Some pedantic Objectivists foam and chomp at the bit for any chance to blurt out, "Ayn Rand said there was no such thing as Objectivist music!" And they want to leave it at that, even though it's a mangled representation of a half-truth.
If you've read the Romantic Manifesto, Ayn Rand's treatise on art, you'll find that she has exacting views regarding what constitutes good art. You'll also note that she has little to say about music. She readily admits that she does not have an extensive understanding of music, largely leaving the field up to others to explore; regardless, she makes two important realizations: 1) Music has a profound ability to alter man's emotion. 2) Music alone cannot define concrete things.
The first point we've all experienced; Music has emotional power that is effective apart from any conscious consideration of meaning. It can make you feel something -- even if you don't really know what the music is about. Cue the second realization: music can't really be
about anything. And this is the assertion that's responsible for Objectivists all over the world spouting off that music is little more significant than any other sensory experience; if it cannot define concrete things, how can music have meaning?
To a degree, that's a fair point; an oboe can imitate the sound of a duck, but no matter how many notes the oboe plays, it can't tell you what color the duck is or even really what the duck is doing. A melody may be disjointed, and the composer may even title the piece in which it occurs, "The Psychotic Break," but you'd have a hard time making the case as to why the melody must conjure psychosis and not instead the jagged topography of a South American mountain range. Fine, instrumental music cannot convey concretes.
Because of this, and because of its emotional effectiveness, music becomes relegated to a form of medication --
use music to feel inspired
to achieve a goal
. In a functional sense, it is said there may be music appropriate for listening
by an Objectivist, but there can't be such a thing as Objectivist Music because a medium which cannot convey concretes cannot carry with it any philosophic attachments -- right?
Wrong. This entire line of argument ignores a massive category of pieces that have existed from the dawn of music itself: songs
. A song is a piece of music that has, as its central focus, a vocal performance of a text. And let's get this clear: the
entire work is the song. One has no more right claiming the music and text are disparate elements than one has saying that a film is simply a photography project played synchronously with a story. As a man
is both his mind and body, a song
is the totality of its elements: music and text.
Music and text.
You've realized it, too? Music -- in the form of a song --
can describe something. Actually, a song can describe anything. Even abstractions. One could write, dare I say, a song about a hero with Objectivist ideals. And this freedom of discourse is coupled with the ineffable power to influence emotion. Hearts and minds may be won simultaneously.
So yes, a song (and thereby music)
can be Objectivist. Not only that, but it is probably the most powerful medium left unexplored by Objectivists looking to spread their ideas. Objectivism is exceedingly convincing in a rational debate; when cold, hard logic is asserted, Objectivism prevails. But how often have you heard Objectivism called precisely that: cold?
Music can break down that final barrier standing in the way of many who would otherwise embrace Objectivism's unassailable truths, but who are unsettled by the perception of how Objectivism 'feels.' That's where you let the music do the convincing.
Objectivist Music.
And so this blog will serve to bring Objectivist Music into the spotlight; exploring, elevating and promoting a genre that rightly deserves the focus.
