I need your help in my continuing study about how a new listener might
respond to a first hearing of JMC's Concerto. I am asking you to listen
to the music in a slightly different sequence, trying as best as you can
to imagine that it was your first hearing, and try to forget about
classical concerto forms or how others might hear it.

Why should you do this, especially those of you who didn't generally or
particularly like it on your previous hearings, and don't care to get
bored or disappointed again? You had expected a music that would, almost
just upon first hearing, without much effort, make you feel as if you
were finally delivered from pain and ugliness once and for all, and be
released and propelled on an adventurous and joyous purpose to ascend to
the highest peaks of beauty and truth. (Or not?) You expected an
immediate, undeniably triumphant sunburst of sound, but you only felt,
at best, a few moments of disconnected appreciation. You're not sure
it's worth another listening.

When I first heard the music, I was hoping to receive a feeling like
that described in Rand's statement, but I didn't get it, not much of it,
from just the first listening. I was overwhelmed and disoriented by the
immensity of what entered my ears, but I was intrigued, and each
subsequent hearing helped me grasp more and more of what the music was
singing and thereby is helping me to grasp more of the feelings of
deliverance. One detriment I found, that could deafen my hearing of
what's there in the music and repress my response to it, is the impulse
to analyze and make comparisons with other music or other listeners.
(I know that comparsions are important to know and I do make other
times to hear it for that purpose.)

With the above in mind, and for those willing to try it, I would like
you imagine and listen to this new work of music that's recommended by
someone, me, whom you all know and have some interest in. Imagine you
are at least curious about why I like it and why I hold it with
importance to myself and the culture in general. After listening to it
in the recommendation sequence (below), you may want to favor me (on- or
off-list) with your remarks about how this hearing does, or does not,
evoke a response any much different from the previous. Thank you.


Monart
~ * ~


  1. Morning

  2. Magic Child

  3. The Name of the Enemy

  4. Romance

  5. The Gathering

  6. High Stone Wall

  7. Meditation

  8. Spirit of Light

  9. Telepathic Animals

10. Metamorphosis

11. I Am Myself

12. Celebration

13. You'll Find Me

14. Reunion

I wrote:

>> How to sort out this debate? On this list, in the "nay"-camp, the
>> claims are made by "classically-trained" musicians, including
>> composers, so they should know what they’re talking about because
>> of their training and experience, right? Whereas, in the "yea"-camp,
>> the claims are made by, at best, experienced but not formally trained
>> listeners, like me.

Roger replied:

> Why the prejudicial quotation marks around "classically-trained"? I
> thought you weren't trying to denigrate our musical training, Monart?
> Also, you are not acknowledging that we trained musicians are ~also~
> experienced listeners.

Roger, I explicitly acknowledge what was implicit in my above statement:
that you, as trained musicians, are also, and need to be, experienced
and expert listeners.

The "classically-trained" quotation I used wasn't meant to be
"prejudicial", "trying to denigrate". It was a combined quotation from
Eric's grouping of "those of us who are trained in the full range of
classical Western harmony, counterpoint, and orchestration" in his first
post, and "the trained musicians among us" in his second post. I wanted
to affirm that this trained group should "know what they're talking about".

I don't believe that Eric, Doug, and Rafael, from their correspondences
with me over the past 2-3 years, would suspect me of having ill-will or
disrespect for them, either as persons or musicians, not even after their
comments about the Concerto.

Roger, the main criteria for my inviting you and the other musicians to
this advance auditioning is exactly because of your training and
experience. I wanted your expert appraisal and I'm grateful for what has
been offered, all of which helps me, even if I'm still trying to
understand all that it means.

There is no need to keep looking for signs that Monart is really a
mean-spirited scoundrel underneath, because I am not.


Monart

The discussion has progressed to the concrete point of a recommendation
to NOT call the music a “Concerto of Deliverance” in anticipation of the
“nasty backlash” sure to come. (Assuming there will be backlash, how
will it be expressed: by articles and posts condemning it? By boycotts
of the sales? By threats from Peikoff’s lawyers? For what: Incompetence?
Fraud? Audacity?)

I’m not convinced that such is the foregone conclusion to be drawn from
this advance auditioning and discussion of JMC’s Concerto of
Deliverance.

The advice now is to not call the music a “Concerto of Deliverance”, and
thus to not relate it to Rand’s use of the title for Chapter 10 in Atlas
Shrugged and to the description of the themes expressed by Richard
Halley’s 5th Concerto.

Note that the phrase “Concerto of Deliverance” does not appear anywhere
in the world presented within the story of Atlas Shrugged. Halley’s 5th
Concerto was heard and described as a “symphony of triumph....a song of
immense deliverance”, not as a “concerto of deliverance”, which name was
used by the author as an external frame, as it were, as the title for
Chapter 10 (the plot-theme of which is Rearden’s deliverance from the
guilt, pain, and ugliness that never had to be).

Rand’s statement of the theme(s) of the song of deliverance is an
abstract (and exalted) description of the constituents of the means to
and the meaning of triumph and deliverance -- to be musically expressed
in dominant motifs of ascension, tension, and release. Musicians who
were to compose real-world concretization of these themes should draw
from and apply to the world as it is, even while they express a vision
of what should be.

JMC’s world is not the world of Atlas Shrugged, Richard Halley, or the
worlds of any of the musical genius of the past. He uses his grasp and
experience of classical forms and relates it to the modern forms of our
century, thus originating new forms out of that integration, but new
forms that echo the forms of the past and of the future.

JMC’s Concerto of Deliverance is not primarily a devotion to form and to
its development for its own sake, or merely for the sake of displaying compositional or performance virtuosity -- at the expense of, or divorced
from: purpose, content, and meaning.

Yet, there is the criticism that JMC’s Concerto of Deliverance doesn’t
live up to its name because of such deficiencies as a lack of “thematic
development” and a lack of “unified style”, a lack not befitting the
classical forms of the symphony or concerto.

There is also the criticism that JMC’s Concerto of Deliverance doesn’t
live up to its name because it didn’t evoke the meanings and feelings
they had expected and associated with “deliverance”.

Otherwise, there is some acknowledgment of moments in the music that are
“charming”, “appealing’, “really likable”, sometimes even “brilliant”,
and “enjoyable”.

I’ve also had offlist comments agreeing that JMC has delivered
beautifully on a Concerto of Deliverance, delivered precisely because of
the new integrated, blended forms that he has shaped, and the plethora
of exquisite melodies that abound with lyricism and odyssey, leading one
to an end-state of resolution and repose.

How to sort out this debate? On this list, in the “nay”-camp, the claims
are made by “classically-trained” musicians, including composers, so
they should know what they’re talking about because of their training
and experience, right? Whereas, in the “yea”-camp, the claims are made
by, at best, experienced but not formally trained listeners, like me.

(This reminds me of my first lone years as a new objectivist philosophy
student, being criticized by the august body of certified professors for
regarding Rand’s works as worthy of being called “philosophy” in the
sense regarded by formally trained philosophers. Then, as now, I have
only my own senses and my informal, “intuitive”, but my own, judgment.)

Now, the composer, John Mills-Cockell, if he were in this debate, his
response would be to challenge the professional authority of the
nay-camp, because JMC himself was “classically trained”, having
graduated from music conservatories and colleges, and completed numerous
commissions and projects for academic music departments and national
music centres during the past 30 years. See a resume of his
compositional work and education at http://www.musicplanet.com/jmc/profile/resume.htm

Before this discussion list was formed, I had suggested to John that a
valuable inclusion in the CD album material is a “Composer’s Remarks”,
which he is considering writing after he finishes his present engagement
at the Univ. of Victoria and listen to the Concerto with “rested” ears.
If he does, I wonder what he would say in response to the nay-camp?

I think he would oppose the claim that his work lacks “thematic
development” or “unified style”. I would guess that maybe the perception
of development and unity is also conditioned by the kind of conventions
usually assumed. If the development of a theme is linear (melodic), but
a listener expects and insists on a hierarchical (harmonic) development,
for example, then that listener may not hear the melodic theme being
developed.

Likewise, if the styles are determined by the purpose of a
given moment or movement, and a listener expects and insists on an
overarching “unity” of style that binds the entire work, then that
listener might hear the diverse, but purposeful styles as not being
“unified”.

Other polarities that come up in the discussions (in addition to the
linear vs hierarchical, purposeful vs unified) are:

- a story-narrative-odyssey vs. a structure-monument-edifice

- modern-folk-pop vs. classical-art-aristocratic music

- electronic vs. mechanical (“acoustic”) instrumentation

- emotional vs. intellectual appreciation

- informal, implicit grasp of meaning vs. formal, explicit understanding
of structure

- what’s in the listener vs. what’s in the musical object

In my last post, the correct chapter number referred to should be Six, not "10",
Part III.

Monart Pon wrote:

>[...] the title for Chapter 10 in Atlas
>Shrugged and to the description of the themes expressed by Richard
>Halley�s 5th Concerto.
>[...] as the title for
>Chapter 10 (the plot-theme of which is Rearden�s deliverance from the
>guilt, pain, and ugliness that never had to be).
>
>
>
[...]

The discussion has progressed to the concrete point of a recommendation
to NOT call the music a �Concerto of Deliverance� in anticipation of the
�nasty backlash� sure to come. (Assuming there will be backlash, how
will it be expressed: by articles and posts condemning it? By boycotts
of the sales? By threats from Peikoff�s lawyers? For what: Incompetence?
Fraud? Audacity?)

I�m not convinced that such is the foregone conclusion to be drawn from
this advance auditioning and discussion of JMC�s Concerto of
Deliverance. I have tried to counter the claims in my replies to Rafael,
Doug, Roger, and other posts such as �A Concerto Disclaimer�.

The advice now is to not call the music a �Concerto of Deliverance�, and
thus to not relate it to Rand�s use of the title for Chapter 10 in Atlas
Shrugged and to the description of the themes expressed by Richard
Halley�s 5th Concerto.

Note that the phrase �Concerto of Deliverance� does not appear anywhere
in the world presented within the story of Atlas Shrugged. Halley�s 5th
Concerto was heard and described as a �symphony of triumph....a song of
immense deliverance�, not as a �concerto of deliverance�, which name was
used by the author as an external frame, as it were, as the title for
Chapter 10 (the plot-theme of which is Rearden�s deliverance from the
guilt, pain, and ugliness that never had to be).

Rand�s statement of the theme(s) of the song of deliverance is an
abstract (and exalted) description of the constituents of the means to
and the meaning of triumph and deliverance -- to be musically expressed
in dominant motifs of ascension, tension, and release. Musicians who
were to compose real-world concretization of these themes should draw
from and apply to the world as it is, even while they express a vision
of what should be.

JMC�s world is not the world of Atlas Shrugged, Richard Halley, or the
worlds of any of the musical genius of the past. He uses his grasp and
experience of classical forms and relates it to the modern forms of our
century, thus originating new forms out of that integration, but new
forms that echo the forms of the past and of the future.

JMC�s Concerto of Deliverance is not primarily a devotion to form and to
its development for its own sake, or merely for the sake of displaying
compositional or performance virtuosity -- at the expense of, or divorced
from: purpose, content, and meaning.

Yet, there is the criticism that JMC�s Concerto of Deliverance doesn�t
live up to its name because of such deficiencies as a lack of �thematic
development� and a lack of �unified style�, a lack not befitting the
classical forms of the symphony or concerto.

There is also the criticism that JMC�s Concerto of Deliverance doesn�t
live up to its name because it didn�t evoke the meanings and feelings
they had expected and associated with �deliverance�.

Otherwise, there is some acknowledgment of moments in the music that are
�charming�, �appealing�, �really likable�, sometimes even �brilliant�,
and �enjoyable�.

I�ve also had offlist comments agreeing that JMC has delivered
beautifully on a Concerto of Deliverance, delivered precisely because of
the new integrated, blended forms that he has shaped, and the plethora
of exquisite melodies that abound with lyricism and odyssey, leading one
to an end-state of resolution and repose.

How to sort out this debate? On this list, in the �nay�-camp, the claims
are made by �classically-trained� musicians, including composers, so
they should know what they�re talking about because of their training
and experience, right? Whereas, in the �yea�-camp, the claims are made
by, at best, experienced but not formally trained listeners, like me.

(This reminds me of my first lone years as a new objectivist philosophy
student, being criticized by the august body of certified professors for
regarding Rand�s works as worthy of being called �philosophy� in the
sense regarded by formally trained philosophers. Then, as now, I have
only my own senses and my informal, �intuitive�, but my own, judgment.)

Now, the composer, John Mills-Cockell, if he were in this debate, his
response would be to challenge the professional authority of the
nay-camp, because JMC himself was �classically trained�, having
graduated from music conservatories and colleges, and completed numerous
commissions and projects for academic music departments and national
music centres during the past 30 years. See a resume of his
compositional work and education at
http://www.musicplanet.com/jmc/profile/resume.htm

Before this discussion list was formed, I had suggested to John that a
valuable inclusion in the CD album material is a �Composer�s Remarks�,
which he is considering writing after he finishes his present engagement
at the Univ. of Victoria and listen to the Concerto with �rested� ears.
If he does, I wonder what he would say in response to the nay-camp?

I think he would oppose the claim that his work lacks �thematic
development� or �unified style�. I would guess that maybe the perception
of development and unity is also conditioned by the kind of conventions
usually assumed. If the development of a theme is linear (melodic), but
a listener expects and insists on a hierarchical (harmonic) development,
for example, then that listener may not hear the melodic theme being
developed. Likewise, if the styles are determined by the purpose of a
given moment or movement, and a listener expects and insists on an
overarching �unity� of style that binds the entire work, then that
listener might hear the diverse, but purposeful styles as not being
�unified�.

Other polarities that come up in the discussions (in addition to the
linear vs hierarchical, purposeful vs unified) are:


- a story-narrative-odyssey vs. a structure-monument-edifice

- modern-folk-pop vs. classical-art-aristocratic music

- electronic vs. mechanical (�acoustic�) instrumentation

- emotional vs. intellectual appreciation

- informal, implicit grasp of meaning vs. formal, explicit understanding
of structure

- what�s in the listener vs. what�s in the musical object


Meanwhile, even with the numerous times I�ve listened to the music, I
haven�t yet heard every sound in it, nor grasped all the subtle and
not-so-subtle pleasing patterns. I�m still looking for more words to
describe what I hear, and what it makes me think of and feel in
response.

Here are some of I�ve noted about the movements:

After being drawn in by the allure of �Romance� and the charm of "Magic
Child", I am prepared for an engaging and enchanting journey, a quest on
which I�ve already begun � an odyssey that begins with �Morning� and
finally ends in �Reunion� and deliverance.

I. Romance (Andantino): lament, solace, defiance, hope

II. Morning (Adagio): pre-dawn, first rays, threatening clouds,
relentless sunrise. (Tension & Release)

III. The Gathering (Vivace): getting going...(a call to action, a motion
inducer)...going & going...(freedom & release, breaking out & spreading
open, sweeping clean)... pausing & questioning (why, where, what for)...
resuming & re-affirmation of the going to purpose.

IV. Meditation (Lento misterioso): wonder, mystery, enchantment

V. Metamorphosis (Adagio expressivo): lament, solace, redemption, renewal

VI. Celebration (Con moto): diversity & multiplicity, variety & bounty,
rejoicing in all

VII Reunion (Largo): peace & satisfaction, repose, resolution,
re-affirmation, deliverance.


---

Monart

Hello all,

Posts from Jeannie Kennedy, Roger Bissell, and Doug Wagoner have prompted
me to return here for one more stab at the problem I perceive with John
Mills-Cockell's concerto.

If I write that the sticking place, where the thorn lodges in my hide, is
in this work's poverty of thematic development and its lack of a certain
unity of style, the trained musicians among us know exactly what I mean.
But for those who lack this level of knowledge, I believe I can capture
this matter by analogy.

Consider a tree.  It is a model of organic unity and structure at any level
at which one cares to examine it.  From its intricate root system, to its
strong trunk and major limbs, to the texture of its bark, and the ever more
slender limbs and twigs from which its intricate canopy of leaves or quills
grow, it is an astonishing example of marvelous structure and style that
reaches gracefully up to embrace the sun's rays.  It does not matter at
what level of organization one examines it, for it remains always
astonishing, always organic.  Looked at from the aspect of its DNA, and the
genetic code that directs it to take its shape and behave in its singular
biological and chemical ways, it is no less astonishing in its integrity
than it is when perceived by human sense organs.

But now consider: what is the comparable beauty if, instead of a living
tree, someone has gathered a truck full of limbs and leaves, specimens
collected from a dozen species of trees?  Here is a weeping willow from a
swamp in Georgia, there an oak from Canada, here a linden tree from Berlin
with its enormous floppy leaves, there a pine tree from Siberia, over here
a eucalyptus tree from Australia, and so forth, through a dozen varieties
of disembodied tree limbs from every continent on the planet.

One may arrange this collection of parts as artfully as one pleases, but
there is simply not enough material in these piles to make a very
impressive design.  And most to the point here, what one has is a
disembodied collection of parts, lying on the ground.  It lacks a root
system, it has no strong main trunk, no main limbs to carry a canopy of
leaves, it has nothing that is required to allow a living tree to shoot up
tens of meters high, capture the available light of the sun, and cast an
impressive shadow around its mass, beneath which we may enjoy a shady spot
for reflection and repose.

Now, the musical analogue to this idea is thematic development and unity of
style.  By thematic development, I mean all the tools a trained composer
knows how to use in manipulating a given tune, or melody, or figure, or
lick - - whatever you want to call this kernel at the center of a piece's
organization.  Without such a kernel, and without some knowledge of how to
build on and manipulate such an idea, and place these variations, like a
tree's leaves, on to the limbs of musical structure, and thereby unfold
such an idea into an imposing edifice of sound, we're left with scattered
leaves and twigs rustling in the breeze... on the ground.

I do not know how to put this more clearly.  JMC's work has some real charm
and some undeniable appeal, but... a concerto... it ain't... not by any
stretch of charity.

Monart, I must now add my opinion to those of others on this list, that if
you attempt to market this work as something worthy of Ayn Rand's
commanding specification for a Concerto of Deliverance, you are setting
yourself up for what could prove to be a nasty backlash.

What we have here is a collection of little pieces that displays some
charm, but not something that begins to fill the exalted, but, as of this
date, empty place that Rand could only hope someone might one day fill.
That day has not yet arrived.

I do so wish that I could say something more positive here, but I think I
marshaled some genuine cause for inspiration in my last post.

Best, as ever,

    - - Eric Nolte

I've thanked Jeanie for her comments and told her I'll be replying to
them in a few days (after I reply to Eric and Roger). I did make one
point to her:

I disagree with her comparing JMC's music to that of Vangelis and Jarre,
both of whom are monotonous and poor in melody -- the only similarity
being that they all use synthesizers, but JMC is a master of synths
where the no others are. Besides, JMC has been composing in his unique
style of music, with always something original and captivating, since
the 1960's, long before the "New Agers" came around. And no, though he
knows about it, he doesn't listen to "New Age".


Monart

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Concerto of Deliverance - A Challenge to Composers
> Date:       Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:02:04 +0800
> From:       Jeanie Kennedy <puddytat@...>
>

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Concerto of Deliverance - A Challenge to Composers
Date: 	 Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:02:04 +0800
From: 	 Jeanie Kennedy <puddytat@...>

Dear Monart,

"It was a symphony of triumph. The notes flowed up, they spoke of rising
and they were the rising itself, they were the essence and the form of
upward motion, they seemed to embody every human act and thought that
had ascent as its motive. It was a sunburst of sound, breaking out of
hiding and spreading open. It had the freedom of release and the
tension of purpose. It swept space clean, and left nothing but the joy
of an unobstructed effort. Only a faint echo within the sounds spoke of
that from which the music had escaped, but spoke in laughing
astonishment at the discovery that there was no ugliness or pain, and
there never had had to be. It was the song of an immense deliverance."

There is nothing anywhere in this music that lives up to the description
quoted above from the first chapter of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged." The
music itself is not especially bad; intermittently it's even pretty good.
But it is as far removed from the spirit of what Rand described as would
be possible. I think it might be worthwhile for you to market this disc,
but I think it would be a marketing disaster to call it "Concerto of
Deliverance" and deliberately invite comparison with Richard Halley's
work. I think if you do this, you are in for a monstrous backlash from
your customers.

This work is not in any meaningful sense a "concerto" at all. I agree
entirely with Eric Nolte about that. What it is, really, is a suite, and
one that has more in common with so-called "New Age" music than with
classical music of any period or style. The "songs" take up just over
fifteen minutes of the total time. If they were eliminated, we'd be left
with a roughly fifty-seven-minute suite for synthesizers and various solo
instruments violin, clarinet, etc.). I'd be surprised to learn that the
composer had not listened to a certain amount of "New Age" music over
the years. At times his writing is reminiscent of Vangelis, at other
times of Jean Michel Jarre, and at still others of St. Preux
(particularly the latter's "Symphonie pour la Pologne," which
incorporates elements of rock, "New Age," and classical styles in its
sixteen minutes or so of length).

It seems to me that any piece of music that aspired to live up to Rand's
description of Halley's Fifth Concerto would have to incorporate at least
a few minutes of the kind of ecstatic, joyous triumph we hear in, say the
finale of Alexander Scriabin's Symphony #4 ("The Poem of Ecstasy") or the
finale of Sir William Walton's Symphony #1, or in Rachmaninoff's 2nd or
3rd Piano Concertos. And, as I say, there is nothing even remotely
comparable anywhere in this score.

Frankly, I think a ~true~ Concerto of Deliverance should be for solo piano
or violin -- the latter instrument a possibility, not because I am a
violinist, but because the violin would be eminently capable of both
fast-running phrases as well as long, sustained, soaring phrases and high
notes, as in Vaughn-Williams' "The Lark Ascending." The piece I always
think of in the context of Deliverance is the third movement of the Bruch
Violin Concerto in G minor. The violin is obviously the leader of the
hordes (the orchestra), who are enthusiastically following him, leading
them to the "promised land."  You can practically see the Red Sea parting
when you listen to it.

This was a terrific undertaking on your part, but I really have to agree
with all who have "chimed in" before me, Eric Nolte's analysis being the
most definitive of all.

I did not join the discussion list because of time limits, but feel free
to forward this on to the list.

All the best,

Jeanie Kennedy

Hi Roger,

I may have more to say later about your last message, but I do want to
say this now:

You are a tough one and hard to please, at least for me. No disrespect
or ill-will was intended, implied, or stated by me about the quality
of your musical training or sense of life in regards to this music.
Only goodwill and goodhope is behind my presentation. Yes, your
response discourages me and takes away from hope, but I still can wish
for a better outcome. The best to you.

I gotta go, I'm getting cold.


Monart

> Monart, after having listened intently to Mills-Cockell's piece(s),
> I have to say that it is not my cup of tea, sense-of-life-wise. It
> doesn't say "Concerto of Deliverance" to me, nor arouse any
> of the associated thoughts and feelings that it ought to.

I'm sorry about that, Roger, and I say this with goodwill, as I would
say it to a friend who could not enjoy such music as, for example,
Dvorak's Cello Concerto or 9th Symphony, or Debussy's Petitie Suite, or
Rachmaninoff's Symphonic Dances, or Schubert's Trout Quintet. I wish
he could, so he may be enriched by the goodness. To my ears, John's
Concerto is from a musical universe parallel to Dvorak, Debussy, and
Rachmaninoff's. Indeed, some of their works, as well as some of Bach,
Haydn, and Beethovan's, are among John's influences from the past
greats.

I know that the beauty I hear in the Concerto is really there in the
music, and not only in my imagination. I'm sure that a transcription of
the music would also help in seeing the beauty of its complex structure.
Unless you were able to appreciate the melodic directions of the music,
you wouldn't be able to hear it "say 'Concerto of Deliverance' to [you]".
The opening Romance movement is, to my ears, an irresistible lure that,
from the very first phrase of the violin to the final sequence of the
lead synthesizer's sunbursting sound, it seduces a listener with its
sweet sounds of lament, consolation, defiance, and (a promise of)
redemption.

From what I know of you, your overall indifference to the music is a
puzzle to me, making me wonder, at first, if I had sent you a wrong
CD, or if you were doing some kind of test. Still, my response is to
suggest that you try to hear it again, maybe when in another mood, or
with another person like your wife or children :)

Hi Eric,

Thank you for posting your fine article, a fine article despite being
written in a state of fatigue. How do you do it all: flying 767's,
raising a family, and continuing to study and perfect your musical arts.
(Eric told me he carries a viola with him on overnight flights so he
could practice in his hotel room.)

I am pleased that you have also heard moments of beauty in the music,
and grateful for the criticisms you wrote about. I am also encouraged
by your feeling now even more inspired to compose your own Concerto of
Deliverance. From having heard numerous times the collection of your
piano and synthesizer works you gave me two years ago, I have no doubt
that you could bring out a great work and present the listeners with
an enjoyable experience.

Thank you for your warm recognition of my efforts to promote the musical
realization of Rand's Deliverance theme, and I hope your "Ayn Rand's
Challenge to Composers" will soon be also taken up by others.

I will work on a reply to your extensive post during the next few days.
You have given me much to think about.


Monart

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: ART: Desert (or Orbital Space) Island CDs
Date: 	 Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:19:27 -0600 (MDT)
From: 	 Monart Pon <monartpon@...>
To: 	 art@...



Ilene Skeen wrote:

> Monart Pon <monartpon@...> wrote:
>
> > Until a conceptual vocabulary is discovered and defined, ~no objectively
> > valid criterion > of esthetic judgment is possible in the field of music~.
>
> Music is the supreme integration of object and subject. Its very purpose is to
> resist criteria outside direct experience. We can present rational
> explanations of our reactions to music, but we can't presume that others would
> have the same reactions to music about which we are passionate.

First, I want to clarify that the sentence quoted by you is not mine, but
Rand's.

Second, contrary to your statement that "music is the supreme integration of
object and subject" and the subjectivism it could lead to, I want to distinguish
the musical object from the musical experience. The former is crucial to
understanding what music itself is, in order to develop (and change) one's
musical experience, i.e., one's perception and appreciation of it. Emotional
reactions are not irreducible, or unalterable phenomena. They can change with
understanding and application of that understanding, however difficult at times
that might be.

Monart

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: ART: Desert (or Orbital Space) Island CDs
Date: 	 Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:17:35 -0600 (MDT)
From: 	 Monart Pon <monartpon@...>
To: 	 art@...


"Sourav K. Mandal" wrote:

> "Monart Pon <monartpon@...>" wrote:
>
> > Sourav, if you can provide a conceptual vocabulary of music that demarcates
> > the musical entity apart from the listener, we would be well on the way to
> > resolving the heated arguments over which are the "good" music for
> > objectivists and rational romantics.
>
> I'm making two assertions:
>
> * There _does_ exist a "conceptual vocabulary" for music.  Music theory has
> already established what "emotional meaning" a given musical structure has.
> In Western music this is done with the study of chords and melodic sequences,
> in Eastern music it's the chordal superposition of melodic sequences.  The
> extent of this knowledge is certainly no less than that in the visual or
> dramatic arts.
>
> > Without that vocabulary, judgments on music are subjective
> > and personal, but still communicable to some extent, in an ostensive way.
>
> * Even with this objective way to describe music, our subjective
> preferences will play a role.  While a conceptual vocabulary would help us
> judge _quality_, our personal a priori desires will judge what we each _like_
> from a selection of quality music.  ...
>
> To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what we're arguing about ...  do you agree
> with my two assertions?

I do not agree that there exists a music theory that can distinguish between the
object of the music from the subject listening to it; otherwise, the analysis
and description of music that are prevalent would not be so murky and
contentious, compared to that of other art forms, which aren't often that clear
either.

I do not agree that there are "a priori desires", and an objectivist would know
why. I agree that the analyst of a piece of music would be influenced by his own
sense of life, just as in other arts, but that is why a conceptual vocabulary is
essential for an objective examination and communication. Note that a total,
objective analysis of a piece of music is more than an appraisal of the
technical merits or "quality" of the "musical structure". It also includes the
analysis of what the melodic entity is, its emotional content, and what sense of
life it expresses.

The analysis of the musical object should be distinguished from a specific
listener's personal appraisal of whether one likes or dislikes the music;
otherwise, it would not be objective.

The original point of my post was not to provide analysis (because I can't), but
to convey my top musical favorites, to perhaps pique the interests of other
musical explorers.

Monart



--
~ * ~
Starship Aurora <http://www.starshipaurora.com>
Starship Forum <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Starship_Forum>

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: ART: Desert (or Orbital Space) Island CDs
Date: 	 Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:14:59 -0600 (MDT)
From: 	 Djwagoner@...
To: 	 art@...



In a message dated Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:17:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Sourav K.
Mandal" <Sourav.Mandal@...> writes:

<<* There _does_ exist a "conceptual vocabulary" for music.  Music theory has
already established what "emotional meaning" a given musical structure has.  In
Western music this is done with the study of chords and melodic sequences, in
Eastern music it's the chordal superposition of melodic sequences.  The extent
of this knowledge is certainly no less than that in the visual or dramatic
arts.>>

Could you give an example of what you mean by "music theory establishing what
the emotional meaning of a piece is" please?  I have never heard of such a thing
and studied music theory quite extensively.  There is the Rococo period
doctrine of affections" where there was an attempt to link specific melodic and
harmonic gestures to specific emotional content, but that went down in flames
pretty quickly.

And what do you mean by "Western" and "Eastern" in these contexts? There are
numerous musical traditions that could be grouped under those headings.  There
is certainly no monolithic "Eastern" that I know of that encompasses traditions
as varied as Peking Opera, Classical Indian Raga, Noh Drama, and Gamelan
ensembles, though I suppose a case could be made for "Western" in some ways.

Any help would be appreciated.

Douglas Wagoner

------- Original Message --------
Subject: ART: Desert (or Orbital Space) Island CDs
Date: 	 Mon, 2 Apr 2001 09:19:54 -0600 (MDT)
From: 	 Ilene Skeen <iskeen@...>
To: 	 art@...



Monart Pon <monartpon@...> wrote:

Until a conceptual vocabulary is discovered and defined, ~no objectively valid
criterion of esthetic judgment is possible in the field of music~.

I had a film professor once who said that seeing a film is like getting on a
ride at a theme park: your enjoyment depends on what you bring to the ride as
much as the ride itself.  This happens to be true of any art, whether we think
an objective esthetic has been defined or not -- the authentic self will respond
quite independently of its professed values.

Music is the supreme integration of object and subject. Its very purpose is to
resist criteria outside direct experience. We can present rational explanations
of our reactions to music, but we can't presume that others would have the same
reactions to music about which we are passionate.

For example, the sound of jungle drums may make you annoyed or fearful.
However, if you were a member of that jungle tribe, coming home from a hunt,
the sound of jungle drums may bring you great joy as you hear them beating the
celebration of your return.  Your joy would be personal, and it would be
"objectively valid".

There are 4 points of excellence for great art of any kind: theme: is it
important? design: is it consistent with the theme to the smallest detail?
skill: is it perfected? psyche: is it memorable, does it "hit home"?

Note:  the last point always depends on what you bring to the ride.

The difference between "good" art and "great" art is that the theme is generally
less important, and it may be memorable, but not "hit home". Due to the fact of
our different lives and experiences, a work with a less important theme may
really hit home for someone and that person "feels" that the work is "great".
Design and skill are still required to the measure of the artist's intent.
"Bad" art is art which is poorly designed, inconsistent and/or executed with
little skill. "Evil" art is art which denigrates the human condition -- however,
I believe that finding beauty, justice, integrity or other positive values in
ordinary life is not evil.  Evil is destroying positive values for the sake of
destruction of all values. As to the concept of "non-art" which is often bandied
about by thoses referring to non-representational art, this is a sham concept.
It pretends to be a concept but offers no integrating and defining
characteristics. Peanut butter is "non-art".  So are trees, roads, pencils,
rocks, free radicals and salami.

Picasso's late works are evil art.  So are the paint scribbles
of Jackson Pollock.

Some non-representational art is well-designed and executed with considerable
skill.  The ostensible theme (the only theme that every viewer can understand
without knowing the title of the work) is the "look what can be done with this
material".  A small theme, which may have a pleasent and decorative result. Not
great art, not non-art, design art.

A great photograph required considerable skill in its design and execution. Its
theme may be very profound. A great photograph is great photographic art.  It is
not "non-art" as some people seem to insist. It is just also not a great
painting.

Sincerely,

Ilene Skeen
www.iskeen.com

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: ART: Desert (or Orbital Space) Island CDs
Date: 	 Mon, 2 Apr 2001 09:16:55 -0600 (MDT)
From: 	 Sourav K. Mandal <Sourav.Mandal@...>
To: 	 art@...



"Monart Pon <monartpon@...>" wrote:

> Sourav, if you can provide a conceptual vocabulary of music that demarcates
> the musical entity apart from the listener, we would be well on the way to
> resolving the heated arguments over which are the "good" music for
> objectivists and rational romantics.

I'm making two assertions:

* There _does_ exist a "conceptual vocabulary" for music.  Music theory has
already established what "emotional meaning" a given musical structure has.  In
Western music this is done with the study of chords and melodic sequences, in
Eastern music it's the chordal superposition of melodic sequences.  The extent
of this knowledge is certainly no less than that in the visual or dramatic arts.

> Without that vocabulary, judgments on music are subjective
> and personal, but still communicable to some extent, in an ostensive way.

* Even with this objective way to describe music, our subjective
preferences will play a role.  While a conceptual vocabulary would help us judge
_quality_, our personal a priori desires will judge what we each _like_ from a
selection of quality music.  Another analogy:  do you think there is a totally
objective way to decided between, say, a Mercedes and a BMW in the same price
range?  Yes, but only in the context of your subjective preferences -- neither
has a _universal_ superiority.

To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what we're arguing about ...  do you agree
with my two assertions?


Sourav


------------------------------------------------------------
Sourav K. Mandal

Sourav.Mandal@...
http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: ART: Desert (or Orbital Space) Island CDs
Date: 	 Sun, 1 Apr 2001 00:36:24 -0700 (MST)
From: 	 Monart Pon <monartpon@...>
To: 	 art@...



"Sourav K. Mandal" wrote:
>
> "Monart Pon <monartpon@...>" wrote:
>
> > Of course, I can't ~prove~ what I'm saying--but, until music is better
> > understood and objectively defined, neither can anyone else prove
> > ~their~ claims (although supporting evidence can be found in their other
> > artistic tastes, their philosophic convictions and their discernible
> > moral character). However, we do have our own ears, minds, and souls--
> > and that's all we need in order to hear and decide for ourselves enough
> > to say "yea" or "nay".
>
> I disagree -- music is more than well-understood enough to discern
> themes and textures in an objective fashion.  Furthermore, I doubt that
> personal affinity for specific music can ever be proven -- our
> subjective preferences defy explanation.  I believe the appropriate
> analogy is in choosing friends:  we might respect a number or people
> via objective criteria (like when choosing employees or doctors), but
> whom of those respected people we actually choose to hang out with is
> inexplicable.  Once a selection of music is objectively judged to be of
> high quality, artistic tastes are the overriding factor.

Sourav, if you can provide a conceptual vocabulary of music that demarcates the
musical entity apart from the listener, we would be well on the way to resolving
the heated arguments over which are the "good" music for objectivists and
rational romantics. Without that vocabulary, judgments on music are subjective
and personal, but still communicable to some extent, in an ostensive way.

As to why this vocabulary is important, read this from Rand, in "Art and
Cognition":

"...We need a clear, conceptual distinction and separation of object from
subject in the field of musical perception...Conceptual cognition necessitates
this separation: until a man is able to distinguish his inner processes from the
facts which he perceives, he remains on the perceptual level of awareness...In
listening to music, a man cannot tell clearly, neither to himself nor to
others--and, therefore, cannot prove--which aspects of his experience are
inherent in the music and which are contributed by his own consciousness...Until
a conceptual vocabulary is discovered and defined, ~no objectively valid
criterion of esthetic judgment is possible in the field of music~. (There are
certain technical criteria, dealing mainly with the complexity of harmonic
structures, but there are no criteria for identifying the ~content~, i.e., the
emotional meaning of a given piece of music and thus demonstrating the esthetic
objectivity of a given response.)...Until it is brought to the stage of
conceptualization, we have to treat musical tastes or preferences as a
subjective matter--not in the metaphysical, but in the epistemological sense;
i.e., not in the sense that these preferences are, in fact, causeless and
arbitrary, but in the sense that we do not know their cause."

To return to the point of my original post: As I stated, I did not set out to
prove to anyone of the merits of Mills-Cockell's music, but to draw attention to
one of my passions, such that, and in light of the other values I reveal about
myself, someone might be curious enough to check it out. How else does one find
new, and I mean ~new~, music? By looking for and listening to it. And, as I
said, Mills-Cockell is not easily found in the mainstream or even sidestreams,
unless someone points him out to you, which I did.

Monart

Monart









--
~ * ~
Starship Aurora <http://www.starshipaurora.com>
Starship Forum <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Starship_Forum>

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: ART: Desert (or Orbital Space) Island CDs
Date: 	 Sun, 1 Apr 2001 00:31:35 -0700 (MST)
From: 	 Sourav K. Mandal <Sourav.Mandal@...>
To: 	 art@...



"Monart Pon <monartpon@...>" wrote:

> Of course, I can't ~prove~ what I'm saying--but, until music is better unders
> tood and objectively defined, neither can anyone else prove ~their~ claims (a
> lthough supporting evidence can be found in their other artistic tastes, thei
> r philosophic convictions and their discernible moral character). However, we
>  do have our own ears, minds, and souls--and  that's all we need in order to
> hear and decide for ourselves enough to say "yea" or "nay".

I disagree -- music is more than well-understood enough to discern themes and
textures in an objective fashion.  Furthermore, I doubt that personal affinity
for specific music can ever be proven -- our subjective preferences defy
explanation.  I believe the appropriate analogy is in choosing friends:  we
might respect a number or people via objective criteria (like when choosing
employees or doctors), but whom of those respected people we actually choose to
hang out with is inexplicable.  Once a selection of music is objectively judged
to be of high quality, artistic tastes are the overriding factor.

My own five disc selection, as submitted to the SOLO forum:

* Two-disc compilation of Bach's processionals, preludes, fugues and toccatas.

* Edward Elgar's "Enigma Variations" and "Cello Concerto, Op. 85" --
both should fit on one disc.

* "Gladiator" soundtrack.

* Marty Friedman's "Dragon's Kiss" album. For those not familiar, he is one of
the world's finest electric guitarists.


Sourav


------------------------------------------------------------
Sourav K. Mandal

Sourav.Mandal@...
http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/

The discussions so far, centering on the meaning of Rand's "Concerto of
Deliverance" theme and on whether JMC's Concerto of Deliverance
expresses that theme, prompts me to review some earlier discussions on
an objectivist art list. The subject of a JMC Concerto of Deliverance
was raised there, which led to a discussion on the nature of a musical
experience. Eric Nolte and Doug Wagoner were there.

I don't know what has happened to the ART list since; the WTL directory
doesn't show it anymore, but I have copies of the posts, so I'll restore
a section here for review as possible relevance to present discussions.

Here is the first one.

Monart

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Desert (or Orbital Space) Island CDs
Date: 	 Sat, 31 Mar 2001 13:15:56 -0700
From: 	 Monart Pon <monartpon@...>
To: 	 ART We the Living <art@...>



In response to Lindsay Perigo's invitation to reveal my musical getaway pack if
I were faced with exile, I listed the following (which are posted on SOLO with
those of others at <http://www.freeradical.co.nz/solo/discs.html>):

Custom CDs of --

             1. The Best of John Mills-Cockell: Syrinx, Long Lost Relatives,
             Heartbeat, A Third Testament, Gateway, Atlantis, Do You Hear the
             Rushing River?

             2. The Best of Dvorak I: Cello Concerto, New World Symphony,
             American Quartet, American Suite, American Flag, Dumky Trio,
             Slavonic Dances, Legends.

             3. The Best of Dvorak II: Symphony No. 8, Symphony No. 7, Czech
             Suite, Wind Serenade, String Serenade, Slavonic Poems, Slavonic
             Rhapsodies, Cypresses.

             4. The Best of Mario: All the things you are, Serenade, Golden Days,
             One Alone, Beloved, Core 'ngrato, Arrivederci Roma, Tourna a
             surriento, Drink Drink Drink.

             5. Assorted: Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto, Bizet's L'Arlesienne
             Suites, Schubert's Trout Quintet, Pachelbel's Canon, Rodrigo's
             Concierto De Aranjuez.

Later, I posted this followup to the SOLO forum at
<http://www.freeradical.co.nz/solo/forum/index.asp>

It occurred to me that because my first choice of John Mills-Cockell's music in
my getaway pack is very unlikely to be known by anybody on SOLO except Lindsay,
I should provide a little more explanation, in case anyone else is facing
banishment or escape and is making a list:

As much as my spirit lives on the dynamic and benevolent energies of Dvorak and
others from the past, I am also rejuvenated by a fountainhead of genius alive in
our times--John Mills-Cockell--whose sunlit music enobles and sets fire to the
soul like Dvorak's does. But unlike Dvorak, John lives in our modern culture,
seeing the visions of our world, creating new musical vistas with tones,
timbres, and rhythms that were inconceivable up to less than a half-century ago.
John's creations link the past, and the future, with the present--giving a
continuity and integration that's transcendent and eternal.

Mills-Cockell (born 1943, year of The Fountainhead) is not an avowed
objectivist, and although he has read some of Rand's novels, his music has not
been influenced by Rand. But for those who have read Atlas Shrugged, if they
heard some of Mills-Cockell's music, they might experience the affinity between
themes from the two great artists: such as between "Wyatt's Torch" and "Melina's
Torch", or "The John Galt Line" and "Collision", or "The Concerto of
Deliverance" and "Tillicum".

Of course, I can't ~prove~ what I'm saying--but, until music is better
understood and objectively defined, neither can anyone else prove ~their~ claims
(although supporting evidence can be found in their other artistic tastes, their
philosophic convictions and their discernible moral character). However, we do
have our own ears, minds, and souls--and that's all we need in order to hear and
decide for ourselves enough to say "yea" or "nay".

(If it helps you to decide: I was born a chinese peasant, but spiritually, I'm
part american, scottish, and bohemian. My modern heroes include Rand, Dvorak,
Tesla, and Velikovsky. I'm a Star Trek Voyager fan and, if you've read my essay,
"Starship Astronaut", you'd know I'm also technologically ~and~ philosophically
serious about starships.)

Mills-Cockell's music is not easily available on the market, but if you're
intrigued, I would be pleased to help you locate a listen.

Monart

Ayn Rand's Challenge to Composers

                  by Eric Nolte



    Three cheers for Monart Pon!  Here is a man with the commitment to
put his money where his mouth is!  While I'm sure he has no great
wealth, Monart has somehow mustered enough resources to be messing
around at philanthropy, and has coughed up a sum big enough to
commission a piece of music that runs an hour and twelve minutes, by
John Mills-Cockell, a composer whose work he has long loved.  He has
furthermore involved himself in the production of a CD to bring this
collection of pieces to market.  Pon's purpose here is to fulfill a
truly wonderful goal: the commissioning of a work of music that would
attempt to fill that august space created by Ayn Rand's evocative
literary suggestion of a great work of music by her fictional
greatest of modern composers, Richard Halley.

    As readers of this list know, the literary passage is from Rand's
magnum opus, _Atlas Shrugged_, describing Richard Halley's Piano
Concerto Number 5.  Please allow me to restate it here, because this
is the standard by which I'll make my comments on John Mills-
Cockell's work.

    "It was a symphony of triumph.  The notes flowed up, they spoke of
rising and they were the rising itself, they were the essence and the
form of upward motion, they seemed to embody every human act and
thought that had ascent as its motive.  It was a sunburst of sound,
breaking out of hiding and spreading open.  It had the freedom of
release and the tension of purpose.  It swept space clean, and left
nothing but the joy of an unobstructed effort.  Only a faint echo
within the sounds spoke of that from which the music had escaped, but
spoke in laughing astonishment at the discovery that there was no
ugliness or pain, and that there never had to be.  It was the song of
an immense deliverance."

    This was the specification, and what an immense suggestion this is
for a piece of music!  Who among us admirers of Ayn Rand, those of us
who are trained in the full range of classical Western harmony,
counterpoint, and orchestration, would attempt to satisfy such an
exalted specification without some trepidation?  Who among us would
not bring to this noble task a high seriousness of purpose that might
rival Johannes Brahms' reluctance to write his first symphony and
commit it to public performance?  Now Brahms already knew he was a
genius before he wrote a symphony.  By that time, he was already in
middle-age, vastly accomplished at handling symphonic forces in such
large scale works as his concertos for violin and piano.  But he was
rendered pale and weak at the thought of delivering a symphony into
the newborn ward, when his work would immediately be compared to his
illustrious predecessor, that greatest symphonist to date, that
incomparable genius, Beethoven, whose immense shadow made it hard for
any composer after him to feel the direct warmth of the sun.

    Moreover, if we were competing for Monart's commission, knowing in
advance that any beneficiary of Monart's largesse would be severely
restricted in the forces at our disposal to perform and record our
work, who among us, indeed, would even attempt to meet Rand's
specifications?

    Now it doesn't take an immense force of musicians to create an
immensely forceful work of music.  Consider the 32 sonatas of
Beethoven for solo piano, or his 10 sonatas for violin and piano, or
another half dozen sonatas for cello and piano.  Consider the piano
trios of Schubert, Beethoven, Brahms, and Rachmaninoff!  Some of
these works are conceived on a scale as immense as almost any
symphony!  The piano parts of these works by Brahms or Beethoven are
as demanding as piano concertos, where the soloist is in full
partnership with a big orchestra.  These are works that develop their
ideas using the whole box of tools available to composers, who are
employing their fullest powers of imagination.

    Alright, now, let's give at least one good cheer for John Mills
Cockell, who is certainly a unique and interesting voice on the
musical scene today.  I have enjoyed Mills- Cockell's earlier works,
and I enjoyed this latest effort too.  I have listened to it several
times now, twice with complete concentration, and several times in
the background as I've worked on other, non-musical tasks.  Monart is
to be applauded for being the large-spirited soul he is.
Commissioned by Monart to write something that would fulfill Ayn
Rand's conception of a Concerto of Deliverance, Cockell has delivered
a concerto, but the question remains exactly what he has delivered,
because this work does not fulfil any conception of anything I could
describe as a concerto, even in the most metaphorical sense, or by
appealing to the most distantly historical reference to the term.

    Let me restate this for clarity: I enjoyed this collection of
pieces.  There is something here to love.  Having underscored these
points, I must say that I do not believe the work rises up to the
standard demanded by Rand's Challenge.

    I can't just dismiss Mills-Cockell's work and the frankly heroic
integrity that has inspired Monart to commission this work.  I
consider Monart a friend, and I want to put my judgment here in a
full enough context so that my opinion will be useful for future
reference.

    Before I begin a more detailed analysis of the music, I need to
provide a little background.

    Music, as the most abstract of the arts, may be the one art most
directly swayed by a person's sense of life.

    Music may also be the most subjective of all the arts, in that our
response to it is so influenced by our most idiosyncratic features,
not all of which one can begin to account for, so this is my
hastening to add that my failure to respond with huge warmth to this
music does not mean that it is without merit.

    I would bet that I am like all musicians in that I can point to
many examples of love at the briefest of first hearings.  For
example, the first time I heard either Dawn Upshaw's singing or
Samuel Barber's orchestral piece with soprano, "Nashville, 1915," I
was listening to an NPR station while driving down the highway.  I
had to pull over to the side of the road and stop the car, or else I
was going to melt away there behind the wheel, and the car was going
to take itself, along with my limp, weeping, useless carcass, all the
way to Valhalla.

    Why did I respond to this piece with such helpless overwhelm?  Was
my response to this piece due to its being among the most brilliant
things ever written?  No.  But something about this composition and
its delivery, in the hands of that marvelous, supple, expressive,
soulful voice that is Upshaw's, captured me, enslaved me, took me
over wholly in the space of a single phrase.  I hardly need point out
that a single phrase of music is not nearly enough time even to
understand what a piece is truly about.  To evaluate a piece rightly
takes a careful and extended appraisal of that work's many facets.

    But when I hear the sound of a single chord delivered by an
accomplished string quartet, my attention is riveted.

    By contrast, when I hear the sound of an electric guitar, my first
impulse is to slap the radio's off button as swiftly as I can get my
hand on the controls.  If the guitarist is a jazzman like Jim Hall in
partnership with the pianist Bill Evans, my hand slows down and
stops, appreciatively, but my first impulse remains.  I just don't
like electric guitars.  Why?  It's not just that the instrument has
frets that limit its expressive powers.  Harpsichords can't do pitch
bends like guitars, or play with any vibrato at all, and yet I enjoy
the sound of this instrument. I can list associations with phases of
my own peculiar psychological and musical development, but I don't
believe there is necessarily any irresistibly and objectively good
aesthetic reason to favor violins over guitars, but I do, and I
freely acknowledge this preference to be idiosyncratic.  Maybe it's
just me.

    I like the sound of art music sung in European languages.  The
sound of Chinese high opera calls up, for me, the awful thought of
strangling cats in a dark Beijing alley.  How come?  That
incomparably tight-throated vocal quality sounds, to my provincial
ear, like something better suited to the sound stage of the Warner
Brothers' cartoon studios.

    The leaden, dogmatically insistent backbeat of virtually all
popular music, makes me desperate to hear violins and pianos or
sopranos and orchestras.  Now, I love a lot of jazz too, but even
when I'm listening to Ella Fitzgerald, or Sarah Vaughn, or Billie
Holliday, I know this work is on a very intimate scale.  Even when
I'm listening to someone with the sophistication of Duke Ellington or
Bill Evans (whose classical training allowed him perform Beethoven's
C major piano concerto with an orchestra when he was in college) ...
I know I'm hearing musical miniatures.  Their jazz is exquisite, but
the canvas on which these artists painted is simply too small for
developing their ideas in very much depth, and it is this matter of
the canvas size that begins to get at the heart of my difficulty with
Mills- Cockell's Concerto.

    Now, I've been setting a context for expressing my opinion of
JMC's music, but I find that I need to set what follows in an even
wider context, if I am to do justice to this line of thinking.  Let
me continue here with another line of thought, in this already
extended footnote:

    I am writing this from Mainz, on Sunday morning, where church
bells are ringing wildly outside my hotel window.   I've just arrived
here after a long flight from Newark to Frankfurt, so my thoughts are
delivered to you through a haze of fatigue.

    My thoughts are also colored by my having just heard the CNN
broadcast of a show called something like "Music Today," a survey of
what's going on in pop music today, delivered by an adolescent-
looking, fast-talking woman of huge energy, whose thin frame suggests
a recent brush with anorexia.  This young woman's jeans reveal her
bare midriff, and, in the same manner as the guys today, almost hides
the upper line of her pubic hair; it defies my understanding of
physics to guess why jeans worn this low don't fall off their butts
when they walk.  Her hair, like many women and men the pop music
world, looks like she forgot to brush it when she fell out of bed
this morning (and the guys somehow manage to cultivate a look like
Yassar Arafat's perpetual three-day beard... how do they do that?)
Since I know little about pop music, such broadcasts always inspire
my shock and awe.

    In the headlines preceding the main feature of this CNN show, it
was noted that the results of the latest Billboard Top Ten most
popular musicians are in.  Nine of the ten are so called "Hip Hop
Artists."

    Hearing this news, I felt a wave of revulsion and anger.

    "Rap music."  What an oxymoron!

    As an airline pilot, I am daily consumed by my profession's need
for precise definitions to avoid disaster, to know how to keep things
right-side up and pointed in the right direction.  As a point of
departure, before anything else in aviation can make any sense at
all, I know that the definition of an airplane must include the idea
of a machine equipped with the features that allow it to become
airborne.  It if doesn't have wings (or at least a thrust-to-weight
ratio of 1:1 or greater...)  it ain't an airplane.

    As a musician, I am equally concerned with definitions.  As a
point of departure, before anything else can make any sense at all, I
know that the definition of music must include the concepts of
rhythm, melody, and, maybe harmony.  Primitive world music is almost
entirely melodic (except for the occasional drone); it doesn't
display anything like the harmony that first began to emerge in
Europe around a thousand years ago, and nothing remotely as involved
as counterpoint.  It is hard to know which impulse is more primary:
rhythm or melody.  Historically and conceptually, harmony is a
separate and more advanced attribute of music.  Intuitively, I can
guess that these impulses for rhythm and melody are at least parallel
in their emergence, if not inseparable and simultaneous.

    Now rap music displays rhythm, of course, a necessary feature of
music.  Rap music features words delivered with some attention to
rhythmic and sonic qualities, like poetry, for the purpose of
arousing emotions.  This feature is common to both poetry and music
that sets words to melody.

    But rap music displays NO MELODY.  It's like an airplane with NO
WINGS.

    If it doesn't have wings, it can't be an airplane.

    And, if it doesn't have melody, it can't be music.

    In our hopelessly confused age, where mere intention satisfies the
definition of art for the Confuserati, it doesn't matter what the
dictionary denotation of what art is.  Rap music may be art, in the
sense that it is a form related to poetry, with heightened rhythm and
some harmony as a background feature, like the frame of a picture,
but, lacking melody, it cannot be music.

    I say it can't be music.  And now look the fact that it is this
form of artistic expression that today accounts for nine of the top
ten "songs" on the Billboard charts.  Ugh!  Ugh!  God!

    And I can't put it off any longer, we must deal with some more
definitions now, and I must reluctantly say that JMC's work here,
whatever else one can say in its favor, is not a concerto of any kind.

    I hate to be a pedantic old wet blanket here.  I wanted to love
this work, given my affection for Monart and his noble effort to
bring forth a work that would be worthy of Rand's inspired, but
merely suggestive, prototype of a Concerto of Deliverance.

    (Hang on here, don't despair, Monart, there is good news to
come....)

    Since definitions matter, here is the term defined in Theodore
Baker's edition of Schirmer's Pocket Manual of Musical Terms:

    Concerto.  An extended composition for a solo instrument, usually
with orchestral accompaniment, and in (modified) sonata form.

    Well, from Bach, in the Baroque era, back in the 17th century, all
the way to Bartok, in the 20th century, there have been works
called "concertos" that did not fit this definition.  For Bach, no
less than Bartok, there were concertos for orchestra, in which a big
symphonic work featured the instruments of the orchestra in the role
of soloists.  For Bach, the concerto grosso was an instrumental
composition implying a small group of solo instruments against a
larger group or full orchestra.  A concertino was a small concerto,
scored for a small ensemble (although this term could also denote the
group of soloists in a concerto grosso.)

    So notice here that it is not JMC's unusual assembly of pieces
under the banner of "concerto" that troubles me.  The problem is that
this collection of pieces makes me wonder why they are included under
the same banner at all, no matter what they be called.  It seems to
me to be no kind of cycle at all.  It strikes me as a collection of
essentially unrelated parts.

    Now consider another 20th century piece that is not a concerto,
but a collection of many little pieces, all put together under the
same title: Carl Orff's "Carmina Burana," which is an exciting and
varied collection of Medieval Latin poetry set to music for many
voices, from soloists to full choir, with orchestral accompaniment.
I forget just how many pieces there are, but it's a dozen or more.
Despite its greatly varied forces, moods, and textures, there is a
certain unity of style in this best known work by Orff.

    By contrast, there is something weak and puzzling about JMC's
collection here.  Mills-Cockell's Concerto of Deliverance is a
collection of pieces which leaves me wondering why they are included
together under one title.  This collection displays no more unity of
theme, style, or any other aspect of construction, than I would
expect to find in an album of songs collected on one CD by a pop
singer.

    A bigger issue for me is that it doesn't rise to a high enough
level of development.  There is great energy in some of its parts,
but the ideas lack thematic development, unity, and richness of
harmonic pallette.  Of the fourteen pieces, all but two are in
written in keys of the major or minor modes of C and its dominant, G,
and within these pieces they rarely venture anywhere that I could
call so much as an outright modulation, or change of key.  The
harmony is so static as to bring to mind the work of musical
minimalists such as Phillip Glass, Terry Riley, Steve Reich, and John
Adams.

    By contrast, consider the work of Michael Torke, whose "color
music" series drives along with great rhythmic energy and displays a
huge command of orchestral forces.  I have elsewhere lambasted Torke
for possessing a huge talent that refuses to budge off a pathetic
harmonic pallette that is flatter than Florida, and is so
impoverished that it would embarrass any self-respecting three-chord
rock and roller.  But JMC doesn't really go any farther.

    * * *

    Alright, now for some details of the music.

    I must say that each time I've listened to this cycle of pieces,
when the first track begins, I find absolutely beautiful the haunting
solo figure for violin that is shortly joined by a clarinet in lovely
counterpoint.  It aroused my expectation that this music might rise
up to the level of its literary mandate.  But by the end of two
minutes, with the introduction of the electronic sounds that repel
me, a sort of flat-footed percussive shuffle reminiscent of much
popular music, and the fact that the harmony has not budged a
millimeter away from the tonic and dominant of C minor, well, sigh, I
didn't have much hope for the remainder of the cycle.

    By the time we were a couple minutes into the piece, I began to
sense that we were dealing with a work that is largely "composed
through," a term employed to describe songs with different musical
settings for each stanza of a poem. The connotation here is that such
composers are proceeding by making it all up as they go along, with
no particular principle of thematic organization, and no very
sophisticated composers' tools to give the material shape and unity.

    In short, I dare say that Mills-Cockell operates intuitively,
drawing from his natural inventiveness and gift for melody.  Maybe I
will eat these words, but I have the sense here of a composer with
great natural talent and no formal training to speak of.

    I would hate to fail to comment favorably on the other musicians
on this album.  The children choir is ingenuous and sweet.  The
violinist, Sharon Stanis, the clarinetist, Patricia Kostek, and the
vocal soloist, Leora Cashe, are all accomplished musicians who are a
pleasure to hear.  Ms. Cashe has a beautiful jazz voice on display in
the two cuts on which she appears.

    Having guessed that Mills-Cockell has little formal training as a
composer, I should mention that there is certainly some structure to
the work as a whole.  The 14 movements of this work alternate mostly
between instrumental pieces and vocal pieces, except that Songs 4 and
5 follow each other with no instrumental interlude.

    Maybe someone will correct me for failing to see much more
structural logic going on here.

    I remember feeling like such a dolt after my first hearing of
Bach's Goldberg Variations, and thinking to myself that I couldn't
figure out much of a pattern there at all.  My professor pointed out
that modern sensibilities are accustomed to sets of variations that
clearly modify one theme again and again.  When they come across
something like Bach's Goldberg Variations, they may be initially at a
loss to understand the master's logic, which was to use the same
harmonic basis and vary everything above the chords, alternating
between lesser and greater examples of contrapuntal rigor - - canons
with plainer tunes and accompaniments, etc.

    One very good thing that I do see going on here with Mills-Cockell
is that he displays a lively talent for mustering interesting
combinations of sound, and a lively ear for subtle rhythmic
accompaniments of interesting percussion sounds.  There are
interesting orchestral colors, even given that Mills-Cockell is
employing synthesizer modules controlled by MIDI keyboard.  There is
a lot going on in this music, and I can certainly understand how one
might come to love it.

    There is nothing inherently wrong with bringing in vocal
arrangements with a piece of this size, but I want to draw your
attention to one movement that captures much of what frustrates me in
this work as a whole.

    Consider Movement 11, which is also Song 6, "I Am Myself."  A
children's chorus (nothing wrong with a children's chorus; it has a
very sweet quality about it) gives out the first stanza in what was,
at first hearing, an unintelligible whisper (this could be seen as an
imaginative dramatic effect, so nothing necessarily wrong with this
effect.)  The second stanza is sung a cappella, an unharmonized
melody in a subdued minor mode.  The lyrics, by Blake Parker, are:

I have taken what I've been given
and I have made it new.
I'm not made in the eyes of others,
I'm who I am, myself, not you.

    Fine.  This is a lyric that can be set to something inspiring, but
the actual setting is smokey, dark, ironic.

    Then the third lyric follows, throwing the sentiment into an even
smokier atmosphere:

Throw the wolf skin on the fire.
Let the flames burn high,
let the dark smoke drift across
the western moonlight sky.

    Having finally understood this third verse, when I listened to the
movement again, I realized that the third verse is actually the first
verse recapitulated, but sung instead of whispered.

    What does it mean?  I'm not sure, but I invite you to ask yourself
what this image of wolf skins on the fire has to do with the lovely
and inspiring thought of taking what we've been given and making it
new, not in the eyes of others, but with loyalty to who we are
ourselves.

    I'm weary of an art world that dismisses anything delivered
straight-on as naive and boring, as if the oblique and the ironic
were not merely literary devices that can occasionally be used to
good effect, but are instead the defining and greatest (and perhaps
the only) virtues of a work of art.

    Now also ask how this imagery and this particular formulation
compare to the mandate we sense for what a Concerto of Deliverance
should offer.  How does this movement fit into a piece that strives
to suggest a world not as it is, but as it could and ought to be?

    * * *

    Okay, I'm heading for the subdominant here; coda's coming up soon
too....

    Mark my words: I predict that Monart's effort here may actually
spawn something of a cottage industry in musical composition.  Thanks
to Monart, maybe the wheels are set in motion to inspire composers
for decades to come in the creation of many essays at a Concerto of
Deliverance.

    You laugh!  Think about it:

    Certain musical ideas have inspired many composers to try their
hand at a version of their own.  Mozart's song, "La ci la darem la
mano," inspired sets of variations for solo piano by Chopin and
Rachmaninoff, among others.  Shakespeare's play, "Romeo and Juliet"
inspired ballets with scores by many great composers, among whom were
Bizet, Tchaikovsky, and Prokofiev.  The fabled violin virtuoso and
composer Niccolo Paganini wrote a set of 24 Caprices for solo violin,
of which the 24th one has inspired countless sets of variations by
other composers.  Liszt, Grieg, Brahms (who actually wrote TWO sets
of variations on this same theme), and Rachmaninoff, who composed his
set of 24 variations on this theme for solo piano and orchestra.

    I predict that John Mills Cockell, inspired by Monart Pon, will be
but the first of many composers to write a Concerto of Deliverance,
striving to satisfy Ayn Rand's inspiring challenge.

    Among the trained composers I know who are admirers of Ayn Rand, I
would guess that such candidates for eventually creating rival
Concertos of Deliverance would include at least Michael Shapiro,
Jeffrey Lindon, Doug Wagoner, and, I should not fail to mention,
myself.  I'm not aware of Roger Bissell identifying himself as a
composer, but he is clearly a powerful musical mind, so perhaps he
might be interested in such a project too.  Maybe Richard Speer and,
if he should evince an interest in composing, maybe Eric Barnhill?

    While I myself have long thought of this project as something like
Rand's Challenge, I must admit that hearing JMC's work has motivated
me to give the idea a more serious place on my list of future
projects.

    Monart, my friend, hear me now: in no small part because of you,
eventually there will be a work that is fully worthy of Rand's
Challenge.  The idea burns in my mind now, like the haunting sight of
Wyatt's Torch, seen at midnight, burning, flaring high, seen across
the windswept mountains from a hundred miles away.

     - - Eric Nolte

Hi Doug,

> I have listened to the Concerto about five times now, twice closely
> listening and 2 or three times as background to working.  And I have
> to say that I really like it.  Of the JMC material I have heard [the
> compilation that Monart made] this is certainly among the best.  I
> think you should be proud for getting this made, Monart.
> Congratulations!

Thank you, Doug. I'm glad you like the music and recognize it as being
among John's best. It's his most intensive and extensive work ever,
and it's a very personal expression of his view of deliverance as evoked
by Rand's theme.

> Like several others have posted, I have some sad conclusions to draw
> regarding the Rand relationship and about the concerto itself.  I hope I
> can convey this correctly without being overly negative, since the album
> does have many strengths.  However, I don't know how well it will go over
> with most Oists for a number of reasons.

You may be right, at least about some, if not most, objectivists. In my
own experience with the few but varied objectivists the recent years,
who have heard John's previous music (eg., the Rational Romantics
compilation you have), most of them enjoyed it. But it would still be
only a projection for now, that they will also enjoy the new Concerto and
recognize the themes of deliverance in it. We'll have to see. It would
depend on the kind of expectation they have at the time they first hear
it (and this is where presentation matters and could help).

> It is not in the least as I envisioned the Concerto of Deliverance and I
> don't think I will be alone in that reaction.  Many people have strongly
> personal, often idiosyncratic responses to Rand's art---and to art in
> general.  This will potentially make it a tough sell to your target
> audience:  people who are expecting a piano concerto along the lines
> of the Rachmaninov 2 or 3.

My target audience is the general listener, but primarily aimed at the
Rand readers: that is, the general listener and not only the
classical-art listener; for the Rand readers, who may recognize the
title and may be listeners of any or all types of music. As I said in my
"Concerto Disclaimer", John's Concerto is not an emulation of
Rachmaninov's concertos, or a rendering of Richard Halley's in Atlas
Shrugged. Atlas Shrugged's world is not our world. But Rand's themes of
deliverance are abstract and universal, and should be concretized with
the cultural materials of our own time, which is the context for John's
Concerto.

> The style itself is not going to be palatable to all,
> either, having neither the pop aspects of pop or the classical aspects of
> classical.  JMC is mining fertile ground, but it is "over that-a-way" and
> not everyone is going to be able to follow him there.  The music expects
> that you are able to listen to long instrumental passages like classical,
> but not deliver on them developmentally like classical.

I suppose there will be some, even many, who might at first respond like
you claim, but it's harder to claim  that most, or all, would. I think
that it'll be a hit -- if listeners just get a chance to hear it with a
conducive presentation. The Concerto's integrating of modern styles with
classical roots should appeal to contemporary listeners who are
searching for new sounds that express deep meanings. Only the strictest
of the classical listeners who dismiss all forms of contemporary music
as pop and thus inferior, only these parochial listeners would exclude
themselves from even checking out the Concerto.

> The electronic sounds alone will turn off many.  I am used to them and
> they evoke a  smile and a nostalgia in me to relisten to some things I
> was hearing in the 70s.  I think he does a brilliant job blending old
> and new style synth textures and works very hard to breath life into
> the sounds.  On the analog flavored sounds, he succeeds better than the
> sample-style orchestral instruments.  [I am thinking of things like the
> end of Movement V in opposition to the beginning of that movement where
> he is evoking a traditional orchestral sonority].  However, extended
> synth textures are very static and wearying to my ears.  The live
> clarinet and violin are really good for his work; on this and the
> compilation album his music  seems a bit more flowing and alive when
> other musicians are there.

John does enjoy writing for and playing with other performers. Even
early in his career, he had blended well the traditional instruments
with modern synths, as in, for example, the "Stringspace" suite, which
has the exquisite December Angel movement that was choreographed for a
pas de deux with the Royal Winnipeg Ballet. Another example is his
inclusion of the pipe organ in a few pieces of his "A Third Testament"
(commissioned for the TV series adaptation of Malcom Muggeridge's book
of the same name).

> As to the second main criticism:  I feel I am verging on pedantic
> here, but when someone evokes the word "concerto", they have to
> understand that I adjust my mental sights because of that and start
> asking "How does this concerto relate to the deep and rich 300-year
> tradition of the concerto?"  If my listener expectations aren't being
> met, there had better be a solid reason why.  As Monart noted in another
> message, during the 20th Century, the word has been applied to certain
> bravura orchestral works [Bartok, most prominently], but even that
> follows tradition in some ways.  Aside from the Rand inspired title,
> what is concerto-like about it?  Perhaps if you go back to baroque usage
> there is some precedent, but Concerto Grosso tradition isn't what is
> being tapped into by the Rand reference or in JMC's music.

My take on whether or not "concerto" is an apt term to apply to this
work was outlined in "A Concerto Disclaimer" and elsewhere. Regardless
of whatever expectation based on classical tradition may be in the mind
of a new listener, I think that the way the music opens up and
progresses to the finale could overpower that bias, unless a listener
wanted to use something like nonconformity to classics to explain any
uneasiness felt.

> I wish, like Roger, that I could hear the overall arc of the piece as
> more coherent and reaching to deliverance, but I can't.  It makes me sad
> to report that, knowing how disappointed it will make you, Monart.  Again,
> I really like the piece, just not as a realization of Rand's Concerto of
> Deliverance.

Even if John's Concerto may not be regarded by some as "a realization of
Rand's Concerto of Deliverance", as depicted by Richard Halley's 5th in
Atlas Shrugged -- still, the fact is that there isn't any other known
real-live Concerto of Deliverance created before now. If another
composer could conceive of, and produce, a better realization, I'd be
among the first to embrace it.


Monart

Hi Roger,

> Monart, after having listened intently to Mills-Cockell's piece(s),
> I have to say that it is not my cup of tea, sense-of-life-wise. It
> doesn't say "Concerto of Deliverance" to me, nor arouse any
> of the associated thoughts and feelings that it ought to.

I'm sorry about that, Roger, and I say this with goodwill, as I would
say it to a friend who could not enjoy such music as, for example,
Dvorak's Cello Concerto or 9th Symphony, or Debussy's Petitie Suite, or
Rachmaninoff's Symphonic Dances, or Schubert's Trout Quintet. I wish
he could, so he may be enriched by the goodness. To my ears, John's
Concerto is from a musical universe parallel to Dvorak, Debussy, and
Rachmaninoff's. Indeed, some of their works, as well as some of Bach,
Haydn, and Beethovan's, are among John's influences from the past
greats.

I know that the beauty I hear in the Concerto is really there in the
music, and not only in my imagination. I'm sure that a transcription of
the music would also help in seeing the beauty of its complex structure.
Unless you were able to appreciate the melodic directions of the music,
you wouldn't be able to hear it "say 'Concerto of Deliverance' to [you]".
The opening Romance movement is, to my ears, an irresistible lure that,
from the very first phrase of the violin to the final sequence of the
lead synthesizer's sunbursting sound, it seduces a listener with its
sweet sounds of lament, consolation, defiance, and (a promise of)
redemption.

From what I know of you, your overall indifference to the music is a
puzzle to me, making me wonder, at first, if I had sent you a wrong
CD, or if you were doing some kind of test. Still, my response is to
suggest that you try to hear it again, maybe when in another mood, or
with another person like your wife or children :)

> I enjoyed Leora Cashe's singing, and a CD of her singing,
> with Mills-Cockell's arrangements behind her, would be quite
> enjoyable. However, the "mix" had her buried or obscured
> by the instruments at times. I wanted to shout, "Get the
> hell out of her way!"  :-)

The mix you heard is not the final master mix, so the balance between
Leora's voice and John's accompaniment may not be as perfected. In any
event, Leora's voice is an beautifully assertive and inspired one, and
credit should also be given to John's fine setting of the lyrics to
music. Some audio-clips of Leora's other performances are at
<http://www.leoracashe.com/> Leora is from Alberta, Canada (also my home
province), and has attracted an appreciative audience on the West Coast
(British Columbia).

> I basically agree wtih Rafael Eilon's comments.

Then, my reply to Rafael would also basically apply.

> Stylistically, even the more up tempo movements seemed
> relatively ~static~, in the sense that they didn't seem to "go
> anywhere." How can you have Romantic music that does
> not shout "goal-directedness"? There's nothing wrong with
> music that is more aimed at symmetry or atmosphere or
> any one of a number of things, but they don't convey the
> focus on ~value-orientation~ that true Romanticism does.

Your appraisal that the Concerto "seemed relatively ~static~" is very
perplexing to me because there is no doubt for me that the music is
conspicuously dynamic, and definitely goes somewhere in each movement
and in the entire sequence. It takes a listener to numerous unheard of
places by the rich melodies that are complex yet never inaccessible, by
the dense but not overwhelming harmonies, and by the persistent but
flexible percussion of the rhythms. For example, the 2nd movement, The
Gathering, is by far the most lively, cheery, and motion-inducing (i.e.,
dance-like). Some may call the 2nd very cool and sexy. The 5th movement,
Metamorphosis, is another dramatically transformative moment, with its
exquisite beginning pathos and its majestic heraldry of redemption.
By the end of the final Reunion movement, a listener will have reached
a state of satisfaction, repose, and resolution -- a deliverance.

> If you want an example of a past composer that I think fits
> the bill for a "Concerto of Deliverance," I'd recommend
> Shostakovich's 5th Symphony, especially the Finale
> movement. Also, I have often thought of his "Festive
> Overture" as a perfect setting for the running of the John
> Galt Line. :-)  I don't think Rand ever publicly opined on
> Shostakovich's work. Probably she would have thought
> it too "malevolent," or skewered him for staying in Russia
> and working under the Communists. Certainly he is not
> usually mentioned as a Romantic composer....

I have listened to several of Shostakovich's works, and sampled many
others, and remember liking the Andante from his 2nd Piano Concerto, and
a little piece called the Barrel Organ Waltz. I'm not sure if I heard
his 5th Symphony or his Festive Overture, since I can't recall having
liked the melody. And melody is what I first listen for. But to try to
hear what you mean, I'll listen to them.

> Monart, I respect your efforts to promote new music,
> especially music that embodies deliverance from
> oppression and upward motion, but I don't think this
> composition really works in that way. Nonetheless,
> if you and others enjoy it and derive inspiration from
> it, wonderful! To each his/her own.
>
Thank you for your glad acceptance of those who do like the music. I
think it's possible for you to like it too, even if you may claim that
it's not expressive at all of "music that embodies deliverance from
oppression and upward motion."


Monart

I want to make a disclaimer about the meaning of the title used in this
production and the connection to the 5th Concerto of Richard Halley.

"Concerto of Deliverance", as used in the story (note the title, Pt. 3 -
Ch. 6), is an abstract, literary statement describing the themes of a
music: "of triumph, ascension, sunburst of sound, of breaking out,
spreading open, of purpose, tension, release, of sweeping clean,
unobstructed effort, of joy, of echoes within, of laughing astonishment
that: no ugliness, no pain, never had had to be".

"Concerto of Deliverance" as used in this production is entitled so,
because of the commission's explicit intention to compose and perform a
music that was inspired by Rand's statement of the themes. The intention
was never to create a concerto that Richard Halley or Rachmaninoff might
have written. Nor was the intention to create in a specifically
classical concerto form, except only in the widest sense of "a work for
one or more solo instruments and an orchestra".

This work, "Concerto of Deliverance by John Mills-Cockell, inspired by
words from Ayn Rand, for Instruments & Voices", is the product of the
composer's greatest dedication to explore deeply the themes of Rand's
statement and create a large and engaging musical performance that
"delivers" on those themes.

(Note that John has read Rand before and enjoys her work, but is not
philosophically an objectivist. He knows some philosophy, and he
listens and reads widely, but he loves music more than anything else,
of course. A pioneer in electronic music, his mastery of melody,
especially, was recognized enough to not have him do anything else
for a living, except create a diverse range of memorable music for
the past 35 years.)

So, this work should be heard in this context: that it is an original
work to be regarded as an independent object, and not as a rendering
or transcription of another work, musical or otherwise. Almost as
important, however, it's also a work with vital, real-world, causal
connections to the themes in Ayn Rand's description, a connection best
named by "Concerto of Deliverance".


Monart

-------- Original Message --------
Date:  Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:18:18 -0600
From:  Monart Pon <monart@...>


Hi Roger and Doug,

I've been wondering when you would be posting. My thanks for your
comments on the music. You are such nice guys about this. I once knew a
new listener to John's music (no names, but he lives in the antipodes)
whose only response was that it was the most unpleasant,
not-to-be-repeated musical experience he had to endure, and he said it
with goodwill, apparently.

So I'm grateful for your sharing your appraisal of the music; your
perspectives will help in presenting it to other new listeners. I'll
reply in detail to your comments tomorrow, I hope. My reply to Rafael
also applies to some of what you wrote. I see that Chris and Bill are on
the list now, too. What do you think of this discussion?

I think the points raised so far are just the beginning of something
wider, or could be, and that the subject is about more than this music
called Concerto of Deliverance. It's also about the nature, role, and
importance of music to one's well-being -- and how we recognize such
good music when we hear it. If a music is "not my cup of tea", could I
change my cup or my tea? Should I? Why or why not? What does music have
to do with one's soul, one's intelligence, morality, and achievement? If
Roark had designed in classical styles, would there have been a
Fountainhead? If Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead is not my cup of tea,
does it matter? Should I learn to like it? Are there universal values in
art, and are there artworks that should be valued universally?


Monart

-------- Original Message --------
Date:  Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:58:24 -0400
From:  Douglas Wagoner <dwagoner@...>


Monart and all----

I have listened to the Concerto about five times now, twice closely
listening and 2 or three times as background to working.  And I have to say
that I really like it.  Of the JMC material I have heard [the compilation
that Monart made] this is certainly among the best.  I think you should be
proud for getting this made, Monart.  Congratulations!

Like several others have posted, I have some sad conclusions to draw
regarding the Rand relationship and about the concerto itself.  I hope I
can convey this correctly without being overly negative, since the album
does have many strengths.  However, I don't know how well it will go over
with most Oists for a number of reasons.

It is not in the least as I envisioned the Concerto of Deliverance and I
don't think I will be alone in that reaction.  Many people have strongly
personal, often idiosyncratic responses to Rand's art---and to art in
general.  This will potentially make it a tough sell to your target
audience:  people who are expecting a piano concerto along the lines of the
Rachmaninov 2 or 3.  The style itself is not going to be palatable to all,
either, having neither the pop aspects of pop or the classical aspects of
classical.  JMC is mining fertile ground, but it is "over that-a-way" and
not everyone is going to be able to follow him there.  The music expects
that you are able to listen to long instrumental passages like classical,
but not deliver on them developmentally like classical.  The electronic
sounds alone will turn off many.  I am used to them and they evoke a smile
and a nostalgia in me to relisten to some things I was hearing in the
70s.  I think he does a brilliant job blending old and new style synth
textures and works very hard to breath life into the sounds.  On the analog
flavored sounds, he succeeds better than the sample-style orchestral
instruments.  [I am thinking of things like the end of Movement V in
opposition to the beginning of that movement where he is evoking a
traditional orchestral sonority].  However, extended synth textures are
very static and wearying to my ears.  The live clarinet and violin are
really good for his work; on this and the compilation album his music seems
a bit more flowing and alive when other musicians are there.

As to the second main criticism:  I feel I am verging on pedantic here, but
when someone evokes the word "concerto", they have to understand that I
adjust my mental sights because of that and start asking "How does this
concerto relate to the deep and rich 300-year tradition of the
concerto?"  If my listener expectations aren't being met, there had better
be a solid reason why.  As Monart noted in another message, during the 20th
Century, the word has been applied to certain bravura orchestral works
[Bartok, most prominently], but even that follows tradition in some
ways.  Aside from the Rand inspired title, what is concerto-like about
it?  Perhaps if you go back to baroque usage there is some precedent, but
Concerto Grosso tradition isn't what is being tapped into by the Rand
reference or in JMC's music.

I wish, like Roger, that I could hear the overall arc of the piece as more
coherent and reaching to deliverance, but I can't.  It makes me sad to
report that, knowing how disappointed it will make you, Monart.  Again, I
really like the piece, just not as a realization of Rand's Concerto of
Deliverance.

Best Regards...

--- Douglas Wagoner
--- Composer - Conductor
--- dwagoner@...
--- [www.douglaswagoner.com]
--- Douglas Wagoner
--- Composer - Conductor
--- dwagoner@...
--- [www.douglaswagoner.com]

-------- Original Message --------
Date:  Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:33:06 -0400 (EDT)
From:  AchillesRB@...


Monart, after having listened intently to Mills-Cockell's piece(s),
I have to say that it is not my cup of tea, sense-of-life-wise. It
doesn't say "Concerto of Deliverance" to me, nor arouse any
of the associated thoughts and feelings that it ought to.

I enjoyed Leora Cashe's singing, and a CD of her singing,
with Mills-Cockell's arrangements behind her, would be quite
enjoyable. However, the "mix" had her buried or obscured
by the instruments at times. I wanted to shout, "Get the
hell out of her way!"  :-)

I basically agree wtih Rafael Eilon's comments.

Stylistically, even the more up tempo movements seemed
relatively ~static~, in the sense that they didn't seem to "go
anywhere." How can you have Romantic music that does
not shout "goal-directedness"? There's nothing wrong with
music that is more aimed at symmetry or atmosphere or
any one of a number of things, but they don't convey the
focus on ~value-orientation~ that true Romanticism does.

If you want an example of a past composer that I think fits
the bill for a "Concerto of Deliverance," I'd recommend
Shostakovich's 5th Symphony, especially the Finale
movement. Also, I have often thought of his "Festive
Overture" as a perfect setting for the running of the John
Galt Line. :-)  I don't think Rand ever publicly opined on
Shostakovich's work. Probably she would have thought
it too "malevolent," or skewered him for staying in Russia
and working under the Communists. Certainly he is not
usually mentioned as a Romantic composer....

Monart, I respect your efforts to promote new music,
especially music that embodies deliverance from
oppression and upward motion, but I don't think this
composition really works in that way. Nonetheless,
if you and others enjoy it and derive inspiration from
it, wonderful! To each his/her own.

REB

-------- Original Message --------
Date:  Wed, 08 Oct 2003 12:42:32 -0600
From:  Monart Pon <monart@...>


A brief review and preview:

The production of Concerto of Deliverance began in June 2002 when the
commission was first established.
<http://www.starshipaurora.com/concertoofdeliverance.html> John then
began reading the Rand material and other references I recommended
(including links to Roger's articles on music theory). In the coming
months, while experimenting with his new powerful Karma keyboard, he
sketched out hundreds of tunes from which the final work emerged, after
a year of full-time dedication.

In July 2003, I received my very first hearing of the Concerto. I wrote
about my first impressions of the music at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Starship_Forum/message/3509 and
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Starship_Forum/message/3545
I then discussed with John some of my presentational and marketing
ideas, some suggestions of which he incorporated into the next mix, the
pre-master mix. The master, now nearing completion, will have the sound
engineering perfected and be ready for manufacturing. Mischa, who
rendered the graphics on the Starship Aurora website, is implemented a
CD cover artwork I designed.

I'm conservatively forecasting a release date for next January,
certainly before Rand Day 99. While the music is intending for general
music lovers, I will begin my marketing focus on the millions of Rand
readers who may be curious about a musical work called "Concerto of
Deliverance". What will be the future of this venture, I'm not sure, but
I have wild dreams and audacious plans.

I have been listening to the Concerto nearly everyday since the first
time, and I continue to marvel at the bold beauty of its melodies,
harmonies, rhythms, and the unique colors and textures of its
instrumentation.  As I grasp more and more of the music's patterns and
meanings, I find myself become more integrated and ennobled. I feel I'm
blessed or lucky to have the music to enjoy for the rest of my life.


Monart

-------- Original Message --------
Date:  Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:36:11 -0600
From:  Monart Pon <monart@...>


Thank you, Rafael, for your helpful comments about your initial reaction
to John's Concerto of Deliverance. I'm glad that you heard some
enjoyable moments, even on a first hearing.

Your expectations of a more classical form and style is justifiable,
given that Rand herself was born and raised in the classical tradition,
and given that "concerto" is usually used in a classical sense. But a
concerto may be any work for orchestra and one or more solo instruments,
which should include modern synthesizer instruments, too. A concerto is
typically in three movements, but some have as few as one, or as many as
five or more. In John's concerto of seven movements, the solo
instruments, in different movements, are the violin, the clarinet, and
various synthesized instruments, played in concert with an orchestra of
other synthesized instruments.

The songs that are interspersed between the movements are like
interludes or snapshots of a more concrete, lyrical reality, and could
be listened to apart from the movements (or the movements apart from the
songs), without losing the integrity of the work.

Overall, the performance has a wide-reaching, cosmopolitan,
"world-music" reference, which may not seem to be as "concise, tightly
integrated" as you would like, but it does have an evident integrity
explicitly based on its inspiration from Rand's description of the
themes of the music. Also, this work is intended not only for the
classical-art music audience, but also for the general audience of music
lovers of any style.

Your hearing of "mostly quiet and pastoral" motifs in the work is also
understandable, as many of the movements are in adagio, lento, and
largo. But the opening Romance is in andantino, while the 3rd is
distinctly a vivace, and the 6th is con moto. I hear a dynamic range of
motifs in the music, from quiet, easy-going, meditative, contented moods
to lively, jazzy, cheery moods -- but I, too, would have like hearing
more tempos in scherzo, presto, or furiant. Still, there's always an
underlying intensity and fierceness that beckons to be heard, and
prevents too much pastoralism.

Thanks again for your comments, Rafael. I wonder what new insights,
about this work and about your conception of what the Concerto should
be, that you may find upon subsequent listenings? As far as I know,
there hasn't been a new musical work before called Concerto of
Deliverance, and I hope this one wouldn't become the only one. It should
help inspire other versions, both in contempory or classical styles.


Monart

-------- Original Message --------
Date:  Sun, 05 Oct 2003 22:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
From:  Rafael Eilon <r_eilon@...>

Hi Monart, all,

I have received the disk only the day before yesterday, and have given
it only one listening, so what I have to say is by no means final. I
find the musical material on the "Concerto of Deliverance" disk quite
interesting and varied, and, frankly, of varying quality, ranging from
brilliant passages to unimpressive ones. But I don't really think this
music has _much_ to do with Rand's idea of a "Concerto of Deliverance."

My reasons for thinking this are the following. First, Rand's idea of a
_concerto_ has much to do with the classical form and content: a 2 to
4-movement composition for a solo instrument (most probably piano) and
symphonic orchestra. Secondly, it is my understanding that Rand's idea
definitely includes the solo pianist's triumphant virtuosity, while
performing ecstatic music of great technical challenge, as a symbol of
her characters' triumphant achievement. Mills-Cockell's composition has
little of these elements. It is mostly quiet and pastoral, sometimes
beautifully so; but it remains far, perhaps too far, from Rand's idea.
Thirdly, I think this work is too long and varied to come anywhere near
Rand's idea, which I conceive of as a concise, tightly integrated
composition, of only a few movements which possess common elements and
a unifying structure. (That's why I think she didn't have in mind a
form that deviates too far from the classic forms). Fourthly, there are
moments when the synthesizer's pitch deviates and becomes unstable and
indefinite, and I am _quite sure_ that Rand would not have approved of
that!

I may have more to say after further listening. But even now, I would
like to make clear that even though I don't think this work
successfully represents Rand's idea of a "Concerto of Deliverance," I
do think that Mills-Cockell has produced a valuable work of art, which
has many inspired moments, and is quite enjoyable overall.

Regards,

Rafael

Imagine that, in 1957 when Atlas Shrugged was published, a companion
record album was also released with the book, produced by Ayn Rand,
called Concerto of Deliverance. It may have been a collection of past
greats or maybe a new composition commissioned by her, to depict
musically one of the main themes (including a climactic chapter of the
same name) in the novel.

We know of the differences in the concretized reality from reading a
novel, compared to watching a movie or hearing a piece of music. So if
Rand were successful in her selection/commission of the companion music,
the impact of the philosophy upon people and the culture would have been
a double-whammy of literary-musical catalysis. Would it not? Musicians
and music lovers would very likely agree.

For her album, if Rand had collected some past music as a compilation
that best expresses her themes in Concerto of Deliverance, what would
those pieces be? Would they include works from Rachmaninoff and
Tchaikovsky? Dvorak and Debussy? Bizet and Saint-Saens? Who else?

If, instead, Rand had commissioned a new work, whom might she have
chosen? A well-known, capable composer, or an unknown but great
composer? Would she have expected a composition in the forms and
conventions of the past, or a composition that, while having roots in
the past, would be distinctively emergent from modern styles and
sentiments?

Well, we know that Rand didn't produce a Concerto of Deliverance, but we
don't know that she hadn't considered it at all. Now it's 45 years
later. What has changed? Rand has died, 20 years ago. And: a new music
is being produced called Concerto of Deliverance. What would have been
Rand's response to it? What would be her readers' responses? And, in
what way would that really matter at all?

---

The context of this forum is: "a news & discussion list on the meaning
and value of music to one's life, and on its value in catalyzing
cultural change. The main focus is on music that could be inspired by
Rand's statement above, and, in particular, on the new work by John
Mills-Cockell called, "Concerto of Deliverance".

You are all musicians in some way, so you would be sensitive to the
importance of music for a quality life. You may also be interested in
examining this Concerto of Deliverance for its benefits in re-stylizing
the mind, heart, and body. Or, you may want to challenge the claim
itself, that the music is of much or any significance at all.

Initial responses from you have included "beautiful", "unexpected", and
"enjoyable" -- all voicing that it's worth many highly focussed
listenings, and many offering to give some considered comments.


Monart