Progarchives.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Blogs
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Progressive Music as Objective Music
  FAQ FAQ  Forum SearchSearch  Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedProgressive Music as Objective Music

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
Message
fuxi View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: March 08 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2390
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Progressive Music as Objective Music
    Posted: November 08 2009 at 14:43
Originally posted by CPicard


WHAT??? ShockedShockedShockedShockedShockedShocked AngryAngryAngryAngryAngryAngryZappa is overrated.



Now what do you mean by THAT, sir? I didn't say Zappa was as great as Duke!
Back to Top
geddyx12112 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 06 2009
Location: New Brunswick
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 105
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2009 at 15:12
I would agree that prog is indeed objective to a certain extent, and i know where your coming from because I have read a few of Rand's books. the thing with prog though is that not all of the bands are objective. I would never consider Dream Theater or Marillion particularly objective bands. However, bands like Rush, Zappa and King Crimson were all very, very objective.  I say this because they wanted to revolutionize music, and they did so by going about it their own way.  It works the same way in a lot of other genres. For example, in rap, I would consider Run DMC and Tupac to both be onjective, because they revoluitionized music with their own beliefs, regardless of how much I hate rap they were damn influential. Whereas musicians like Marillion or 50 cent just sort of refurbished other peoples concepts. My point being that their are indeed a lot of objective progressive bands, their is objectivity in a lot of other genres as well, it exists in basically all of them except for pop.
Back to Top
CPicard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Lā, sui monti.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 9315
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2009 at 15:38
Originally posted by fuxi

Originally posted by CPicard


WHAT??? ShockedShockedShockedShockedShockedShocked AngryAngryAngryAngryAngryAngryZappa is overrated.



Now what do you mean by THAT, sir? I didn't say Zappa was as great as Duke!


I never said I was serious.
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3596
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2009 at 19:56
funny coincidence  ... my buddy was telling me about how much pot he used to smoke in college and discuss Philosophy until the pizza delivery man arrived LOL
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
Dorsalia View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 21 2006
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 314
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 09 2009 at 15:23
Make light of those who don't make light of themselves, for nobody will inherit the earth.
Back to Top
Alberto Muņoz View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3565
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 09 2009 at 17:56
Originally posted by debrewguy

funny coincidence  ... my buddy was telling me about how much pot he used to smoke in college and discuss Philosophy until the pizza delivery man arrived LOL
 
LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLClap


Back to Top
RoyFairbank View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1072
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 10 2009 at 21:33
Originally posted by Slartibartfast

I don't buy into Ayn Rand's political philosophy or those who admire it politically and economically speaking.  Noam Chomsky or Orwell anyone?  I'd recommend you check out their writings too if you haven't.

I don't have a problem with reality though.  The selfishness aspect is where it falls apart as a functioning philosophy for how to run things in human societies.  Laissez-faire capitalism is all about having masters and slaves.  Those with money and power are the masters, the rest of us are their slaves.  Another way to look at it is leeches and hosts.  All of these are of course over simplistic...


Here here.

I've only read this far in this thread but there you go, that just about says it.

I would add too what others have said: Prog emerged from the 60s causally modernist counter-culture. Prog was/is a broadly modernist art form in a period of decline for social modernism and the period of ascent of post-modernist art forms, which really came into their own with Punk coinciding with the final gutting of what was underlying Prog socially in the 1970s.

Consider "Back in NYC" from Lamb Lies Down: Animals, The Final Cut, "you must believe in the human race" from Tarkus... this is spontaneously modernist, materialist music, Neil Peart aside. The ideologues of Capitalism, like Pierce, began with a Pragmatism (or Pragmaticism with Pierce) that was still much like materialism, but starting with William James and developing rapidly until you get Rorty you have Pragmatism turning into a post-modernistic ideology.

Interestingly, one of those who inspired Orwell to write 1984, James Burnham, was a New York intellectual who went from being a Trotskyist to being one of the founding fathers of Neo-Liberalism, a cold war hawk and the winner of a medal from Reagen. Orwell was on the same path. The rejection of modernist principles of society, social contradictions and historical development leads into the dead-ends of post-modernism, skepticism, positivism, solipsism and always the crassest individualism and worshiping of the accomplished fact (namely, capitalism and society as it is today).



Edited by RoyFairbank - November 10 2009 at 21:39
Back to Top
tamijo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Online
Posts: 3919
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 11 2009 at 08:09
I Agree with Everything said in this tread.
 
Subjetively that is !
 
But im a Zen Buddist you know, i have to love everything.
 
Subjectively that is !
 
Objectively i know its all just Bullshizt, and would be so absurd if we were all starving african's.
 
  
Back to Top
Silverbeard McStarr View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 05 2009
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 167
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 11 2009 at 15:38
Originally posted by Proletariat

Also i feel that it would be pop rather than prog that would dominate in your "perfect" capitalist world

Not really. In a capitalist world there would be markets. They would be of different in size, but that's natural seeing as more people are involved in certain markets than other. Sure, pop would have the biggest market. but there would be a market for prog as well. As long as there is a demand there is an output.
Back to Top
keiser willhelm View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 14 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1697
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 12 2009 at 15:18
Originally posted by MovingPictures07

Originally posted by keiser willhelm

Originally posted by MovingPictures07

People on this forum are so misinformed about Rand's ideology.

You should have never posted this thread; you'll mainly get sh*t responses. Most people around here take any chance they get to bash it; I've since stopped even mentioning it.

have you studied it at all? il grant you enjoying her books but her philosophy is LOGICALLY wrong - objectively flawed. Wink


I've read all 4 of her books 5+ times, and also many of her other writings.

Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's objectively flawed. Don't insult other people simply because you disagree with something, thanks. It makes you look like a jackass.


4 or 5 times each! Shocked
That must have taken years.

Just because i "dont get it" ? Now who's insulting who. ive read atlas shrugged in my own time and most of fountainhead as well as "The Virtue of Selfishness", the later of which ive STUDIED. in depth. and i wasnt just disagreeing with her philosophy, i was telling you that its inherantly flawed and her arguments dont make logical sense, which is ironic seeing as she tauted rationality as the highest order of existence (the only order in fact)

 i had no intention of insulting you, your post was just condescending enough to warrant a response. I just got uptight when you implied that everyone on this forum who disagreed with ayn rand was misinformed and eager to spew sh*t from their frothing, foaming mouths. my bad, i guess that makes me a jackass.


Back to Top
MovingPictures07 View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Beasty Heart
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 32181
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 12 2009 at 18:00
Originally posted by keiser willhelm

Originally posted by MovingPictures07

Originally posted by keiser willhelm

Originally posted by MovingPictures07

People on this forum are so misinformed about Rand's ideology.

You should have never posted this thread; you'll mainly get sh*t responses. Most people around here take any chance they get to bash it; I've since stopped even mentioning it.

have you studied it at all? il grant you enjoying her books but her philosophy is LOGICALLY wrong - objectively flawed. Wink


I've read all 4 of her books 5+ times, and also many of her other writings.

Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's objectively flawed. Don't insult other people simply because you disagree with something, thanks. It makes you look like a jackass.


4 or 5 times each! Shocked
That must have taken years.

Just because i "dont get it" ? Now who's insulting who. ive read atlas shrugged in my own time and most of fountainhead as well as "The Virtue of Selfishness", the later of which ive STUDIED. in depth. and i wasnt just disagreeing with her philosophy, i was telling you that its inherantly flawed and her arguments dont make logical sense, which is ironic seeing as she tauted rationality as the highest order of existence (the only order in fact)

 i had no intention of insulting you, your post was just condescending enough to warrant a response. I just got uptight when you implied that everyone on this forum who disagreed with ayn rand was misinformed and eager to spew sh*t from their frothing, foaming mouths. my bad, i guess that makes me a jackass.




Not everyone on this forum; it's simply extremely annoying when people completely disregard Ayn Rand's books when then thereafter they illustrate hardly any understanding of her philosophy. At times it seems like pretty much everyone is that way, but I do know that's not true.

If you think her arguments don't make logical sense, then there's nothing I can do.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 31720
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 12 2009 at 18:46
Ayn Rand is an awful fiction writer.

Otherwise, Objectivism ftw.

And I'm a Christian.

How do you like that?  Approve
Back to Top
Alberto Muņoz View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3565
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 12 2009 at 18:48
Originally posted by Epignosis

Ayn Rand is an awful fiction writer.

Otherwise, Objectivism ftw.

And I'm a Christian.

How do you like that?  Approve
 
Clap


Back to Top
fuxi View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: March 08 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2390
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 14 2009 at 03:26
If any self-styled philosopher's ideas are posted here, in the spirit of "take 'm or leave 'm", and if they are associated in a rather haphazard manner with what we call "Progressive Music" (an extremely broad church!) surely it is acceptable to criticise them.

But I don't want to sound nasty - I really adore ProgressiveAttic's icon.

By the way, does anyone study literature here? If you do, you will know that, throughout the centuries, all authors you can think of have been subjected to criticism of a Christian, post-Christian, humanist, rationalist, sentimentalist, romantic, idealist, Marxist, feminist, anti-communist, modernist, postmodernist, post-colonialist, neo-historicist [etc. etc.] nature. You could easily do the same to "Progressive Music". To ALL its different strands. You could make your career that way - bonne chance!
Back to Top
Silverbeard McStarr View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 05 2009
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 167
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 14 2009 at 10:55
To be a real objectivist I'd say you'd have to give up religion. Religion is anything but objectivist, it's subjective and while religion can be a perfectly fine way to live your life, it's not objective. I am an objectivist myself, and while I'd love for people to get involved with the philosophy, I really don't get how religious people can so proudly call themselves objectivists.
Back to Top
Bitterblogger View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: November 04 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1571
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 16 2009 at 22:37
Originally posted by Silverbeard McStarr

To be a real objectivist I'd say you'd have to give up religion. Religion is anything but objectivist, it's subjective and while religion can be a perfectly fine way to live your life, it's not objective. I am an objectivist myself, and while I'd love for people to get involved with the philosophy, I really don't get how religious people can so proudly call themselves objectivists.
If you'd "love" for people to become objectivists, then you can't be one, since that's subjective.Wink
Back to Top
Prometheus View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 11 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 151
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 17 2009 at 23:06

if the tenets of Objectivism have anything to do with Prog music, or music in general, it can only be inasmuch as we like to think that it is the creative product of an individual purely for the sake of that individual's desire to create. This is an absolute ideal, and so likely a stretch, but beyond that what is it about prog that makes us say this? nothing. it can be said about any genre from classical to country. i mean this in the nicest way possible, but stop using your pop-philosophy to uphold your personal aesthetics.
Objectivism is flawed from the get-go by merely assuming the objective existence of an external reality; i'd go so far as to say that it begs the question by assuming the nature of what it's epistemology out to deduce, but even if that isn't the case it's just silly. Rand pulls together a weak version of Platonic epistemology, grafts it to out-of context versions of Kantian ethics and politics, and just otherwise ignore the rest of Western Philosophy. I strongly suggest that you go and pick up The Critique of Pure Reason by Kant if you want a real philosophy, one that utterly destroys Rand's feeble attempt (she obviously chose to ignore it)
ultimately the only thing that makes music meaningful is your own subjective perception of it, and ultimately the only thing that differentiates it from mere noise or the jumble of the senses is your own subjective mind. objectivity, in any case, has no place in a discussion of aesthetics, and only a limiting role in epistemology or metaphysics, i'd say.
"Tell me why world, unfathomable and good,
The beauty of everything is infinite and cruel."
--Kayo Dot
Back to Top
freyacat View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: February 17 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 77
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 19 2009 at 18:02
I think of progressive music as having greater kinship to Romanticism, art of the flowery, indulgent kind, which dares to seek cosmic truth in the act of music-making.

I actually don't think of Ayn Rand as a very musical philosopher.  But I think that the musical expressions which would fit her worldview best are forms which don't depend on collective composition or improvisation.  Singer-Songwriters or solo instrumentalists.  Anything that aggrandizes the individual.

By the way, Ayn Rand was an atheist, and it gives me a twinge of irony when I hear Christian conservatives espousing her ideas.
sad creature nailed upon the coloured door of time
Back to Top
Toaster Mantis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4409
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2009 at 02:47
Originally posted by Prometheus


Objectivism is flawed from the get-go by merely assuming the objective existence of an external reality; i'd go so far as to say that it begs the question by assuming the nature of what it's epistemology out to deduce, but even if that isn't the case it's just silly. Rand pulls together a weak version of Platonic epistemology, grafts it to out-of context versions of Kantian ethics and politics, and just otherwise ignore the rest of Western Philosophy. I strongly suggest that you go and pick up The Critique of Pure Reason by Kant if you want a real philosophy, one that utterly destroys Rand's feeble attempt (she obviously chose to ignore it)


Actually, it would be more accurate to say that Ayn Rand basically set out to push the reset button on Western philosophy post-Kant: She thought that the Soviet Union's totalitarianism was the logical practical conclusion of German Idealism (e. g. Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer) so it would be weird then if her ethics are of mostly Kantian origin. I'd have thought she'd borrow more from Locke but then again I've only read short excerpts of Rand.

In a way Ayn Rand was like a right-wing version of Theodor Adorno, who considered totalitarianism the logical conclusion of the Enlightenment.
"The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" - Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Back to Top
Toaster Mantis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4409
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2009 at 03:00
Originally posted by freyacat

I think of progressive music as having greater kinship to Romanticism, art of the flowery, indulgent kind, which dares to seek cosmic truth in the act of music-making.


I agree, you could even draw parallels between progressive rock falling out of favour in the more cynical late 1970s and how Romanticism withered away in the mid-19th century because increased industrialization made its themes look irrelevant to a now-urban audience... both movements also had resurgences later.

Hell, there's even parallels between how the stagnation of progressive rock was followed by the rise in popularity of punk and metal, and the rise of Modernism after Romanticism died out. Don't think it's a coincidence that one post-punk band called itself Bauhaus. LOL In both cases, it's less that one artistic movement displaced the other than times just changing and the overall cultural climate that supported a specific movement no longer existing.
"The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" - Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.69
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.373 seconds.