On Truth

The sleeper floats and slides in bliss of night
With dreams abounding. Facile to his will,
An endless line of decadent delight
Prostrates itself before his choice whimful.
Then presses he upon the sweetest sweet
That fits his mind like key into a lock
A sweet too perfect to be treat
Believable. Then comes the greatest shock.
He reaches for the thing. Behold! It shakes!
Transforms itself like whirlwinds made of steel
Into a monster-lion of golden make
That eats the rest of that most supine meal!
O well for you, who would those poisons eat,
They’re made by mind: the mind itself would eat.

In mind sweets, all teeth languish in the soft
And sug’ry clouds of nothing offered there.
Likewise the palate weakens slowly. Oft
There’s problems in the void, enticing air.
For if that which desired was what was,
All men would bore the faster with the earth.
The human being’s kept alive because
It’s’uprised from a Source of great rebirth.
O do not mourn, thou who hast Chocolate lost!
For candy made by minds is nothing good.
For beauties like to death, exchange for most
Solid, advent’rous, fierce, and filling food!
This thing is not a mush all soft and slack:
When you do push at truth, it pushes back!

Rap came up in conversation today...someone tried to say that it was a legitimate form of artistic expression.

What was he talking about, for goodness' sake! Art's not about expression!

So I revisited my Jacques Maritain book....

And here's what I found.

1. Maritain, like Wood, thinks that an important element in the work of art is its form/unity. To the extent that the work is one and is a thing, it is good objectively (and i know you don't care about that, Don Pedro!). This would throw many modern artists out.

2. Maritain also places great importance on the 'artistic habit.' This is the grasp that the artist has of the rules of his art. Maritain does not tell what these rules are (he is no artist, although he does know his art history and criticism). He does provide advice on how to teach the habit, however, advocating the use of apprenticeships, not academia.

One of the aesthetic ideas that seems to flow from one and two is that the trained artist, not the philosopher, is the one most qualified to judge the quality of a work of art from his own discipline. Based on the sheer variety of forms and the practical and intuitive nature of the artistic habit, it also seems to imply that the rules for making good art are far harder to articulate and far subtler than something along the lines of "tonality" for example. I can gather nothing about whether or not he would say (as I do) that tonality is superior to atonality, all other things being equal.

3. The artist's primary concern should be to make as good of a work as possible, not to tell a theme, serve a purpose (as in music for relaxation, for example), or make money. Themes and purposes are not bad, but to not ruin the work, they have to be incorporated into the essence of what the art is. If the art is squeezed and stretched to fit the theme or purpose, the art is what we call preachy (Maritain doesn't actually say that, but you can guess it).

4. Art is not the same as morality or prudence or metaphysics. The artist who makes an excellently made sinful work is a good artist but a bad human being. Art is to the making faculty of man what metaphysics is to his mind: both deal with issues of matter, form, and the like. But art does not know them and should not try. It merely makes them.

A Fable for Interpretation

Once upon a time, a European trader who had never been to India arrived for the first time in that ancient land. As he was walking the streets from the port to the market, he saw a snake-charmer sitting by the roadside. The charmer played an incoherent jumble on his pipe, and the snake slithered upwards and swayed to the music.

"What a poor musician you are." the European observed "I know a great deal about the Indian musical tradition" (which was true) "and I know that you play very poorly, without any sense of unity of melody."

"Sit here and play it yourself" the Indian suggested dispassionately.

The instrument was about six inches long and was very similar to the a recorder. The European picked it up and began to play an English marching song. The snake attacked him and bit him. He died.

"The poor unfortunate fellow." the indian observed sadly. "He didn't understand that while I do make music, my real work of art is the proper union of the music with the snake. All would do well to remember this. It destroys all differences between the objective value of the art and judgements of taste."

On the Definition of Music

A definition is the words that express the limits of the existence of a thing, whether the thing be a concept, a material reality, or a non-conceptual, non-material reality. To define a thing, one can either make one’s own limit (an “arbitrary definition”), or look at linguistic precedent, or find a thing that has a limit in its own nature and make the definition based on this nature.

There are two things that have no limits to their being and thus possess the ultimate state of liberalism in definition (whether you believe in them or not), God, Who is Infinite Existence, and Prime Matter, which has no existence. Music exists, and is not God, so it must have limits to its being.

Concerning music, scientists who study sound have invented a technical definition of music for their purposes, defining music as “Sound with a regular wave pattern,” thus excluding non-pitched phenomena from music. This is a useful definition, as it is possible to construct (whether or not with success is debatable) an objective, mathematical theory of music based on this definition. Although scientists had a perfect right to make such an arbitrary definition, such a definition leaves out percussion instruments (which goes against common usage of the term “music”) and the works of John Cage. Musicians seem to not have come to a consensus on this topic, however, and as the scientific definition does not work because it leaves out some instruments, defining music arbitrarily is not an option.

Defining music based on linguistic precedent is outside the scope of this paper and the abilities of the author.

As for defining music by its nature, it is obvious that it is an art of sound. One can appreciate natural unmodified (wild) sounds in much the same way that they appreciate music, but this does not make the sound art or music. In a similar way, one can appreciate unmodified (wild) plants, but this does not make the plants part of the arts of gardening or floral design. The same sounds, once modified and selected by humans, however, become art through this modification. Whether or not this is a final definition is open to debate, but the definition of music by nature includes the dual quality of art of sound. From here, an evaluation of Cage and Babbitt can be made.

Milton Babbitt’s works are known for being highly organized and inaccessible to the common listener. He defended the idea that some composers should compose music so advanced that only subsidies could continue its composition.

Whether or not Babbitt was right or wrong about music is debatable. The fact is, however, that his works are not actually music, for it can be rendered unmusical by even the elementary definition above, without considering its level of advancement or its connection with the listening public. Babbitt composed by inventing an organizational system and then applying it to the staff-notated musical tradition. Unfortunately for music, although such a work may be art, it is not sound. There is an art to inventing such fascinating number-games as Babbitt invented, but such systems are media-independent, able to be applied to music, painting, sculpture, chemistry, poetry, et cetera. There is no regard for the sound to which the system is applied, hence the sound is non-essential to the art. If the sound were better off for the organization, or the organization better off for the sound, then there would be an art of sound, and music would result, but this is not the case. Babbitt has art+sound, not art of sound.

By the above definition, some of John Cage’s ideas would be music, and some would not. The idea of letting “it [presumably the sound] act of its own accord” (p. 12) is quite unmusical, taking the sound, and leaving out the human element of art. Cage’s advocacy of non-traditional techniques and instruments, such as tapes (p. 11), however, can include both sound and art, and thus is possibly music.

Defining music as the art of sound is a concise, useful, and true nature-based definition.

Ideas, Anyone?

I am seriously considering writing a Shakespearean drama based on the plot of "The Three Little Pigs."

Any suggestions?

Hamlet...The man, not the tale.

Revenge. It's a common thread in lots of stories, from the Greek Tragedies, to The Count of Monte Cristo, to Wuthering Heights, to True Grit. And, for some reason or other, the revenge-seeker seems to be the one who attracts some of our sympathy, whether (s)he be Electra, Heathcliff, Maddie Ross, or Anakin.

And this does not exactly seem to be a good thing. We all know that revenge is an evil, a pleasure in which it is forbidden to indulge, but we just can't help ourselves. The authors aren't much of a help either, often portraying the avengers as victims of previous wrongs, to be pitied, not condemned. And if this is so, Hamlet, a classic revenge story, would seem to be missing some merit.

Both Because "Hamlet" is such a classic and Hamlet is such a lovable character (despite, indeed, because of, his ambivalent revenge-desires), we ought not just reject the story out of hand as a tale not conducive to morality. If Shakespeare was a moral man, he would have been intelligent enough to be aware both that art has consequences and how to get the good moral consequences across most effectively. If Shakespeare was not a good man, we will never know, will we?

Whatever Mr. S might have been, Hamlet gives many signs of being a good man. At least twice in the play, he affirms his belief in Divine Providence. He is intensely interested in the slavation of his mother. He resists temptations to suicide. He is humble enough to make himself a fool in front of the entire court. He is a pleasant friend, someone we would feel attracted to regardless of his moral state. Most importantly, he is devoted to the commands of his father's ghost.

In fact, the actions of the ghost make one wonder whether or not Hamlet's desire to kill his uncle is actually an act of revenge. The ghost makes it clear that he is not a dammed spirit; the sufferings he describes are the pains of purgatory, land of saints, not hell, a claim that Hamlet later tests to the limits of both his ability and the aesthetic limits of the play (An awkward turtle would fit very well. Tuea Huea!). A purgatorial spirit would be unable to command or even request anyone to commit a sin. God, being the arbiter of life and death, may have (I think this is possible) ordained that Hamlet's uncle would die by assassination, and, through His ordinance give His keys of death and hades to Hamlet temporarily. Regardless of what God did, Hamlet seems convinced of the rightness of his cause, thus removing all moral responsibility of the death from him.

After taking the responsibility upon himself, Hamlet, spurred on by obedience, seems to grow spiritually. He begins to articulate his sufferings, especially his growing rightful disdain of the world, making us think that his sufferings have become more acute but that he knows what they are for. His madness is more true than the sanities of many people. His pledge of obedience has lent purpose to his life.

When true revenge begins to creep in upon his obedience, however, his plans begin to go astray. His not killing his uncle while his uncle is repentant of his sins opens up the possibility of the tragedies that follow. His giving into passion kills the wrong person. Though afterwards, he seems to desire to be merely obedient, the damage has been done, and the two moments of revenge and blindness end up being the death of nearly all the characters in the play.

In short, Hamlet is not a character constructed so that we sympathize with the vengeful. Rather, he is constructed so that we sympathize with obedience and see the evil consequences of revenge.

A Theory for your Criticism.

Everything God made is beautiful, so art should be judged primarily on how much it makes us notice this fact.

The difference between this theory and what we have worked with so far is that it does not focus on the gradations between more and less beautiful works, considering that because they all exist, they are all beautiful and that is all there is to it. personally, I doubt this subtlety in this theory, but I want to see what we can learn from it.

Where are They?

Happy gender issues day! I've already done a post on wage discrepancies at El Dipudado etc.

In these days of gender equality, it might be surprising to you to find that there is still one occupation that has is still dominated by men for non-physical reasons. This occupation does not require its members to be men, like the priesthood does, nor does it require physical strength. This occupation is the field of music composition. The men/women ratio of composers at UNL is approximately 20/1. Why?

One of the first things antifeminists learn is that men and women have differing brains. To put it simply, the male brain is better suited to the activity of music composition. Here's why:

1. The male brain generally tends to have a stronger right hemisphere compared to the female brain. The right brain controls melody, while the left brain (stronger in women than in men) controls pitch and rhythm. Composers, however, do not need to be especially adept in pitch because they do not perform or sing. If they did perform or sing, they would have to be sensitive to tuning issues, and get pitch very precisely. They do not have to do this; an out of tune instrument can be quite sufficient for the composers purposes. Also, although women's brains may be more sensitive to rhythm, women's brains are also less sensitive to their sensual passions (have you ever met a woman more enthusiastic about eating than a man?). The sensual passions are what rhythm effects. Hence, though women are better at rhythm, men enjoy it more.

2. The two halves of the male brain are very divided from each other compared to the female brain. This makes men more singleminded, systematic, and fit for specialization, but less intelligent. When composers compose, they usually do it by themselves because the process of composition is not appreciated by anybody except the composer, although everyone enjoys the results. This setting permits a massive amout of single-minded activity.

3. I don't know why, but the male brain is more suited for abstract concepts than the female brain. This would seem to make men better than women at music theory because music theory is filled with abstract symbols and vocabulary.

4. Finally, an important part of being a composer is getting over the preconception that composers are special sorts of musicians, that not just any musician (especially one's self) can be a composer. Being more aggressive, men are more likely to view this false but popular idea as a challenge and thus take up composition.

Now for the killer question: should we encourage women to become composers? Should we encourage them to work outside the home, for that matter? Are the two questions even related?

The Mideval Aesthetic

"The perfection of the work as a whole was sacrificed for the freedom of the
individual craftsman. And yet the many individual and imperfect creations,
which cause the whole building to fall short of perfection, somehow give it a
kind of beauty that is different from perfection."

--Dr. Elizabeth Kantor, speaking of Gothic Cathedrals as an illustration of the
general Medieval aesthetic.

What? Old Fashioned Liberal, why are you telling us this? Whatever happened
to unity, and coherence, and the discovery of exemplars that exist because they
are good and not merely because they are possible? Are you contradicting
yourself? Are you going to satirize this quote? Are you going to downplay the
ideas about art that were believed when art was governed by the Church and its
dogmas rather than the other way around? What ARE you going to do?

I'll tell you, doubtful reader, I will explain, make distinctions, and think
carefully, in all things trying to act sane.

First of all, what are the imperfections of which Dr. Kantor speaks? There
appear to be three:
1. A poorly made element made by an inferior artist within a larger work.
2. An overabundance of elements that "spoils" a work.
3. A disunity caused by such abundance.

For these imperfections to make the Medieval Aesthetic inferior to the
aesthetic based on forms/exemplars (the one we have been exploring in music up
to this point), the two aesthetics must be in fact different. If they are
different, there are only four possibilities about how they can be different.
1. M. Aesthetic must contain all the elements of Non M aes., and then some
2. Non M. Aes. must contain all the elements of M. aes, and then some
3. Each must contain some ideas that the other does not.
4. They are the same, except in what they emphasize.
If 1 is true, M. Aesthetic is superior to Non-M. If 2 is true, non-M is
superior to M. If 3 or 4 is true, we must weigh the differences and decide
which is better in which situation.

Now the idea that Medieval Aesthetic seems to oppose NonMideval Aesthetic is
that Medieval Aesthetic would risk spoiling the unity of something by the
addition of fecundities, even incongruous or inferiorly crafted ones, while
nonMideval Aesthetic consciously seeks after unities, adding fecundities when
possible.

The two ideas are not as different as they seem at first glance. Both
acknowledge that both unity and fecundity are artistic goods. Their difference
is that the medieval aesthetic is “Liberal,” willing to take a risk to achieve
its goal of incorporating both elements, while Non-Medieval aesthetic is not
willing to trade unity (which can be had or not had) for fecundity (which is
always had in one degree or another). Hence, the difference is a type 4
difference, and if the Medieval one succeeds, it is automatically going to be
superior in most cases. If they fail, a unity imperfection will be present,
Medieval Aesthetic is not automatically superior. Because we do not know all
possible imperfections, we will limit ourselves to the three imperfections
discussed above. Any artist worth his salt should be able to tell when one of
these three happens for his particular art. Hence, the Medieval Aesthetic
includes all the elements of the Non Medieval aesthetic, making followers of a
Non-Medieval aesthetic objectively inferior, though knowledge of their aesthetic
(which I have been investigating so far, and probably will continue to do) is
quite productive.

#2 deserves some mention. Overabundance does not necessarily spoil the unity
of a work; when it spoils at all it merely makes the unity less noticeable
and/or is repulsive to the observer. Either way, the fault is in us, not in the
art itself, and an subjective merit is traded for an objective one. In art,
this is a wise choice, as we can change our tastes and our level of
understanding, but we cannot change the fact that both unity and fecundity are
good. Any overabundance that does spoil the unity would do so because it is
not in unity, and thus would be incongruous and thus easy to tell.

#1 also deserves some mention. Architecture in the middle ages put the
inferior artists with the superior ones not because it was good for the art, but
because it was good for the craftsman himself. As this is a subjective element,
not an objective one, I will not discuss it here.

A Poetic Riddle

This is my first (and quite possibly only) attempt at free verse.

Guess the title of the poem

Armed with knife and trident I advance
Toward the freezing dragon with icy jaw of death
Where dead things lay, their rot stayed by mankind’s spell-dance,
I seek a grain-offering for the God of Life, but foes wait with bated breath.

Bravely I wrench apart the iron jaws and teeth
Searching for the sacrificial food from Ceres’s fields
Heeding not the nameless muck that stagnates at my feet
Only hoping that my courage shall not yield.

For behold, as I search, my passions assail me
Aided on by the magic that surround my being
Enticing charms are set by fearsome creatures that don’t heed
The good and bad, the laws set down by Perfect Being.

(At any other time, I need not turn aside,
On any other day, these things would have no peril
But at the sage decree of my God’s Perfect Bride
These things now are the death of me, a mortal, sinful, swirl.)

I gaze in fear and wonderment and desire
At the casters of the magic: The half-dead boars, unclean swine
The pagan entrails and tripe, the undead chickens fried by fire
And worst of all, seductive cows, bovines that craze like wine.

I cannot fight these phantoms pre-killed!
Not with mere carnal weapons bright!
I need a weapon of wizard skilled
A potion magic-bright!

No scholar am I of wizardry, but I know enough to see
That only one thing will save me: a sort of food of plant
Will no vegetables come and save me
From my hunger for domesticated vampirants?

Film Music or Concert Music?

In an earlier post, the question of which music is better has been
brought up: film music or concert music?

Concert music has been around for hundreds (perhaps even
thousands) of years. This type of music was perfected from the
baroque era to the romantic period. Many new techniques were
developed and the concert halls became large attractions. This
kind of music was written to be listened to on it's own, and
therefore had a much higher standard to follow. Opera was soon
to come after concert music, and had to follow a similar standard.
However, instead of entirely having to hold it's own, opera music
had to be written to encompass the singer as well. The concerto
soon evolved from this, as music soon had to encompass the
solo instrument.

Film music has come about very recently. When the silent films
came about, the music played wasn't even written specifically
for the picture. Classical and early popular music was usually
played until the films became more sophisticated. The music
that was used here closely followed the contemporary concert
music of the time. In fact, it followed the concert styles for many
years, even until the mid eighties perhaps. Then the music began
to be written to match the picture more and more. In the past
twenty years, film music has become very sophisticated, and
could even be said to have become an art of it's own.

So, which is the more noble? In concert music, it can be as noble
as the composer chooses. In film, it can only be as noble as the
film allows (which is hardly noble at all in some cases). But music
written for film has the potential to serve an extremely high
purpose: to bring souls to God. With the rise of many Christian
filmmakers, this is becoming more and more of a possibility.
Perhaps we will even see Catholic filmmakers on the rise.

While you are pondering these questions, I will subject a film-like
piece of mine to your professional opinions. Enjoy!!!!

Harry Gregson-Williams

In response to my previous post, I will open for discussion a composer
who is apparently free from the Ecumenical Philosophy: Harry
Gregson-Williams.

I have noticed a new style of music emerging. My theory is that it
evolved from various television drama shows (not that I have seen
many). This style is a very rhythmic and driven style designed to keep
the audience on the edge of their seats. I am no expert on this
particular style, but I have definitely noticed it's emergence. It
appears to be accomplished with heavy accents and fast-paced moving
parts, primarily in the strings. A few movies that appear to have used
this new style extensively would be: The Lion, The Witch, and The
Wardrobe, Prince Caspian, All three of the Pirates of The Caribbean
movies, and National Treasure one and two. Now that you have these
films called to mind, you might be thinking that this is just typical
action music, right? Well, it's my opinion that until at least the
seventies (probably until even later), action-music was scored in a
neo-classical way. That's right, if you think about the harmonies
used, this will make at least some sense. But the turning point is
Lord of The Rings.

I myself have seen very few of the movies made in the eighties to
the present. However, I think this new action style might have
emerged in Lord of The Rings. The score to Lord of The Rings
has many moving parts in the action sequences, but still appears
to use many of the old neo-classical harmonies. There are heavy
accents in some places of course, like the Isengard theme, and this
set up the development of the new action style (which in my
hypothesis was already being developed in the TV dramas).

So, what do you all think? Is this a good style? It's true, it doesn't
seem to place the accents on the weak beats (yet), but how good
is it for your blood pressure?

The Ecumenical Music Philosophy

Over the centuries, western music has been roughly of one style.
the Baroque, the Classical, the Romantic, etc... But since the evolution
of many new styles in the twentieth century, music has not been as
clean cut as it was in the nineteenth century and before. We have
now what I will call:

The Ecumenical Music Philosophy

This philosophy incorporates every last style, and as a result, many
hybrid styles are formed (isn't the twentieth century all about
hybridization?). The result can be quite messy, but also quite beautiful
in the rare gifted hands.

So is this a good philosophy? I myself have partially fallen into it
(although there are many "musical" styles I will never incorporate
into my music [or even listen to]), but is it a good philosophy? Was
music better when there was only one dominate style? If there was
only one style, then it could be enriched by all composers and
continue to be enriched in the future. On the other hand, couldn't
all of these new styles enrich music as a whole? Could it be boiled
down until each style is interchangeable with the others? I won't
answer this, since I do not have the answer. But there must be
benefits to both sides.

Rules or Fulfillment?

Here I have a topic similar to "The Goal". In music, which is better?
Following the rules? or fulfilling the goal that was intended for the
piece of music? There are several rules currently being discussed,
and every one of them has a valid point. But what if someone was
composing a piece for a specific purpose? For example, what if
someone was composing a film score, and there is a very disturbing
scene which he must write music for? Obviously, the technique he
will probably use is general dissonance, which is generally against
every rule I've heard of. And what if this film is a film that intends to
give glory to God by spreading one of His messages? Would it be
better for that composer to follow the rules instead of fulfilling the
purpose? Do the ends justify the means?

Something More Relevant

I will discontinue the Phantom and Les Mis discussion for now, as it
hasn't really gotten anywhere. I'll try to post something more interesting
(and relevant to philosophy) this weekend.

"Les Miserables" or "The Phantom of The Opera"? - Part One: Music

Okay, I changed my mind and decided to be lazy. I won't post anything
about the individual numbers simply because this post would be a
hundred paragraphs long if I did. I'm guessing you have all heard the
music to both Les Miserables and Phantom of The Opera.

I'll wait a week until I post the next part.

"Les Miserables" or "The Phantom of The Opera"? - Part One: Music

The first category in this discussion is music. The music to both is
very well done, and quite beautiful in many places. I personally love
the music to both. But is there more than meets the eye? What is
the philosophical background here? Let's look at the composers first:


Claude-Michel Schönberg:


Here's the link to a short biography in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude-Michel_Sch%C3%B6nberg

It doesn't tell us much about his philosophical background, but one
thing that jumps out at me is his work on a rock musical. If you ask
me, much of Les Miserables' music also has a rock influence. It
would appear that Schönberg has more of a rock influence than a
classical one, or maybe even more than a Broadway influence.
However, I haven't heard the rest of his work, so this is merely my
hypothesis.


Andrew Lloyd Weber:


Here's what Wikipedia has to say about him:

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

Well it certainly looks as though he has a lot of classical influence,
and he is definitely much more prestigious and accomplished than
Schönberg. Unfortunately, though, I don't know as much about
Schönberg as I do Weber, and neither does Wikipedia. So that
doesn't leave us with much except that Weber appears to have
musical roots in classical music and Schönberg seems to be
a rock songwriter (please post a comment if you know anything
else about either of them). So let's move on to some of the major
numbers. I'll put these in a separate post.

"Les Miserables" or "The Phantom of The Opera"? - Introduction

"Les Miserables" or "The Phantom of The Opera"? These two are the
greatest and second greatest musicals of our day (according to public
opinion). So, what do you think? There are so many aspects of each
to discuss. So to make it easier, I will narrow it down to four categories:

I - Musical Qualites
II - Positive Moral Values (how positive is it?)
III - Negative Moral Values (how negative is it?)
IV - Balance of Moral Values
V - Overall Beauty

I will state my objective opinion on both musicals in each category.
Then, you are welcome to give a different opinion (or support the
same opinion) in the comment section.