augusta Wilhelmine, daughter of Wilhelm Friedrich Ernst. She died on May 13th, 1871. Thus the great Bach line ended."
> 
> which calls to mind the opening scene of the film Idiocracy
> 
> all of which has nothing to do with Beethoven
> 
> or Ayn Rand, who, amazingly, was never fertilized


And what of da Vinci's posterity?- oh well, humanity's loss.


----------



## hpowders

Dim7 said:


> I have similar feelings when I listen to Sigmund Freud's Post-Oral Symphony.


My dentist likes to play it to the lyric, "Drill, baby, Drill!!!"


----------



## hpowders

SimonNZ said:


> ...a slightly more reliable source has this:
> 
> "altogether, Johann Sebastian Bach had twenty children, seventeen grandchildren, fourteen great-grandchildren and one great-great-. The last survivor was a great granddaughter, Carolina Augusta Wilhelmine, daughter of Wilhelm Friedrich Ernst. She died on May 13th, 1871. Thus the great Bach line ended."
> 
> which calls to mind the opening scene of the film Idiocracy
> 
> all of which has nothing to do with Beethoven
> 
> or Ayn Rand, who, amazingly, was never fertalized


Wow! That was a lot of Christmas cards! Hope Bach bought them by the package. Much cheaper.


----------



## Dim7

hpowders said:


> My dentist likes to play it to the lyric, "Drill, baby, Drill!!!"


To your dentist: It's post-oral, not oral. You don't want to know what comes right after the oral stage


----------



## SimonNZ

Marschallin Blair said:


> And what of da Vinci's posterity?- oh well, humanity's loss.


Okay, I'm going to stop with the Rand talk now, for two reasons:

Firstly my prickly to nice post ratio has gone all to hell in recent times, and contrary to what you might think, that's not actually an image I wish to cultivate, or pat myself on the back about afterwards.

Secondly it makes me a bit of a hypocrite about complaining about baiting elsewhere.

back on topic: Beethoven isn't scary: try listening again


----------



## Albert7

I am glad to listen again to Beethoven again  and again and again .


----------



## John Galt

EdwardBast said:


> In case no one has said this: With Mozart symphonies one should start at the end (#41) and work backward. The early ones are all juvenilia. Maybe stop when they get boring?


I'm working my way dosn this list. Now I have come to String Quartet No. 19. I've hardly found anything that I like. Is Mozart really this boring, or is it something wrong with my eares?

Where do I find Mozart's best compositions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart


----------



## John Galt

EdwardBast said:


> If you want to find out what romanticism actually is, especially as it pertains to literature, I would recommend Meyer H. Abrams' classic book, _The Mirror and the Lamp_.


I think it's Rand's definition that is correct.


----------



## SimonNZ

John Galt said:


> I'm working my way dosn this list. Now I have come to String Quartet No. 19. *I've hardly found anything that I like. Is Mozart really this boring, *or is it something wrong with my eares?
> 
> Where do I find Mozart's best compositions?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart


[knee-jerk outraged response!!]

^ I trust that's what you were looking for. Glad I could help.


----------



## tdc

John Galt said:


> Where do I find Mozart's best compositions?


His best works are probably his Piano Concertos and Operas. Try his Piano Concerto No. 20.


----------



## John Galt

tdc said:


> Definitely not his String Quartets. His best works are probably his Piano Concertos and Operas. Try his Piano Concerto No. 20.


Have listened to all the Piano Concertos. Didn't like any of them. Will try the Operas later.


----------



## Stavrogin

John Galt said:


> I'm working my way dosn this list. Now I have come to String Quartet No. 19. I've hardly found anything that I like. Is Mozart really this boring, or is it something wrong with my eares?
> 
> Where do I find Mozart's best compositions?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart


 I am somehow intrigued by OCD-like ways to explore composers' works, like yours. But if you want to save time, do the following:

Listen to:
- his Piano concerto no.20 K466
- his Requiem
- his Symphony no.41 'Jupiter'
- his String quartet no.19 'Dissonance'

If you don't find anything worth going on here, then fine, there's plenty of other great composers out there.


----------



## John Galt

I think I'll skip the operas, I don't like opera voices. I'll give up Mozart and try a different composer. Ideas?


----------



## Stavrogin

Did you try the Requiem?
Quick and dirty, try these parts:
- Dies Irae
- Confutatis
- Lacrimosa

Give this last chance to Wolfie!


----------



## SimonNZ

John Galt said:


> I think I'll skip the operas, I don't like opera voices. I'll give up Mozart and try a different composer. Ideas?


Would you consider a _second_ listen of Beethoven?


----------



## John Galt

Stavrogin said:


> Did you try the Requiem?
> Quick and dirty, try these parts:
> - Dies Irae
> - Confutatis
> - Lacrimosa
> 
> Give this last chance to Wolfie!


Yes, didn't like it. Powerful and mighty, but too malevolent. I prefer classical music without vocals.


----------



## John Galt

SimonNZ said:


> Would you consider a _second_ listen of Beethoven?


Only to the very few pieces that I liked:

6th symfoni
Opus 19: Piano Concerto No. 2 in B-flat major, third movement
Opus 37: Piano Concerto No. 3 in C minor 
Opus 73: Concerto No. 5 for Piano and Orchestra in E-Flat Major, "Emperor": II
Triple Concerto
Op. 54 Piano Concerto No. 4, first and third movement
Op. 61 Concerto for Violin and Orchestra in D major, third movement
Opus 50: Romance for Violin and Orchestra No. 2 in F major
Opus 113: The Ruins of Athens, Turkish March
Op. 11, Piano Trio, third movement
Opus 16: Quintet for piano and winds in E-flat major, third movement
Op. 13, Piano Sonata No. 8 in C minor, second movement
Op. 53, Piano Sonata No. 21, first movement


----------



## Stavrogin

John Galt said:


> Yes, didn't like it. Powerful and mighty, but too malevolent. I prefer classical music without vocals.


How is the Lacrimosa malevolent?
The intent is not. The text is not. The music is not.


----------



## John Galt

Maybe not, but I don't like it. Chopin next.


----------



## Stavrogin

Nah, you will find Chopin uninteresting.
You will find Schubert dull, and Brahms cumbersome.
Liszt. Try Liszt.


----------



## John Galt

Stavrogin said:


> Nah, you will find Chopin uninteresting.
> You will find Schubert dull, and Brahms cumbersome.
> Liszt. Try Liszt.


Thanks for the suggestions. I'll try Liszt too. Why do you think I will find Schubert dull?


----------



## echmain

Please, please do not listen to Bach. Just drop that CD of Brandenburg concertos on the ground and back away.


----------



## John Galt

echmain said:


> Please, please do not listen to Bach. Just drop that CD of Brandenburg concertos on the ground and back away.


You think he is that awful?


----------



## Couchie

Try Wagner. You will like him very much, unless of course if you are malevolent, barbaric, and boring with a defective sense of life. Toodles!


----------



## EdwardBast

John Galt said:


> I think it's Rand's definition that is correct.


How would you have any idea? Have you actually made any effort to read the best literature on romantic aesthetics? Neither did Rand! You seem to be putting faith - and given that you have no knowledge in the area, it can be nothing else - in her writings in the same way fundamentalists put faith in the Bible and for the same reason: It makes a complex world look simple and it relieves you of the responsibility and effort of thinking for yourself. According to Randian doctrine, people who do this are known as "second-handers."


----------



## EdwardBast

John Galt said:


> You think he is that awful?


No, he/she was joking. The Brandenburg Concertos are among the greatest masterpieces of the Baroque Era.


----------



## John Galt

Good thing you know about second-handers 

Few people thought more (and better) than did Rand. 

You may be a genius, but when you're equipped with an irrational philosophy, it won't take you far. As an example, let's consider modern physicists. They have very high IQs, yet believe that a single particle can be at two different positions at the same time, that gravity can "bend" space and time, and other irrational things. 

But let's go back to music.


----------



## Mahlerian

John Galt said:


> Good thing you know about second-handers
> 
> Few people thought more (and better) than did Rand.
> 
> You may be a genius, but when you're equipped with an irrational philosophy, it won't take you far. As an example, let's consider modern physicists. They have very high IQs, yet believe that a single particle can be at two different positions at the same time, that gravity can "bend" space and time, and other irrational things.
> 
> But let's go back to music.


And what irrational philosophy do you believe this stems from?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

John Galt said:


> Good thing you know about second-handers
> 
> Few people thought more (and better) than did Rand.
> 
> You may be a genius, but when you're equipped with an irrational philosophy, it won't take you far. As an example, let's consider modern physicists. They have very high IQs, yet believe that a single particle can be at two different positions at the same time, that gravity can "bend" space and time, and other irrational things.
> 
> But let's go back to music.


Somehow I get the distinct impression that these posts are not by a real Objectivist but by a Marxist trolling as one.


----------



## Nereffid

John Galt said:


> Good thing you know about second-handers
> 
> Few people thought more (and better) than did Rand.
> 
> You may be a genius, but when you're equipped with an irrational philosophy, it won't take you far. As an example, let's consider modern physicists. They have very high IQs, yet believe that a single particle can be at two different positions at the same time, that gravity can "bend" space and time, and other irrational things.
> 
> But let's go back to music.


As a side note, not only do they "believe" that gravity can bend space and time, they've studied real-world, actual bending of space and time by gravity ("gravitational lensing") for about 35 years now.


----------



## John Galt

Mahlerian said:


> And what irrational philosophy do you believe this stems from?


Subjectivism. The primacy of consciousness.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/primacy_of_existence_vs_primacy_of_consciousness.html


----------



## John Galt

Nereffid said:


> As a side note, not only do they "believe" that gravity can bend space and time, they've studied real-world, actual bending of space and time by gravity ("gravitational lensing") for about 35 years now.


They have not. They _interpret _their observations that way, just like people in the old days believed the sun went in an orbit around the earth.

Space is a _relational _concept, not a physical thing that can be bent.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

John Galt said:


> Sucjectivism [sic.]. The primacy of consciousness.
> 
> http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/primacy_of_existence_vs_primacy_of_consciousness.html


- Which (bad spelling aside) has absolutely nothing to do with the Heisenbergian Uncertainty Principle or Feynman's Quantum Electro-dynamics.

So what's your point?


----------



## echmain

John Galt said:


> You think he is that awful?


Indeed. He "composed" the Goldberg Variations by letting his cats walk up and down his harpsichord. He was famous for having 20 cats.


----------



## John Galt

Here's one for you:

https://estore.aynrand.org/p/90/introduction-to-logic-mp3-download


----------



## DiesIraeCX

[\END THREAD]

Please. Pretty please with a cherry on top.


----------



## amfortas

John Galt said:


> Good thing you know about second-handers
> 
> Few people thought more (and better) than did Rand.
> 
> You may be a genius, but when you're equipped with an irrational philosophy, it won't take you far. As an example, let's consider modern physicists. They have very high IQs, yet believe that a single particle can be at two different positions at the same time, that gravity can "bend" space and time, and other irrational things.
> 
> But let's go back to music.


It's not against the TOS to point out that another forum member is having a great deal of fun, is it?


----------



## John Galt

amfortas said:


> It's not against the TOS to point out that another forum member is having a great deal of fun, is it?


TOS? What's that?


----------



## EdwardBast

John Galt said:


> Good thing you know about second-handers
> 
> Few people thought more (and better) than did Rand.
> 
> You may be a genius, but when you're equipped with an irrational philosophy, it won't take you far. As an example, let's consider modern physicists. They have very high IQs, yet believe that a single particle can be at two different positions at the same time, that gravity can "bend" space and time, and other irrational things.
> 
> But let's go back to music.


Philosophy has nothing to do with it, except the willingness to use the scientific method. These physical effects, which you have misunderstood and misstated because you read about them in the work of Rand, who was clueless in this area, have been conclusively proven and replicated using this method. Once again, you have trusted the pronouncements of an ignoramus rather than making the effort to learn from people who have devoted their lives to researching the physical world. If the physical world refuses to obey ones philosophy, and people from around the globe with no agenda whatever except truth affirm the discrepancy, then only a fool refuses to question their premises. A=A, despite Rand's attempts to deny this.


----------



## Guest

Getting back to Beethoven and his malevolent symphonies, I just ran across this remark on the female warrior site:

"Beethoven's symphonies are more than the products of an inexplicable genius; they express the essence of what we want to believe of ourselves and our world."


----------



## Nereffid

some guy said:


> Getting back to Beethoven and his malevolent symphonies, I just ran across this remark on the female warrior site:
> 
> "Beethoven's symphonies are more than the products of an inexplicable genius; they express the essence of what we want to believe of ourselves and our world."


That reminds me, isn't Beethoven's Ninth a bit rape-y?


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Nereffid said:


> That reminds me, isn't Beethoven's Ninth a bit rape-y?


 "The point of recapitulation in the first movement of the Ninth is one of the most horrifying moments in music, as the carefully prepared cadence is frustrated, damming up energy which finally explodes in the throttling murderous rage of a rapist incapable of attaining release" - Susan McClary

"She goes on to conclude that "The Ninth Symphony is probably our most compelling articulation in music of the contradictory impulses that have organized patriarchal culture since the Enlightenment" (129). The critiques of McClary discussed below refer primarily to the original version of the passage.

Readers sympathetic to the passage may be connecting it to the opinion that Beethoven's music is in some way "phallic" or "hegemonic," terms often used in modern feminist studies scholarship. These readers may feel that to be able to enjoy Beethoven's music one must submit to or agree with the values expressed, or that it requires or forces upon the listener a mode or way of listening that is oppressive, and that these are overtly expressed, as rape, in the Ninth."

- from Wikipedia article on McClary

:lol:


----------



## Nereffid

DiesIraeVIX said:


> "The point of recapitulation in the first movement of the Ninth is one of the most horrifying moments in music, as the carefully prepared cadence is frustrated, damming up energy which finally explodes in the throttling murderous rage of a rapist incapable of attaining release" - Susan McClary
> 
> "She goes on to conclude that "The Ninth Symphony is probably our most compelling articulation in music of the contradictory impulses that have organized patriarchal culture since the Enlightenment" (129). The critiques of McClary discussed below refer primarily to the original version of the passage.
> 
> Readers sympathetic to the passage may be connecting it to the opinion that Beethoven's music is in some way "phallic" or "hegemonic," terms often used in modern feminist studies scholarship. These readers may feel that to be able to enjoy Beethoven's music one must submit to or agree with the values expressed, or that it requires or forces upon the listener a mode or way of listening that is oppressive, and that these are overtly expressed, as rape, in the Ninth."
> 
> - from Wikipedia article on McClary
> 
> :lol:


Yeah, my post was a reference to McClary, but thanks for providing the context for other readers.


----------



## Couchie

John Galt said:


> Good thing you know about second-handers
> 
> Few people thought more (and better) than did Rand.
> 
> You may be a genius, but when you're equipped with an irrational philosophy, it won't take you far. As an example, let's consider modern physicists. They have very high IQs, yet believe that a single particle can be at two different positions at the same time, that gravity can "bend" space and time, and other irrational things.
> 
> But let's go back to music.


These beliefs are only "irrational" in the context of "common sense" philosophy based on non-quantum and non-relativistic everyday observations. There is no reason however why physics at such scales should behave according to human intuition when such observations of the extremities were not available and could not have factored into the evolution of human intuition.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Couchie said:


> These beliefs are only "irrational" in the context of "common sense" philosophy based on non-quantum and non-relativistic everyday observations. There is no reason however why physics at such scales should behave according to human intuition when such observations of the extremities were not available and could not have factored into the evolution of human intuition.


"Everything in context," as she was so fond of saying.


----------



## DavidA

DiesIraeVIX said:


> "The point of recapitulation in the first movement of the Ninth is one of the most horrifying moments in music, as the carefully prepared cadence is frustrated, damming up energy which finally explodes in the throttling murderous rage of a rapist incapable of attaining release" - Susan McClary
> 
> "She goes on to conclude that "The Ninth Symphony is probably our most compelling articulation in music of the contradictory impulses that have organized patriarchal culture since the Enlightenment" (129). The critiques of McClary discussed below refer primarily to the original version of the passage.
> 
> Readers sympathetic to the passage may be connecting it to the opinion that Beethoven's music is in some way "phallic" or "hegemonic," terms often used in modern feminist studies scholarship. These readers may feel that to be able to enjoy Beethoven's music one must submit to or agree with the values expressed, or that it requires or forces upon the listener a mode or way of listening that is oppressive, and that these are overtly expressed, as rape, in the Ninth."
> 
> - from Wikipedia article on McClary
> 
> :lol:


These people appear to exist to give their nonsensical opinions on things they appear to know nothing about! I suppose it gives them employment among the gullible!


----------



## Albert7

I think that this thread has now run its course.


----------



## hpowders

I just listened to Beethoven's First Symphony. Had to take a prilosec. Not for the squeamish!!


----------



## Guest

Couchie said:


> These beliefs are only "irrational" in the context of "common sense" philosophy based on non-quantum and non-relativistic everyday observations. There is no reason however why physics at such scales should behave according to human intuition when such observations of the extremities were not available and could not have factored into the evolution of human intuition.


As well, to non-quantum and non-relativistic everyday observations, the sun still does revolve around the earth, which is fixed in place. And flat, besides. Anyone can see and feel that any day.

It's a very cool thing to think about. That an idea about the behavior of heavenly bodies can have successfully in replaced something we can still see, plainly, with our eyes.

Just goes ta show ya. Simple, everyday seeing is simply not all it's cracked up to be.


----------



## PetrB

Well, sincere or other, I thought the OP is by its nature seeming in manner, maybe intent as well, more 'barbaric and malevolent' than any Beethoven work I've ever heard.

Should anyone pay much real attention to someone who is completely new to this music who 'sits down in one day and listens through all the symphonies,' and gives whatever sort of opinion they have formed with a near to 0 familiarity with those works?

First impressions are fine, 'legitimate' and all that, but I have to wonder about the specific negativity, and what is at least written to appear as a kind of supreme and ultimate passivity in what music is supposed to do to or for the listener while the the listener laid themselves down for an afternoon, as if the music is a hired servant who must cater to the boss' every whim... you know, 
"Peel me a grape." (Takes half a bite and drops grape disdainfully to the floor.) "Peel me another grape," etc.

The scenario seems more like a weird comedy sketch than anything else to me.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Nereffid said:


> As a side note, not only do they "believe" that gravity can bend space and time, they've studied real-world, actual bending of space and time by gravity ("gravitational lensing") for about 35 years now.


Even better: Einstein's General Relativity had experimental success almost a hundred years ago.

There was the correct retrodiction in 1916 of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's elliptical orbit.

Then there was the prediction of the two times deflection of starlight by the sun, experimentally tested by Eddington in 1919.

Both of the above were due to this masterful equation solution:










And then of course we have Edwin Hubble, who discovered that the universe was expanding by looking at the Doppler frequency shift of distant galaxies. This fits like a glove with Einstein's general relativity.


----------



## GhenghisKhan

DiesIraeVIX said:


> "The point of recapitulation in the first movement of the Ninth is one of the most horrifying moments in music, as the carefully prepared cadence is frustrated, damming up energy which finally explodes in the throttling murderous rage of a rapist incapable of attaining release" - Susan McClary
> 
> "She goes on to conclude that "The Ninth Symphony is probably our most compelling articulation in music of the contradictory impulses that have organized patriarchal culture since the Enlightenment" (129). The critiques of McClary discussed below refer primarily to the original version of the passage.
> 
> Readers sympathetic to the passage may be connecting it to the opinion that Beethoven's music is in some way "phallic" or "hegemonic," terms often used in modern feminist studies scholarship. These readers may feel that to be able to enjoy Beethoven's music one must submit to or agree with the values expressed, or that it requires or forces upon the listener a mode or way of listening that is oppressive, and that these are overtly expressed, as rape, in the Ninth."
> 
> - from Wikipedia article on McClary
> 
> :lol:


roflmao. :lol:


----------



## Piwikiwi

SeptimalTritone said:


> Even better: Einstein's General Relativity had experimental success almost a hundred years ago.
> 
> There was the correct retrodiction in 1916 of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's elliptical orbit.
> 
> Then there was the prediction of the two times deflection of starlight by the sun, experimentally tested by Eddington in 1919.
> 
> Both of the above were due to this masterful equation solution:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then of course we have Edwin Hubble, who discovered that the universe was expanding by looking at the Doppler frequency shift of distant galaxies. This fits like a glove with Einstein's general relativity.


What is the difference between General and Special Relativity again? Isn't special relativity e=mc2?


----------



## fjf

Well, the OP doesn't like Beethoven or Mozart, just as most of the teenagers of our time. Thank God they have Justin Bieber and Hanna Montana.


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> as if the music is a hired servant who must cater to the boss' every whim


There's a lot of that going around.


----------



## John Galt

EdwardBast said:


> Philosophy has nothing to do with it, except the willingness to use the scientific method.


As if the scientific method does not rest upon philosophy...

If A is A, a single particle cannot be at two different positions at the same time. That's a contradiction. It's both here and not here. It's A and non-A.

Philosophers are not scientists, but they have veto power since science rest upon philosophy.


----------



## Guest

Actually, what has veto power is method, the experimental method.

And talking about philosophy this way, as if it were one thing, makes about as much sense as that question from when I was a kid: They can put a man on the moon, but they can't ....

Any you can fill in the blank with whatever you like: make solar cars is the one the Urban Dictionary uses. My favorite is from a Python sketch: make dancing tights that don't go baggy at the knees after a night of fun.

Yes, science starts with ideas, but it verifies those ideas by experiments. That's how science works. Not by starting with an idea and then letting someone else with a different idea "veto" the original idea. By testing the original idea in the lab. And doing it over and over again, too. And letting other scientists look at your methodology and at your results. By other scientists running their own tests in their own labs and maybe asking different questions from yours.

Don't tell me you didn't already know that.


----------



## John Galt

There is no way to prove that A can be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect. The concept of "proof" rests upon the acceptance of the identity axiom (A=A). But we don't have to agree on this. Let's get back to music.


----------



## EdwardBast

John Galt said:


> As if the scientific method does not rest upon philosophy...
> 
> If A is A, a single particle cannot be at two different positions at the same time. That's a contradiction. It's both here and not here. It's A and non-A.
> 
> Philosophers are not scientists, but they have veto power since science rest upon philosophy.


Perhaps those particles behave like waves under certain conditions? But instead of questioning your premises, you propose that all of the worlds physicists, motivated by irrational philosophy, are conspiring to subvert the laws of reality? This might just be an indication that you are unwittingly involved with a bizarre, anti-rational cult.


----------



## John Galt

EdwardBast said:


> Perhaps those particles behave like waves under certain conditions?


Yes, these entities (whatever they are) have wave-like properties.

No conspiracy theories involved, keep your straw men


----------

