I like Loretta Lynn somewhat. Her songs have tunes, to an extent.

Ain't that the truth. (reply to Stormi).

"Concur"? I don't know that I can. I didn't look at the whole video. (I am allowed limited time on this library's machines, and, at any rate, have other plans for the day). To me, in the first place, "modern music" seems pretty much of a contradiction in terms. I am a sort of anachronism. I liked fast, loud, but harmonious music, but otherwise did not think much about it, until, at the age of 11, I discovered Gilbert & Sullivan. Then I knew what music was. It seems to me that music has deteriorated from about 1920 until the present; and that it cannot deteriorate much further without crossing the line and going outright out of existence. There is a rhythm, a beat, yes, but otherwise a loud cacophony, almost no harmony, if any, and as to melody--forget it. Plus, "rap" makes it even worse, with its hollering combined with obscenity. I have some phonograph records. I had a record player, but the needle went bad on me the other 5th of July; maybe I will be able to get another one in the thrift store, if I get a job; I understand that they don't make record players any more, but somebody told me that someone had started again. Then I'd like to play my Gilbert & Sullivan, and also Verdi and Puccini, and maybe a recording of la Marseillaise. Also, Clancy Brothers used to make recordings of very lively Irish tunes. But modern music ?! Where?

You don't even accurately acknowledge your own previous statements. Bad modern music was not caused by abandoning in the 1940s a tuning standard of a "beneficial 432" tuning standard for 440 -- which did not happen at all, let alone impossibly cause bad music. There is no such thing as a frequency's "beneficial effect on the bodies cells" affecting music as "healthful and harmful frequencies alternate from the shuman resonance on up".

Your posts are filled with supposedly authoritative but incoherent pronouncements consisting of false history and mystical appeals arbitrarily pronounced as fact -- boldly going where no fact has been before. It is not science. This is an Ayn Rand forum, not for the dogmas of New Age subjectivism and mysticism. There are no Nephilim alien creatures, magic frequencies in resonance with "cells" affecting human behavior, "unconscious humans" roaming the earth as zombies or any of the rest of it.

A stream of consciousness non-response is not a point. The role of the tuning standard in music has nothing to do with anyone "turning a blind eye to the Germans coming for them", or what Ayn Rand said about "Frank Lloyd Wright", or "big brother recording", or any of the rest of the rambling. Nothing.

Bad music did not come from "the beat had intentionally been changed to go against what was natural to the heartbeat" and there is no such thing as a frequency's "beneficial effect on the bodies cells" affecting music as "healthful and harmful frequencies alternate from the shuman resonance on up". It is all gibberish. Claims of a magical "432" for the tuning standard and blaming bad music on a-historical, false claims about it are mysticism. Wandering off about "the Germans" and what Ayn Rand said about an architect is irrelevant. Stream of consciousness is not a logical "point".

You missed the point, that those in Germany said they were not coming for them, until they did. Such is your attitude about music, it's implications on the beliefs of the masses, and it's possible manipulations - turn a blind eye as the German's did, until it was too late. Rand did not feel architect FLW lived up to her expectations of him as a man, by Objectivist standards, and said so. By the same measurement, songwriters and producers today, and musicians, do not live up to Objectivist standards, of doing what is true to themselves, but rather to some big brother recording industry as a whole. The video from England lamented the fact that talented artists don't get contracts because they will not play by the all alike rules. An Objectivist in that industry would have as hard a road as did Roark and Reardon.

Nothing "Magic" about 438...nor 432, or 528 and no one is proposing that. But, there are relationships we should note and see if we can use them to our advantage. That's what mankind does...seeks to control and understand nature to his benefit.

"Everyone" in Germany did not support Hitler, nor does any of this have anything whatsoever to do with the tuning standard. Establishing 440Hz as a consistent pitch for tuning did not cause bad music.

That has nothing to do with the tuning standard. Nothing. There is no defense of the magic "432".

Ayn Rand was primarily interested in philosophical understanding. She did not try to turn every discussion into politics irrelevant to the essentials of a discussion the way a-philosophical libertarians do.

The discussion here is about music, specifically in this subthread the function, purpose and history of the tuning standard in contrast to New Age mysticism (that Ayn Rand had no sympathy for at all), all of which you have completely missed. The subjectivist, mystical statements made here attributing a magic status to "438" with nonsensical arguments claimed to be scientific studies are completely bogus.

Responding to that with a tangent on the politics of the Treaty of Versailles, dark accusations about German control, and citing obviously bad musical taste is steam of consciousness irrelevancy that does not address the bizarre "432" claims and not something "Ayn Rand would have been interested in" as an excuse for the tangent.

Gibberish does not describe anything, let alone "healing". Non rational repetition is non-responsive. You have not addressed anything here correcting the bogus history and mystic appeals contrary to the known science of music and the purpose of a tuning standard..

Not to mention, the words are mangled so badly it is almost impossible to get what they are singing about.
Confounding our language started with mistranslations, to meanings, to improper useage and now to their articulation masked by aggravating distortion.

Germany never gives up trying to control, certainly not back then. I am part German, put everyone thought Hitler was okay also. Music has influence, and it is used for that, from the songs of the Vietnam war, before and after. Songs are not just songs, now they are used to promote pedophelia, as one performer on YouTube admitted was his goal. Music is an industry, and as such can be run as Rand would have wanted, or can be cheapened and misused. Why did the Waco FBI play "Boots" over and over, because they wanted to soothe the compound inhabitants, or drive then batty? Music has consequences, and as such, and as something for which we pay good money, should also be scrutinized, every aspect.

It seems that the prevailing junk foisted on our youth is something a Brit video called "brainwahsing", as it detailed multiple changes that are made to insure all songs sound alike, with fewer words, no emotion, and changes in sound frequencies to level, is actually a form of denying youth the freedom to choose. What the record companies sell is what they buy, they are trained to favor it. Growing up, our daughter knew her grandfather's music, her parent's music, and her own. She switched between them, depending on mood. The levels of the music are not distinct now, as the idea is loud and repeattive, by design. It is like mainstream media reports, and the global warming crap fed to the youth. Therei should be thinking somewhere in here.We are seeing robotic acceptance encouraged.

Music is a capitalist industry, and as such, the way it is run is very much something Rand would have been interest in. The fact it was part of the Versaille Treaty is political, another element which would have interested her.Right now,the music industry is being run about like the rail induustry in AS.It is about conformity and not personal best. It colludes with DC. It tolerates songs which call women whores and talks of raping them. It sings about raping babies, and another industry, tech, thinks it is fine. How you cannot see several elements in this controvesry which would be of interest to Rand, unbelieveable.

Turns out there is, it's part of how the body works within itself.
The Big question is: How can we make use of that for healing...I don't think we can.
At least not now...maybe someday in the future.

"There is no such thing as a frequency's 'beneficial effect on the bodies cells' affecting music as 'healthful and harmful frequencies alternate from the shuman resonance on up'. It is gibberish." You frequently claim to have "studies" establishing nonsense.

I know what you are referring to and this one wasn't...that is why it was so surprising.

It's awful all right, but it's more than just the volume. Any music can be amplified to be too loud, but whether that or from the source, it causes nonlinear distortion. But in addition it's a sense of life issue that influences tonality and its shaping, rhythm, choice of chord ratios, phrasing, lyrics and more -- plus some obvious lack of talent or its slovenly underdevelopment.

The pseudo-scientific "papers" are nonsense. gibberish is gibberish.

The comments by evw are correct.
Human ears and bodies do not respond and differentiate to differences in sound frequency in that way. There are a few people with perfect pitch, they can recognize and reproduce a tone exactly, but that is it.

It is still true that- Modern music is awful.
Why? It is deliberately dissonant. The very big youth market want to keep the olds away by playing loud and awful music - they call it. It is a group solidarity thing.
The older opinion leaders pretend to sophistication, as in modern art, they claim to find meanings not apparent to outsiders.
How is it done? Not by choosing one base frequency over the other but by dissonant harmonies. When sounds of different frequencies are mixed, more sound frequencies are created, the word is harmonics, some mixtures are pleasant, some unpleasant, others arouse interest such as the sound of bells. It is likely that such reactions are universal across cultures. To enhance the awfullness there are supporting measures such as singers not holding a note, not projecting (thus amplification), excess percussion, and the general slovenliness of public performers. All this keeps the olds away, but it has been going on for so long that the olds have their own preferences for ugliness based on (imagined) good times when they were young.
My solution- the young have too much time and money, send them to work not to college, bring back the birch, more discipline and order, etc. (!) Humpff.

Yes there is, and it was discovered by accident, not intentionally, (and was not the intent of the work discussed)(so it was something to pay attention to)...and yes, like freaking always...looking for that damn paper that I know I saved.

There was popular music on all continents long before the 20th century. Ayn Rand loved what she called the "tiddlywink" music of the early 20th century for its sense of life. It came from the popular piano ragtime music from the late 1800s, which in turn had evolved from popular banjo music.

The tuning standard was adopted by professional musicians for musical reasons within a range of options, but in which consistency is required. It has a long history that is not the claims that OldUglyCarl pronounced. It is not politics and has nothing to do with "controlling hands of Germany", the UN, "Agenda 21", black helicopters, or any of the rest of that mentality. It is music, not a conspiratorial political topic.

Objective standards in the engineering of musical instruments and their adjustment is not "uniformity and forced quality at German request". It is not politics. They are a requirement for a musicians to physically produce coherent music in tune with itself and in a predictable range.

This is not about "forced music standards" and has nothing to do with what frequency range music is written in. But if you want the sounds to be within a particular range of pitches then you had better know what frequencies the notes you write in the score refer to. That is what a tuning standard provides.