Random Thoughts About Music

My roommate and I were talking about music the other day, and we agreed that music can explain things that nothing else can. Why is that? The ancient Greeks were kind of leery of purely instrumental music because it was so moving, even without words. They couldn't understand how it produced emotions without any words. It wasn't rational. Do we understand any better today? Well, I was glancing through an article about the Doctrine of Ethos a while back. According to this Greek philosophy, the right kind of music makes the right kind of person, and the wrong kind of music makes the wrong kind of person. This is because music is an imitation of character, rather than a mere representation of character, like other art forms. In a visual art, the color red might signify anger, power, war, or communism. When you're listening to a passage from the forth movement of Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 6, you can feel and relate to the anger, desperation, despair, and other unnamed feelings bearing down on you all at once because you have felt it before or because you have the capacity to feel it.

Well, I guess relating to music all depends on what the composer is trying to convey, and his and the performers' skill. Sometimes, the feeling of the music seems exaggerated or out of place, and then it just makes people laugh. That's alright if it was intentional, of course, but should be intentional. I was watching a chick flick with my roommates about a week ago, and I had to laugh because the music was quite out of place. The hero sees her with another man! Fully diminished 7 chord! Oh my! I don't think it was supposed to be scary -- or funny for that matter. I didn't think they wanted the hero to come across as a creepy stalker, but that's what the music implied.

Speaking of scary movies, I would say they wouldn't be half as frightening without the music. I get pretty annoyed when they play a progression of awful chords that cannot be named, and the tension is building, and I'm expecting the villain to jump out with a knife, and then... nothing happens. I was getting scared for no reason -- except the music.

Now, I guess we ought to take into consideration that everyone has a different character and set of tastes. Some people consider certain kinds of music to be exaggerated or ridiculous, while others can relate to them and enjoy them. Genetically, we have a lot in common, but we don't all have common backgrounds and experiences. Have you ever wondered why your grandparents like music two generations old, but people your age tend to think it's too sappy or cheesy? Naturally, music of that time was a better imitation of experiences people were having then than the ones we're having now.

Still, I have to wonder why strange people like me enjoy old music. As alien as it sounds to modern ears, I enjoy Medieval and Renaissance music. I grew up listening to classical music, and will always love it. I also listen to classic rock. I really don't enjoy a lot of contemporary music. I have unusual tastes, but I know I'm not the only one who listens to orchestral music and classic rock. I think it has to do with my personality, interests, and upbringing. History is one of my main interests, so I get along quite well with music from the past. Along the lines of personality, though, people are amazed to learn that Kansas is my favorite rock group. They're surprised to learn that I even like any rock. I seem like the quiet, conservative type -- and I guess I am. People would probably expect me to like the Sounds of Sunday sort of music. I don't. THe lyrics are great and inspiring, but the music is too wannabe pop music. I just can't take it seriously like I can Handel's Messiah or Bach cantatas. Well, I first liked Kansas because of their lyrics. For the most part, they're deeper and more thought-provoking than most lyrics by pop stars who never graduated high school and never got out of that mentality. Then, as I've been taking music theory classes, I've realized that their music is also deeper. They do much more than your boring old I-IV-V progression. They modulate and borrow chords and pull chords out of thin air -- and they have a violin.

I suppose there are a lot of factors involved in the kinds of music people can relate to -- more than I know how to expound upon. ...And I didn't even go into how music affects character -- if indeed it does. I'm not a psychologist. Maybe music therapy people would know more about this kind of thing. Somebody should do some research and write an essay on it.

Capitalism vs. Socialism

Before I begin, I'll just say, this isn't necessarily church doctrine. These are just some of my thoughts. If you want, you can go to a higher source to prove/disprove them.

You might ask, "Isn't the Law of Consecration like socialism? Why is socialism so evil, then?" Because it's godless... Really! In a socialist system, the government attempts to take the place of God because it takes ownership of everything and makes people dependent on it. In the law of consecration, God owns everything -- he does anyway -- but he gives us free agency so we can decide what we do with the things we are stewards of. So what's the difference? The difference between relying on the arm of flesh and the arm of God. In socialism, the government -- along with all that it owns -- is run by imperfect men prone to corruption. On the other hand, when we depend on God,we are in the best hands because He is perfect and wants what is best for us. He also gives us free agency, where socialism does not. That is why we must prepare to live the law of consecration so we can be trusted to make the right choices. In socialism, the government does not trust the people to handle their own affairs or allow them to learn from choices -- but how can we trust a government to run our lives when it is made up of men just as imperfect as ourselves?

I''m not advocating anarchy here. This is where republicanism and capitalism come in. In a republic, the government serves the people by protecting their rights through the powers vested in them by law. The government and the people must answer to law, which is established to protect natural rights. In a democratic republic, the people choose their representatives, directly or indirectly. Consider the meaning of the term "represent". A representative only has the right to do what the represented have the right to do, according to the law. Therefore, the government cannot step over the boundaries of our own rights. It can and should, however, do what we don't have the ability to do to protect ourselves and our rights. Don't get "ability" confused with "rights". In the natural state, a weak man may have the right to protect himself form aggressors, but not the ability. Therefore, his rights are taken away be force. The government protects us from losing our rights through law and the common defense.

Now how does capitalism tie in? Here, the government does not run the economy or own companies. The economy runs on free enterprise, with competition and the whole works. Consumers are free to choose where they spend their money, which drives producers to provide the products and services with the highest quality and the lowest prices -- in other words, the best value. Now, Capitalism isn't perfect. Monopolies tend to show up, which eliminates competition, so the government steps in to get rid of them. The problem with government interference is when the government starts taking ownership of production and service providers and giving out free handouts. This in turn clogs up competition, punishes the best producers for their work by taxing them more, reducing free agency, increasing dependency on the government, and stepping over the bounds of its rights. Can you see any of this these days? Some say that capitalism doesn't really work. Would you call our system unalloyed capitalism? I should say not! Perhaps if we allowed it to work, it would run much smoother.

There is still the question of selfishness, which is often associated with capitalism. Sure, there are some nasty, selfish jerks out there, but again, the government can stop them from violating the rights of others by enforcing the law. That doesn't mean they have to take over the economy.

Here's a question: Would you say that all people living in socialist systems are unselfish? Hard to tell because their choices are limited, and their characters are not tested as much. The government chooses for them -- in other words, makes them be good -- and takes the responsibility for those choices. Does this sound at all familiar? Tell me this: if the people are not allowed to make their own choices, how can they ever learn from the consequences, good or bad? How can they grow and become better? How can they prepare to live the Law of Consecration if they can't learn to make their own decisions? Do you see how critical this is?

In America as it should be, people are allowed to make good and bad choices and face the consequences, from which they can learn from if they so choose. Some bad consequences may come in the form of law enforcement, loss, and unhappiness. Some good consequences come in the form of health, profit, and happiness. Now, some will say that getting profit is selfish. True, if it is gained through dishonesty or depriving others of their rights. Isn't that what the law, through government, should protect us from anyway? This means that people who make those choices face bad consequences. People who seek profit for selfish reasons, even if they get it honestly, face different consequences, including persistent dissatisfaction and unfulfillment. The government should not assume that all wealthy people are selfish, and should not punish them when they do not encroach on the rights of others by taking away what they earned and taking away their free choice in how they use their money. Because WE have no right to take money without consent, even in need, the government has no right to do so.

The great thing about the Law of Consecration is that people will be willing to help each other instead of being forced through taxes, and they will receive the blessings that come from being charitable. It is not true charity if you're being taxed to help others, and you don't receive the positive consequences because it wasn't your choice. Not only that, but we will be prepared and willing to live the law of consecration if we give of our own free will.

Republics and capitalism aren't perfect, but they do not take away our rights and free agency. They prepare us for living the law of consecration.

* Don't they have special characters on this thing?

Well, I haven't actually had major writers' block for some time, but I thought that since I started this blog, I may as well write something in it.

Answer this. How can an author write about a character who has lived much longer and experienced much more than him? (Her in my case.) When I really think about it, it doesn't make much sense. How can these people be real to myself -- not to mention my readers -- if I don't understand what's happening to them? So far, I have been drawing from my own small experiences and trying to guess how my thoughts, feelings, and actions would change or expand in the situations and circumstances my characters face.

I want characters whose choices determine the direction their lives take. One of my pet peeves when I read a book or watch a movie is when the protagonist is merely a pretty face and a cool name, and they're thrown into an unusual situation and make choices based on what the writer thinks will make an exciting plot. My characters' actions will be based on their own personalities, backgrounds, and environments. Of course there will be outside influences and events beyond their control, but I can't force a real person to do anything, can I? If I want my characters to be real people, I can't make them do anything, even if it would make a cool plot. They have got to choose how they respond to uncontrollable factors. I often find that if I let my characters choose how they respond and act (or don't act), the plot works out much better than if I try to force it. It's more natural and believable, even if it is in a fantasy world.

Now, if I'm going to have believable characters, they've got to live in a believable world. Hold on! What about the goblins, sprites, unusually fast-growing mountain ranges, and lights that glow without flame or electricity? (No, the latter are not glow sticks.) Alright, so there's a little magic involved, but even then, it's got to make some sense -- at least to a left-brained person like me. Let me explain. Real people are parts of real cultures and nations with real languages, norms, beliefs, etc. These, in turn are built upon real and continuing history. A significant factor in history is real geography. Am I making sense here? Tell me if I'm wrong -- and please be polite while you're at it. So, I made a map of Vael,* plate tectonics and all included. (Thank you, Dad, for the fifth grade geology lessons.) From there, I found some bits of history. This group of people lived at a strategic point, so their nation became the seat of an empire. However, because of such and such distance, internal factions, and outside pressure, the empire weakened and collapsed, and everybody split into small warring tribes again... It still needs a lot of research. With what I've found though, I've been able to add things I couldn't have imagined before to the characters, plot, setting -- everything.

I guess what I'm getting at is this: I want my readers to be able to connect to my writing so they can learn something useful. The best books I've read may not be floating around in the unreachable realm of intellectual acclaim or racing around in the ever-shifting popular circles. They endure. I can go back to them any number of times and still experience epiphanies and apply them, because I can believe them, even if they are fantasy. (That's why I would recommend The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, and pretty much anything else that Tolkien worte.)

So, there you have it: my first blog entry and some of my literary philosophy, too.