Here is Pousseur's
Prospection - For Triple Piano In Sixth-Tones [1953]
http://tinyurl.com/Prospection-For-Triple-Piano
Conductor – Jean-Pierre Peuvion
Piano – Brigitte Foccroulle, Danielle Dubosch, Isabelle Schmitt
I heard a rumor that this particular piece of music was going to be played at candidate's rallies for the Presidential election of 2104.
How can we program our DAW pianos to play in "sixth tones?" Has anyone done that before?
Why has this style of music become so popular on college campuses in Dubuque during the past several years?
Is this music by Henry Pousseur consistent with the following tenets of the Green Party Political Platform:
Economic Democracy:
- Eliminate Corporate Personhood: Legislation or constitutional amendment to end the legal fiction of corporate personhood.
- Promote Musical Personhood: Allow all musical compositions the full status and rights of personhood.
- End Corporate Limited Liability: Make corporate shareholders bear the same liabilities as other property owners.
- End Evil and Bad Things: The mitigation of the effects of non-good states of existence, and their gradual replacement with non-evil and non-bad manifestations of being.
- Interplanetary Chartering of Semi-Conscious Corporations
- Periodic Review of Corporate Charters: A public corporate charter review process for each corporation above $20 million in assets every 20 years to see if it is serving the public interest according to social and ecological as well as financial criteria.
- Strengthen Anti-Trust Enforcement: Require breakup of any firm with more than 10% market share. Human beings working for the firms must remain intact, and not be broken up.
- Democratic Production: Establish the right of citizens to vote on the expansion or phasing out of products and industries, especially in areas of dangerous or toxic production.
- Workplace Democracy: Establish the right of workers at every enterprise over 10 employees to elect supervisors and managers and to determine how to organize work.
- Musical Democracy: Allow all musical compositions the right to control their own musicality, free from exterior interference.
- Worker Control of Worker Assets-Pension Funds and ESOP Shares: Pension funds representing over $5 trillion in deferred wages account for nearly one-third of financial assets in the US. 11 million workers participate in employee stock-option plans (ESOPs). Reform ERISA, labor laws, and ESOP tax provisions to enable workers to democratically control their assets.
- Democratic Conversion of Big Business: Mandatory break-up and conversion to democratic worker, consumer, and/or public ownership on a human scale of the largest 500 US industrial and commercial corporations that account for about 10% of employees, 50% of profits, 70% of sales, and 90% of manufacturing assets.
- Conversion of Non-Musical Entities: Allow all non-musical objects, entities and things to become musical, through special training programs, applications for alternative ontological status, and free flowing reality trans-substrata modification, hyperstasis dynamism and remodulation.
- Democratic Conversion of Small and Medium Business: Financial and technical incentives and assistance for voluntary conversion of the 22.5 million small and medium non-farm businesses in the US to worker or consumer cooperatives or democratic public enterprises. Mandate that workers and the community have the first option to buy on preferential terms in cases of plant closures, the sale or merger of significant assets, or the revocation of corporate charters.
- Democratic Banking: Mandatory conversion of the 200 largest banks with 80% of all bank assets into democratic publicly-owned community banks. Financial and technical incentives and assistance for voluntary conversion of other privately-owned banks into publicly-owned community banks or consumer-owned credit unions.
- Democratize Monetary Policy and the Federal Reserve System: Place a 100% reserve requirement on demand deposits in order to return control of monetary policy from private bankers to elected government. Selection of Federal Reserve officers by our elected representatives, not private bankers. Strengthen the regional development mission of the regional Federal Reserve Banks by directing them to target investments to promote key policy objectives, such as high-wage employment, worker and community ownership, ecological production, and inner city reconstruction.
Replies
Such a wonderful and hopeful political platform is worthy of a much warmer genre and a far better composer than Pousseur, indeed one of the best composers of all time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7m3ea74NSU
I don't know.
Maybe this?
http://podcasts.nytimes.com/podcasts/2016/02/11/science/space/ligo-...
Or even (probably not) this (although it has over 800,000,000 views:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcIy9NiNbmo&ebc=ANyPxKqQPFi-4ih...
I have an off the cuff/wall question for you liberal, share the wealth folks.
Why don't those 'workers' all get together and 'create' their own business(es)
and come up with their own innovation's or product that will give them all jobs?
It's easy to want a piece of what someone else has. Don't get me wrong, I agree
that those who are 'fortunate' should give back and understand the essential
moral-ity of a healthy society, but it's the 'politics' and psychology that you promote
that is doomed to failure. Democratic Socialism sounds like a wonderful idea, but
due to human nature, (which is a major factor) it is NOT the solution.
Someone, somewhere, has to generate cashflow before it can be shared. Read that again!
Someone, somewhere, has to generate cashflow before it can be shared.
The question at hand seems to be, to what degree should that cashflow be shared.
Please tell me what you think and believe is equitable and why. RS
Democratic socialism is a "wonderful idea"? I'm so glad you think so, Roger! Plus, it already exists in a whole bunch of countries, and people there get lots of vacation time, maternity and paternity leave, and socialized medicine. Infant mortality is much lower than in the US. Plus people are happier in general.
"I have an off the cuff/wall question for you liberal, share the wealth folks."
I am not sure if that question is for me, since I am not a "liberal." Nor am I one of the "share the wealth" folks.
Since "wealth" is created by the workers (otherwise, why would capitalists be so upset when they organize unions, and go on strike—even to the point of shooting them !!!), I think workers should get what they produce.
Since I believe in democracy, I think decisions in the economic and social spheres should be made DEMOCRATICALLY, not by someone who acts like a dictator (i.e., a CEO, boss, factory owner, banker or "landowner"). Hence "social democracy," or "democratic socialism," as practiced in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland, etc ... or better than that.
"Why don't those 'workers' all get together and 'create' their own business(es) ..."
They do. It's called a "worker run" business, a "worker owned" business, or a "democratic cooperative." They don't usually do that because the Billionaire class (the bankers, factory owners, the "landowners,"), a tiny fraction of the population, control almost all the capital, machinery, and resources, used to organize the means of production.
When workers DO get together, and create democratically organized enterprises (cooperatives), the big capitalists do what they can to destroy them, to monopolize capital, and to write the laws to favor the large corporation. Even so, democratically run cooperatives are growing in size and number around the world, and have been shown to be more efficient and to have greater productivity per worker. Eventually, and over time, they will supersede the predatory and non-democratic corporation.
" ... and come up with their own innovation's or product that will give them all jobs?"
You appear to be under the mistaken impression that the "inventor" is the person that controls capital. Donald Trump is in the spotlight now, so you can examine his doings. WHAT has he invented? Nothing. He has built casinos. He didn't invent a new kind of roulette wheel or slot machine. What does a "hedge fund" manager "invent." These are some of the richest billionaires in the world. They invented nothing. What they do create, day after day, are larger quantities of "fictitious capital," as you yourself have admitted in your criticisms of banking (though I am not sure you see the implications of your criticism, which go far beyond "fiat money" and the "Fed).
"It's easy to want a piece of what someone else has."
A person has a right to the wealth that they helped to create. Productivity has increased consistently for 50 years, and during this time, the "share" or "piece" which the average worker receives for doing his work has grown smaller and smaller, while that "share" of the top .01% had grown larger and larger.
You are right. It's easy for the members of the Billionaire class "to want what someone else works to create," and they succeed in ordering the economy, the financial system, and the social remuneration of citizens so that THEY grow richer (in proportion to everyone else) than they already are. Unions are busted, businesses are outsourced, and politicians are bribed through campaign contributions to make the legal regime correspond to their interests.
"Don't get me wrong, I agree that those who are 'fortunate' should give back ..."
It's not a matter of "giving back" what they never really owned, by right, in the first place. Workers, from the beginning to the end of the process of production and distribution, are NOT given what they merit. You buy into the false assumption that the powerful and rich deserve every cent that they have. It's a medieval attitude, equivalent to the old fashioned notion that someone deserves to be a "Lord," a "Baron," or a "King." People don't question it. Obama, G.W. Bush, and our media never even question the notion that the King of Saudi Arabia "deserves" to own the trillions of dollars of assets that are under his personal control. So it's no surprise that you buy the propaganda that says most of the wealth in the US should be owned, as it is, by a small class of billionaires (most of whom haven't "invented anything").
"the 'politics' and psychology that you promote that is doomed to failure."
That's odd. This is only the sixth or seventh time I've asked you respond to the statistics to show that a dozen or more countries, (like Sweden, Norway, Canada, Japan, Denmark, etc.) has SUCCEEDED, not failed. It is the US that has failed.
All these social democracies have better statistics than the US in such areas as
More even income distribution
More even wealth distribution
Longer life expectancy (3-4) years
Lower infant mortality
Higher literacy
Higher scores in mathematics
Higher scores in science
Higher graduation rates
Lower levels of violent crime
Lower levels of homicide
You have not denied that, and you cannot, because the statistical evidence is overwhelming.
I ask you, time and time again, what have read about "social democracy," or socialism or the history of Scandinavia or any of these issues, and you never answer. That's because you claim reading books is unnecessary. Knowledge is unnecessary (unless it's a platitude taken from TV or a Youtube video—a platitude like "it's against human nature," in spite of nearly a hundred years of "democratic socialist" experience to the contrary).
"Democratic Socialism sounds like a wonderful idea ..."
I still don't think you know what Democratic Socialism is, because you still haven't told me what you know about it, or how you know it. I've asked you, and I will continue to ask you, what your alleged "100 sources" of internet information are. I have no reason yet to believe you will tell me. What are your sources of knowledge regarding the history of socialism, social democracy and/or democratic socialism?
More importantly, since you want to say so many negative things about social democratic nations (which have the best quality of life statistics), then isn't it incumbent upon you to say WHAT YOU SYSTEM YOU THINK would be best.
You never do.
"but due to human nature, (which is a major factor) it is NOT the solution."
No one is speaking about "the solution," apart from what appears to work best in a given historical era. So far, the best system is the one which has developed in the countries I have mentioned. When you have evidence, a single scrap of evidence to the contrary, let me know. [Also, when you can tell me how you know, definitively, as if you can put it in some small box, what HUMAN NATURE is, let me know that, too. ] {They used to say, human nature was such, that people had to live under Kings and aristocrats. }
"Someone, somewhere, has to generate cash flow before it can be shared."
As if that doesn't happen in Sweden or Denmark. Of course it does. But things could be improved even in those countries, by a more equitable distribution and more democracy than they have now.
"The question at hand seems to be, to what degree should that cash flow be shared."
No. That is not "the question" at hand. There are several questions.
One question would be this.
Previously, in US history, the typical CEO would "earn" (or be "paid") [or have the power to "take"]
40 times what his front line worker received.
That was in the 1950's.
Then he got, in the US, over time,
50 times what the worker received, and then,
70 times what the worker received, and then,
100 times what the worker received, and then,
200 times what the worker received, and then,
300 times, what the worker received, and then,
350-500 times what the worker received.
And that brings up to the years 2007-2016.
Please tell me why you think and believe THAT is equitable.
Also, why doesn't this music
http://tinyurl.com/Prospection-For-Triple-Piano
prove that social democracy, socialism, mutualism, cooperativism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism (as conceived by Kropotkin) or some other form of egalitarianism is not superior to savage capitalism, as it is currently constituted?
Happy to say, I listened to this and.... I deem it to be garbage.
Even my dog got up and left the room.
Whereas I can appreciate experimentation, this crap will never
enter the realm of quality music.
O, what is the main factor that causes free market capitalism
to become 'savage capitalism'? Can you offer an answer in 2
paragraphs or less, within the perimeters of a 'discussion' as
opposed to a lecture?
To me, your philosophy attempts to try to make certain social
conventions primary. You don't seem to admit the true primary
fundamentals of wealth creation as being a real factor.
Someone has to write the song before others can sing it. RS
O. Olmnilnlolm said:
"Happy to say, I listened to this and.... I deem it to be garbage."
http://tinyurl.com/Prospection-For-Triple-Piano
Why "happy to say?"
How many times did you listen to it, I wonder. Sometimes, it's necessary to listen several times. I found the more I listened to it, the more I liked it. Perhaps you simply don't like music with quarter tones, or radically experimental modes. Do you like any of Ives, Wyschnegradsky's or Messiaen's experiments with alternative modes?
"Even my dog got up and left the room."
A dog will leave the room with little provocation, for reasons of his or her own. If you play Beethoven too loud, a dog might leave the room. As it is, I think we know dogs really don't understand music, art or aesthetics, so what the dog did seems irrelevant. A dog might not like Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps, but neither did the first audience. (I know of a dog that was taught to growl, whenever he heard the name "Nixon." However, I don't think this reflected the canine's considered political or ethical judgments. )
"Whereas I can appreciate experimentation, this crap will never enter the realm of quality music."
It already has entered the realm of quality music, and is highly regarded, whatever you might say. Still. I am glad you appreciate experimentation. What's one of your favorite pieces of experimental music, from the 60's to the present?
"O, what is the main factor that causes free market capitalism to become 'savage capitalism'?"
Isn't it correct to say: So-called "free market capitalism" ceases to exist in the advanced developed economies at this time, and tends towards "savage capitalism" or "monopoly capitalism." Isn't this especially true, where the dominant economic forces are extremely large transnational corporations, and the majority of the trade in the world actually takes place across borders (as has been the case since at least 1970)?
Was there true "free market capitalism," during the 1500's, or perhaps as late as the 1700's, when primitive accumulation of capital was occurring? Slavery is said to have had a lot to do with it, in connection with English, French, Portuguese and Spanish society. When the feudal class was declining, and the burgher (or bourgeois) class was rising, was there more genuine competition between the merchants and traders? One might argue this was the case, I think, based on Adam Smith's analysis, written during the 1770's. (Notice, per your request, I am not "lecturing," but simply presenting a few ideas, and asking questions).
[You had said, "Can you offer an answer in 2 paragraphs or less, within the perimeters of a 'discussion' as opposed to a lecture?"]
"To me, your philosophy attempts to try to make certain social conventions primary."
I apologize, but I am not sure what you mean there. What social conventions do you mean? Primary, over what?
"You don't seem to admit the true primary fundamentals of wealth creation as being a real factor."
A factor in what? Do you see the creation of "wealth," of "capital" and of "inventions" all as the same thing?
What are the primary fundamentals of "wealth creation," "capital accumulation" (on a vast scale), and the results of "invention?"
What role does labor play, according to you, in the "creation of wealth," or of vast amounts of capital; and how can the equitable or genuinely fair distribution of wealth be assured to prevent overwhelming gaps between various social classes?
"Someone has to write the song before others can sing it."
That's a reasonable premise. But suppose the "song-inventor" gets a few thousand, and the singer(s) get a few hundred, and the record producer (recorder-distributor, or capitalist, who owns and controls the means of production) gets several million. Is that really fair? I think that's roughly analogous to what happens to the average worker. I can give you precise statistics, if you like. (As I mentioned before: The CEO was taking 40 times what the front line worker received, in the late 1950's, and now, during the period 2007 to 2016, is taking 400 to 500 times more, while wages decline or stagnate).