Composers' Forum

Music Composers Unite!

Can you hear the music in this?

http://billionsinchange.com/film

Views: 2500

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

 

 

"Just think for a moment, if JP Morgan had not been such a greedy industrialist, (bastard) and 100 yrs. ago he had actually truly aided and promoted Tesla, in the same spirit that the video exemplifies; where would the human race  be by now[?]"

 

It's an excellent question. 

 

This is why I am interested in knowing what technologies, in both the US and UK, have been actively confiscated and categorized "top secret"?  Why did "the Pentagon place 774 patent applications under secrecy orders in 1991 -- up from 290 in 1979 -- ...?"  Will the Federation of American Scientists have any luck using the Freedom of Information Act be able to gain any knowledge about this issue?

 

The book mentioned above talks about this issue, and the science behind it, in some detail.  Of course, much has happened since the days of Tesla, and the problem today is in knowing how much progress is being thwarted in our era, by interested parties. 

 

We can read about:

 

"Keeping Inventors Quiet

 

"If you were an inventor trying to patent an important new-energy discovery, you might receive a secrecy order along the lines of the one reproduced here. According to information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Federation of American Scientists, the Pentagon placed 774 patent applications under secrecy orders in 1991 -- up from 290 in 1979 -- and 506 of these orders were imposed on inventions by private companies. The government has standing gag orders on several thousand inventions. The following order issued in the 1980's was obtained by inventor Ken MacNeill of Georgia and revealed in 1983.

 

 

"SECRECY ORDER

(Title 35, United States code [1952], sections 181-188)

 

"NOTICE: To the applicant above named, his heirs, and any and all his assignees, attorneys and agents, [or] designated principals.

 

"You are hereby notified that your application as above identified has been found to contain subject matter, the unauthorized disclosure of which might be detrimental to the national security, and you are ordered in nowise to publish or disclose the invention or any material information with respect thereto ..."

 

 

O-man , you'd better stop right there! This is only going to upset people and

possibly pop a bubble or two. If folks thought that there might be a real shadow

government, then they might lose faith and trust in what they are being told

by the mainstream propaganda outlets and, dare I stay, be unnerved.

Remember, all whistleblowers are insane and unstable.(and a lot of them are dead)   RS

Fred, I was referring to 'my own' free time not patriotic style freedom.

And when I do have the time, I find myself often too tired to concentrate on

and develope something creative. No inflation - my keester.

I've had and run my own Home Improvement business for just over 40 years.

I chose not to be an architect and not just sit at a desk. I like getting dirty and sweaty,

and I have no regrets in that decision.

I do believe that in light of the intent of my claim as to the context and focus of

what I meant by 'free', that your iconoclastic spiel is negated.   RS

Well then , I guess that's that. Can I buy you a beer?

(or do you prefer potato mash?)

ps- I still say apples ain't oranges                   RS

Roger has put forward his views, on the comparison of two fruits:

"I still say apples ain't oranges."

That's very reasonable.

I don't know why people say, you can't compare apples and oranges.

The first tends to be red, and the the second tends to be that other color.  One has a stem, and the other has sections inside.  The first grows in more tropical climates, while the second grows in more temperate climates, and so on.

So why do people say you cannot compare these fruits?

But that can be a topic for another day.

Fredrick said,

 

... the sole obligation of government is to stay in power and it has the ability to use armed force, economic pressure and the force of law (old ones or new ones invented for the occasion) to meet that obligation. Who ever told you you were "free' was pulling your leg. You are only free to earn enough money to pay your taxes anyway you see fit including illegally if you can manage it.

 

 

"You want "truth justice and the American way" you can find it in the movies and on TV. ..."

 

 

There are two philosophies clashing, and neither view is more sophomoric than the other. Both have their basis in long standing Western political philosophical traditions. The view Frederick expresses is similar to that of Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes and Leo Strauss.  The view expressed by Roger is closer to that of Locke, Rousseau and Thomas Jefferson.  The second view (Roger's) says that what can be, should be; and the first view (Fredrick's) says that what might be, theoretically, should not even be imagined (because in reality, it cannot be).  The second view has a more idealistic view of human nature; while the first view sees man as essentially prone to evil.  The first is optimistic, the second, pessimistic.

 

In American history, the contrast between the two views is epitomized by Thomas Paine, on the one hand, and John Adams, on the other.

 

Benjamin Franklin and James Madison sympathized more with Thomas Paine (and probably would have agreed more with Roger), while George Washington and Hamilton, sided more with John Adams (and therefore, probably would have agreed more with Fredrick). 

 

If we ask, "Can anyone write music or produce art in this environment?" Fredrick answers:

 

"Of course. All the great composers did and in our own time, Shostakovitch succeeded quite nicely."

 

In a way, I agree.  Anyone CAN write music and/or produce art in this environment.  But the question is not so much whether they can, but how economic globalization affects the process of creation, artistic conceptualization and the dissemination of various types of music. 

 

That's a far more difficult question to respond to thoroughly, and in detail. 

 

Shostakovich actually thought more important questions to consider were "How did Alexander Borodin write so much good music while consuming the quantity of vodka he did," and "What about Tchaikovsky's homosexuality?"

There really seems to be a problem with Context and Focus on this site.

Why is that? It is mindboggling.

Freedom to write music is not the same as having the free time and energy

to contemplate and create a composition.

And I must reitterate the sentiment - who cares what Shostakovich thinks?

Is a personal thought only valid if you have someone 'reknown' to quote

and back you up?

I'll bet you all 50 bucks a piece that if government was smaller, we would all

benefit and have time more to enjoy the arts and be more creative.

It's worth a try!                                  RS

Fred, did you forget ti take your medication again? :-&

wait a sec, you might be on to something...

If everyone worked for the government then we would all be rich.

The Fed could continue to print more and more monopoly money

and we could all live happily ever after here on Planet Disneyland.

There really is no such thing as debt, or responsibility. Look at the

newest generation... it seems to work for them. That is, as long as they

continue to vote Democratic. (not saying the repub's are much better)

I heard a news brief today that said the 'average' income around and

inside the Wash. DC beltway was 6 figure. Sorry West Va. and Ohio and

Oregon, but thanks to your tax dollars, you make this possible.

Big Goverment is the antitheses to freedom and the Constitution.

(I'm pretty sure someone else said this before, so you can take it to the bank)

I think it was Alfred E. Newman who said it best.... " What, me worry?  (or was it Nero?)    RS (reflecting sanity)

"There really seems to be a problem with Context and Focus on this site. Why is that? It is mindboggling."

 

Context can be larger or smaller, depending on the point any individual is trying to get across.  There is nothing odd about one idea leading to another, nor is there anything odd about one person responding to one idea, as they see it in a different context, or as they alter the focus in accordance with their interest. 

 

"Freedom to write music is not the same as having the free time and energy to contemplate and create a composition."

 

They can be related.  If one does not have time or energy, one cannot have the freedom to write music, OR the freedom to contemplate and create.

 

"And I must reiterate the sentiment - who cares what Shostakovich thinks?"

 

Many people care what Shostakovich thinks.  I do. I think Fredrick cares what Shostakovich thinks.  A fairly large number of people are quite interested in what Shostakovich thinks about all manner of things.  There is no reason to believe that any discussion of music and composition should automatically exclude the thoughts of one of the greatest composers of the twentieth century (on a place called COMPOSERS' FORUM), simply because one person here says he doesn't care about said composer and his reflections.   The thought he offered was merely a humorous observation about what some Russian composers believed were important issues for musical culture.

 

"Is a personal thought only valid if you have someone 'reknown' to quote and back you up?"

 

No.  It's not.  But that doesn't mean it's a bad thing to quote other composers.   I think it was Stravinsky who said, "And you can quote me, if you like."  We have the freedom, at times, to quote other people, or not quote other people, as the mood strikes us.  Is there something wrong with that?

 

 

"I'll bet you all 50 bucks a piece that if government was smaller, we would all benefit"

 

No, that's been proven wrong.  A study based on 11 separate factors (job security, health care, low crime levels, unemployment insurance, low infant mortality, high life expectancy, etc.) proved the following:  people who live under governments where per capita social spending was HIGHER tended to be markedly happier.  The governments, overall, that did the best were Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, Austria, Denmark, Holland, and so on.  The US slipped down further to No. 17 on this scale a few years ago.  It's a simple fact.  Look up the happiness index. 

 

" ... and have time more to enjoy the arts and be more creative. It's worth a try!"

 

The US is cutting social spending now, and denying all sorts of benefits to people, and adhering to sequestration.  Military probably will get a pass.  CIA and Black projects budgets are secret, but they are in the 10's of billions.  US Black ops and intelligence budgets are already larger than the whole military budget of the UK.

 

 

Republicans think (or say they think) if you just destroy social security, eliminate medicare, medicaid, unemployment insurance, and many other social programs, you will create paradise on the earth  (though only the rich will benefit). 

 

France and Germany, we know spends MORE government money on the arts and their promotion.  The result is plain for people to see.  Visit France.  You say, you don't have enough money to visit France.  See what I mean?  You don't even have enough money to go and see what a more cultured, more artistically advanced society looks like. 

 

    

O, please give us your definition of 'Government Money'.

Then we may have a basis for continuing.     

Where does it come from, not how it is allocated.   RS

Peter, I personally wouldn't use this site to futher my own agenda.

As you suggest, this is something that affects us all, in many ways.

The video is only 1 of many that could be used to 'enlighten' shall we say,

those who just don't seem to have a clue. It is still nothing more than

'leading a horse to water'. Some will brush it off , some might say,

that's curious and go on about their lives, while others will see the

shift and potential and help raise awareness in support of it.  

I've watched this present paradigm take shape for the last 50 yrs. 

not realizing anything about a possible 'shadow government' and

a possible power agenda. Now the pieces are coming together,

and the schemes are being exposed. Not by the mainstream media,

as I'm sure you know, they are apparently owned by, for the most part

and part of the 'problem'.

Thanks for your words... it's good to know someone else 'gets it'.      RS 

 

 

Frederick makes a comment, and then asks a question:

“It’s so good to know we have people around to "enlighten" us, because god knows they are the only ones with the insight to figure out how "things' really work. How lucky are those of us with apparently diminished intellectual capacity to be put wise by those who 'get it". Oh wait. That's what government says it does too. So now who am I to believe? The crooks and charlatans in Washington or the cultists and charlatans on the internet?”

It’s a difficult choice you offer us.  Perhaps there are some people in government who have good ideas, policies and proposals (I think Bernie Sanders is probably one who does.).  And perhaps there are SOME people “on the internet,” and acting in communities (who express themselves in newspapers, journals, and on the internet) who also have good ideas.  I doubt you believe that everyone in government at every level in every branch is a crook or charlatan.  I doubt even more that you believe that everyone who has written anything that has been posted “on the internet” is a criminal or a con man.

Fredrick, your comment is against crooks and charlatans.  Almost everyone is those sorts of people, wherever they are.  Why don’t you tell us who you think has the best ideas about how to improve society, and possibly ameliorate its ills?  I would be interested to know, and so would some others.

Roger says,

O, please give us your definition of 'Government Money'.

Then we may have a basis for continuing.

Where does it come from, not how it is allocated. RS

 

First we have to define money, don’t we?  Then afterwards, “government money.”  Of course you cannot say simply where it comes from without talking about how it is allocated as well.

Money is simply one commodity, like any other in society, only it has the feature of being a universal medium of exchange.  Money can exist in many forms, as wages, profits, capital, etc.  Money owned by the capitalist comes from the exploitation of the laborer, or the employee, by paying the laborer less than the true value his labor, and extracting the “surplus value” from the exploited worker’s efforts.

Money is then amassed in large quantities, by the factory owner (so-called entrepreneur or “job creator”), the landowner (member of the rentier class) and the banker.  They use the money they gather in order to continue the process of exploitation.  Thus the worker has money extracted from him through the exploitation of his labor, through excessively high rent, usurious mortgage payments, and/or loans for other purposes.   The employer, the landlord and banker form this unholy trinity that takes the worker to the cleaners, stealing his money from him at every turn.

“Government money” is whatever the government decides to take out in taxes. (Here “government” can be defined as the executive committee that makes laws which represent the interests of the employers, the bankers and landlords)    They may tax the secretary a greater percentage of his or her wealth than the CEO of a company whose tax payments can range from 15% to zero, in many cases, if sufficient loopholes are found and quantities of money are deposited, legally or illegally in banks in safe haven countries.).  So, some of the “government money” is stolen by very rich.  The government never gets it, and that’s okay to the authors of the tax code.  If large corporations go broke, through bad investments, they can receive “government money” for free from the bureaucrats and lawmakers,  who increase taxes on the middle classes, such as they are, and also by quantitative easing, the creation of money out of thin air, and injected into the banks, given to them for free, to be loaned out at interest.  That’s a kind of “government money.”

 

Under current circumstances, representative government and democracy do not exist in anything resembling a true form.  However, in some of the countries mentioned  previously (Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, for example) there is noticeably less inequality, due to a decision to distribute monies in such a way, and to frame laws in such a way, as to lessen the huge gap that would otherwise exist between the rich and the poor.  This is done by providing free education, free health care, more generous social benefits, and so on.  The wealthy generally sanction this, in countries like Denmark, as the price necessary for general social happiness and the good of society as a whole.    Social Democracies, or Socially Democratic societies, while not fully democratic, in the true sense, appear to be the most successful so far in the history of humanity, in providing for the overall happiness of the people, according to research, opinion polls, and various scientific studies.  Life expectancy is higher in these countries, infant mortality is lower, people feel more secure, they have higher educational standards, and a generally higher quality of life.  This is done with “government money,” so to speak, and higher tax rates, the burden of which will (hopefully) fall more on the rich and the super-rich. Still, there are some regressive taxes (like sales tax, and V.A.T.) which still fall on the middle and lower middle classes inordinately.   It’s not a truly egalitarian society, merely one that minimizes inequality to an extent, more so than in the US and in the UK.

In some of these societies, the public also benefits by generous funding of the arts, music, painting, sculpture, architecture and aesthetic pursuits in general.

The authors of corporate managed globalization would have countries do away with many laws that reign in to a certain extent, the huge excesses of the mega-corporations.  Attached to that would be cuts in funding for the arts, which would have a negative effect on culture as a whole, thus causing additional cuts, and creating a society based solely on narrow “cost benefit” principles.  Art and music then turn into commodities, and are considered as nothing more than that.

 

For these and other reasons, the economy as a whole, needs to be democratized. In other words, it needs to come under the direct democratic control of the people.  So does the government, which is only the tool of a very small and super wealthy governing elite.  “Government money,” then, has to be more than one other weapon in the arsenal waged by the rich against the people and the world by the US government.  “Government money,” in addition to the banks, key industries, and land, need to be brought under the genuine and democratic control of the working people.

 

I hope I have answered your question, “What is ‘government money,” not simply in terms “where it comes from,” but also in terms of how it is distributed in a savage capitalist society, and in a less rabidly profit oriented culture, such as that organized in “the happiest countries” in the World.  Denmark usually comes up as No. 1 in this yearly survey, though it can be Switzerland, Norway or Finland, in any given year.  Sometimes Canada has come up as number one, but no so often since Stephen Harper came to power.  Hopefully, he’ll be kicked out this weekend, when Canada has its national election, and then Canada may go back in the direction of showing more concern for the general population.  Who knows?  They come up as No. 1 again.  

 



roger stancill said:

O, please give us your definition of 'Government Money'.

Then we may have a basis for continuing.     

Where does it come from, not how it is allocated.   RS

"Who do I think has some real answers? Sorry, no one comes to mind. (OK maybe Bach, but he declines to participate, being dead and all)"

Excellent, Fredrick.  I thought, right after asking my question, I hope he says, "Bach."  And if he does, he will probably be right.

 

It's a superb answer, really.  Because if we are thinking in the way that composers think, the best way for us to "improve society" or "inspire people" towards social action, would be through our music.  So in all honesty, and with total frankness, I praise your response.

In the case of Bach, the music is so worthy of adulation that we probably cannot estimate the amount of  positive value, in terms of inspiration and energizing people, that so many of his works have had.

I definitely agree with you.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Sign up info

Read before you sign up to find out what the requirements are!

Store

© 2019   Created by Gav Brown.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service