Yeah, we did quite a thorough job of hijacking...though AR certainly held strong views relevant to the subject.
Back to the subject...I don't think the idea that we respond to music on a primal level is wrong. I'm sure that's part of it - and there are very basic ways we do respond to minor and major keys, the overtone series, tonality, etc. But as we learn and grow more sophisticated, as in any branch of art, our ability to appreciate subtleties and complexity and compositional creativity grow as well.
It's obvious I think to anyone that a young man driving down the street with rap music blaring and a sonic bass that could be used to restart a stopped heart (or stop a running one!) is expressing an element of personality. The same with the person who drives down the street with his radio blaring Mozart's Magic Flute's "Queen of the Night" (I have been guilty of that; not a really good idea here, since you may incite a pickup to run you off the road!).
It seems absurd to me to suggest there is no relation of personality to what music one listens to.
My summation: Our taste in music reflects: 1) our primal responses to tonality, rhythm, etc; 2) our personality; 3) our ability to appreciate different orders of compositional intricacy. "Personality" covers a wide range of attributes, of course, including one's sense of life and the things we find interesting (for example, I prefer rock groups who are reflective; I appreciate their intelligent speculations about life). I sincerely doubt, for instance, that someone who has little or no interest in intellectual things would like Coldplay, Sting, the Doors, Pink Floyd, or other cerebral groups. Those groups simply wouldn't speak to them.
Now please don't attempt to derail this thread again, Leigh.
In a way I envy you, V. I wasn't with my father when he died (in fact, we'd been estranged for years). You made the most of your final days together. I wish now I could say the same.
Heh - well, I was friends with Barbara Branden in the past, and have debated Nathaniel Branden a bit, and even those "outcasts" from Rand's "inner circle" admired her and found her fascinating. But they weren't great fans of certain aspects of her psychology/behavior, just as many aren't.
I don't see any rational reason for a thoughtful, "well-balanced" person to not have some interest in her ideas; but many more "normal" people are put off by her for one reason or another, and some of those attracted to her beliefs attempt to mimic her or to achieve a faux certainty or even semi-omniscience (feeling the belief in an objective reality requires that they must pontificate about everything in absolute terms). These common characteristics are well-known to those who have traveled in these "circles."
None of this, of course, demonstrates anything about the truth or falsity of her central ideas or the breadth of her talents.
True - though at least one of those people has still been with us of late (thankfully!).
I generally don't like it when people say: "Oh, there are too many to name," but it really is true in this case. Those four were great posters, imo. Right now I'm especially missing my bro', Stress.
Heh. You say that now...but unlike some people, you really don't quite know just how warped my mind can get, V. (And I don't even want to speculate about Joel's!)
Well, Claayer was CS QUEEN for a time, and always added a large dollop of humor and class to the CS environs.
Laura was a poster after my own heart/mind - someone who started intellectually challenging threads and offered uniquely intelligent insights whenever her (often odd) profile photo sprang up. I miss these two very much.
I miss many others as well, and if I were to list them I'd probably leave someone out, which would be offensive, so I'm not even going to try.
Well, how to put this in a way that doesn't make it seem as though I'm picking on poor AR...
You just seem so well-rounded, normal, and healthy...outspoken and possessing strong opinions, but gentle and amicable in your presentation. This isn't what I was accustomed to when I hung out in Randian Circles. Of course I'm not saying that liking her ideas necessarily correlates with negative personal attributes. Heck, I like her ideas and I'm at least...well...uh...okay, bad example (though I am fairly amicablish?)...but you get the idea. Don't you?
I really think you're onto something, Life. Surely there are some intelligent, music-loving, cat-lovin' scientists out there who could tie it all together?
I'm a "Rand Fan," but I do disagree with her about music. I think Rand had a problem with overestimating her acuity in certain areas - music being one of them. I think her knowledge and appreciation of music was extremely limited, and that she attempted to extend her philosophic insights beyond their range when she held forth on the subject. I'm saying, she knew something about philosophy, but very little about music (or biology, psychology, science in general, and made the same mistakes there when she over-extended her philosophic abilities beyond her knowledge and competence).
Well, her essential claim is that people can experience the emotional content of music more or less directly, I think. The problem is that there is quite a lot to anyone's given emotional response, and that there is much more to evaluating and appreciating a piece of music than simply whatever emotions it generates in you. There is much more to music than it being "joyous," "depressing," "angry," or whatever. That surely is a part of a piece of music - the emotions it generates in you (which may be rather different from what's generated in someone else!) - but there is also the skill and complexity and sheer beauty/majesty of the composition.
There are many classical and modern pieces (was just listening to Barber's Adagio for Strings today) that are extremely sad or tragic-sounding at points that are also flat-out gorgeous and cleverly composed pieces of music. Adagio for Strings is pretty mournful, but it is also beautiful. Rand presumably would've lambasted it for having a "bad sense of life." That's the kind of nonsensical, simplistic extension of her philosophy to areas where it doesn't sensibly apply.
Hmmm..well, I've never known any (what I'd consider to be) non-smart people liking classical music, for instance. I think that's a good example of a music that requires a minimally pretty solid intelligence (certainly brilliance isn't required!).
The "cerebral" part certainly applies to me. I like music that has something intelligent to say...though of course that's rather open to interpretation. From my observation - well, all my friends are very bright, so this might be a biased inventory - this applies to bright people in general.
But we'd need a scientific study of some form to answer this question at least semi-definitively. But surely intellectual and mental development is related to the kinds of music we're able to appreciate. After all, there's a reason we go from listening to kids' nursery rhyme music to Mahler's Tenth, no?
That's one area where I strongly disagree with Rand, Con. I listen to both uplifting and terribly sad music. I'm with Nietzsche on the necessary link between beauty and tragedy, etc. Anything that stirs up great passion musically is beautiful to me - whether it be joyful or sad or just plain energetic.
Yeah, you remind me, Grizz, that some people really just aren't that into music. I live and breathe and compose it - it's a huge part of my life. I would never dream of using it for "filter" or as a background; in fact, I detest that experience generally. For me it requires significant involvement.
Rand and her "tiddlywink" music. I just can't believe someone with her intellect would have had such simpleminded tastes...but then that goes to show how there isn't an exact correspondence between one's musical tastes and one's brains.
Though some very intellectual people can be quite childlike in some ways, so...?
That's an interesting question, Life. There's no way, of course, that our musical preferences don't say something about us...but it's far from clear exactly what they say.
I always feel more comfortable with people - especially in a romantic relationship - who share my tastes in music to a significant degree. Never been with someone who didn't, so I'm not sure how that would work (probably not well, I'm thinking). Though I know that having music tastes in common doesn't guarantee romantic compatibility, I suspect it may be a necessary condition. If so, that would be an awfully simple way to determine in the beginning whether you are compatible romantically. Hmmmm...
I think more cerebral people (like myself) prefer thought-provoking, cerebral music - probably likes classical (especially Bach ) and popular music that has intellectual/emotional substance (think Coldplay, the Doors, Sting, or Lady Gaga ). I think people who are open to their emotions will enjoy musicians who are very passionate in expressing their emotions and thoughts. People who are more bland probably will gravitate toward "easy listening" or Lawrence Welk. People who are more "simple" might prefer Country ()...I can see this thread taking a very controversial turn if one makes that kind of speculation (I know there are going to be exceptions to almost any of these general characterizations).
RE: Does the music that you prefer reveal your personality?
Yeah, we did quite a thorough job of hijacking...though AR certainly held strong views relevant to the subject.Back to the subject...I don't think the idea that we respond to music on a primal level is wrong. I'm sure that's part of it - and there are very basic ways we do respond to minor and major keys, the overtone series, tonality, etc. But as we learn and grow more sophisticated, as in any branch of art, our ability to appreciate subtleties and complexity and compositional creativity grow as well.
It's obvious I think to anyone that a young man driving down the street with rap music blaring and a sonic bass that could be used to restart a stopped heart (or stop a running one!) is expressing an element of personality. The same with the person who drives down the street with his radio blaring Mozart's Magic Flute's "Queen of the Night" (I have been guilty of that; not a really good idea here, since you may incite a pickup to run you off the road!).
It seems absurd to me to suggest there is no relation of personality to what music one listens to.
My summation: Our taste in music reflects: 1) our primal responses to tonality, rhythm, etc; 2) our personality; 3) our ability to appreciate different orders of compositional intricacy. "Personality" covers a wide range of attributes, of course, including one's sense of life and the things we find interesting (for example, I prefer rock groups who are reflective; I appreciate their intelligent speculations about life). I sincerely doubt, for instance, that someone who has little or no interest in intellectual things would like Coldplay, Sting, the Doors, Pink Floyd, or other cerebral groups. Those groups simply wouldn't speak to them.
Now please don't attempt to derail this thread again, Leigh.