Calm Posted February 26, 2017 Posted February 26, 2017 8 hours ago, RevTestament said: Ultimately, I believe that is music's most basic power - to touch us emotionally - it brings back memories, makes us cry, makes us happy, and inspires what is beautiful. It has always been a big part of my life. As it is mine. Which is why I dislike it when composers and authors take shortcuts by using music to evoke false emotion to manipulate people into feeling fake emotion.
RevTestament Posted February 26, 2017 Posted February 26, 2017 2 hours ago, Calm said: As it is mine. Which is why I dislike it when composers and authors take shortcuts by using music to evoke false emotion to manipulate people into feeling fake emotion. I agree that music can be used poorly - some rock music and rap comes to mind. I just don't get that feeling from this song. You are of course entitled to dislike it. Maybe I'm wrong. If they were trying to apply it to the United States' involvement in the Vietnam War, (were they?) then I would agree with you I think. Cheers
rodheadlee Posted February 26, 2017 Posted February 26, 2017 On 2/25/2017 at 3:53 AM, rodheadlee said: That went over like a lead balloon.That was written for the guys fighting in the jungles of Vietnam. Well how about this one.
thesometimesaint Posted February 26, 2017 Posted February 26, 2017 11 hours ago, RevTestament said: I agree that music can be used poorly - some rock music and rap comes to mind. I just don't get that feeling from this song. You are of course entitled to dislike it. Maybe I'm wrong. If they were trying to apply it to the United States' involvement in the Vietnam War, (were they?) then I would agree with you I think. Cheers Not directly. It was a anti-war song that came out during the Vietnam War. If a good friend can't tell you when you're doing wrong. How much of a friend are they?
Calm Posted February 26, 2017 Posted February 26, 2017 (edited) 17 hours ago, RevTestament said: I agree that music can be used poorly - some rock music and rap comes to mind. I just don't get that feeling from this song. You are of course entitled to dislike it. Maybe I'm wrong. If they were trying to apply it to the United States' involvement in the Vietnam War, (were they?) then I would agree with you I think. Cheers I have already said it is a personal reaction to that song. Whether a manipulation is appropriate or not is probably too subjective in the vast majority of real life circumstances. I am not saying the goal of the song was wrong, btw. I am only saying why I dislike it and that is its heavy handedness. A more subtlely delivered message or even an obvious approach that felt like it was dealing with real people would likely have met my approval. I also don't see it as effective in its goal to persuade. An anti war song that uses as its example a group of people who slaughtered another group claiming the right to kill because they say the others' treasure belong to them for no other reason then they want it, of course everyone will recognize these were in the wrong, were vicious and cruel...and will likely only feel cheated by those they killed. Those listening will tell themselves we would never do anything so cruel...so no one actually learns anything in my view, but some people get to feel good because they push the song as meaningful and persuasive and principled, standing for truth, justice, and peace. Anyone who decides to go to war need only think 'we have a real reason to fight, not a rumor of wealth, we are not bandits, but liberators, etc. etc. thus the song has nothing to do with us'. More likely the result of persuasion will be to polarize as those energized to be stronger anti war will more likely view those engaging in it as doing it for as empty of a reason as those in the song, when the reality is much, much more complex and confusing. And that results more likely in confrontations and anger that leads to violence rather than diminishing it. The song boils down for me to 'people who go to war are bad, I, the writer, and those like me who hate war are good'. Edited February 26, 2017 by Calm 1
notHagoth7 Posted February 27, 2017 Author Posted February 27, 2017 1 hour ago, Calm said: I have already said it is a personal reaction to that song. Whether a manipulation is appropriate or not *is probably too subjective* in the vast majority of real life circumstances. Yep. It was appropriate to me back then because of the things my mother taught me about love, and because I was the youngest of 6....so I had brothers who would soon be called to kill people they had never even met and just assume they must be enemies....Didn't want to think of my brothers getting killed...or needlessly harming others.
notHagoth7 Posted February 27, 2017 Author Posted February 27, 2017 1 hour ago, Calm said: ....The song boils down for me to 'people who go to war are bad, I, the writer, and those like me who hate war are good'. ? Huh. The song boils down to me that the mountain people (think Daniel 2 or Isaiah 11) willingly share everything (NT teaching, 3 Nephi teaching, latter-day consecration). While the valley people take by force (idle Lamanites, ancient tyrants/kingdoms, wicked King Noah, ancient Gadianton, etc.) And prophecy teaches that such tactics ain't gonna work for the valley people much longer.... Can we see eye to eye on that?
Calm Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) I don't feel the need to agree on the song and would prefer not being pushed to do so. I am not intending to persuade anyone to my point of view, just describing how the song comes across to me. If it touches something in you that helps you, great. It doesn't make me feel bad that I don't like it or that I need you to agree with me. My interpretation: As a kid, all I could think was why didn't the mountain people just tell them there was no gold? How stupid did they have to be to once they saw the preparations for war not to say something like "you guys got it wrong". The mountain people just spoke about sharing, they didn't actually share. They kept their secret and only when they were dead did the knowledge get shared with the valley people. All they had to do was say 'there is no money or gold, our treasure is our desire for peace, come and see if you don't believe us so you don't waste your time and resources for something that isn't what you think it was. You can even search our houses and other buildings and have lookouts in town if you don't trust us...and why should you because we are strangers.' They never begged the valleys to listen to the rest of the story, but stood on the principle that the valley people had to humble themselves to ask rather than demand before they would open up about their actual treasure. Edited February 27, 2017 by Calm 1
notHagoth7 Posted February 27, 2017 Author Posted February 27, 2017 On 2/25/2017 at 8:26 PM, Calm said: You seem to me to be ignoring my point....I am talking about writers and composers who take short cuts to make people feel, who simply just repeat formulaic themes or firehose plot points or use music to cover gaps rather than slowly building on quality work. Can't you think of death scenes where you just didn't really care what happened to the character, but still got choked up because all the cheap and easy cues for sadness were played by the director? Wondering if you're referring to something I've written. If so, please feel free to speak up specifically as to what you feel could/should be improved. Music, because of its high emotional impact, is very good at covering up naked emperors. Like dancing David? Hoping he was kind enough to dance naked *before* lunch, so people didn't have to be too ill. :0) We should judge wisely and not assume that just because we feel a certain way, that feeling connects with what we are. For example, good advertising with food often creates a sense of hunger, a need to eat when there is no real hunger there. It is not wise to go eat when one does not need it. [Calm, I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Can you please elaborate?]
Kenngo1969 Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 Tacenda, There are, of course, various permutations of the whole "prayer-in-school" thing with which Engel v. Vitale, the United States Supreme Court case at the center of the debate, did not deal. That case prohibited the daily recitation of a prayer which had been authored by state school officials in all New York elementary and secondary schools, with those who did not wish to participate being allowed to opt out. However, it was decided in 1962. Engel did not deal, for example, with student-led prayers, and a student-initiated prayer was offered at my high school graduation, 26 years after Engel v. Vitale was decided. To be honest, I'm not sure what the legal status of student-led devotional activities in schools is these days. I lack the tools to do proper research. Suffice it to say that the issue is a good deal more complicated than saying simply that "prayer has been banned/outlawed/pick-your-word in schools." One, it ain't quite that simple (when is it, ever? ), and two, if this song came out in the '70s, your timetable's a wee bit off. Just sayin'!
Tacenda Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 58 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Tacenda, There are, of course, various permutations of the whole "prayer-in-school" thing with which Engel v. Vitale, the United States Supreme Court case at the center of the debate, did not deal. That case prohibited the daily recitation of a prayer which had been authored by state school officials in all New York elementary and secondary schools, with those who did not wish to participate being allowed to opt out. However, it was decided in 1962. Engel did not deal, for example, with student-led prayers, and a student-initiated prayer was offered at my high school graduation, 26 years after Engel v. Vitale was decided. To be honest, I'm not sure what the legal status of student-led devotional activities in schools is these days. I lack the tools to do proper research. Suffice it to say that the issue is a good deal more complicated than saying simply that "prayer has been banned/outlawed/pick-your-word in schools." One, it ain't quite that simple (when is it, ever? ), and two, if this song came out in the '70s, your timetable's a wee bit off. Just sayin'! I know, I checked after I posted and saw they had a law prohibiting it back before 1970/71, when I was in 5th grade. I think schools took awhile before they came around. Or specific teachers. I thought it funny that we sang a Christian song like that, sure was fun though.
Calm Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) 11 hours ago, notHagoth7 said: Wondering if you're referring to something I've written. If so, please feel free to speak up specifically as to what you feel could/should be improved. Like dancing David? Hoping he was kind enough to dance naked *before* lunch, so people didn't have to be too ill. :0) My point is pretty straight forward, imo. Others seem to have registered it. If you are confused perhaps reread my posts again trying not to make assumptions (impossible, but the effort may help). I doubt I could be clearer. PS: I am only referring to emperors who think they are clothed or present themselves as clothed and are not...and it is a figurative statement, not literal. Edited February 27, 2017 by Calm
Recommended Posts