Jimmy and his japanese friend. ([info]jimmyandfriend) wrote,
@ 2007-11-17 15:51:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:thoughts on music

Music as a Means to a Deeper Understanding of Reality: Part One, Introduction
"[M]usic, like life, consists of the perpetual creation and spinning out of longings on which we are stretched as on a rack, unable ever to accept where we are as a resting place until only the complete cessation of everything - the end of the piece as a whole, or the end of the individual's life - brings with it a cessation of unsatisfiable longing."
-Byran Magee, summarizing Arthur Schopenhauer's philosophy of music in "The Tristan Chord: Wagner and Philosophy"

    Jimmy here. There is a symbology in music yet to be harnessed and understood fully. We study the art/science theory of it which has been generously handed to us, crafted and exacted to a seeming perfection; yet to one unfamiliar with its workings this mode of thought seems undeniably and unnecessarily obtuse. This is not to say that it is wrong. But it is to music's detriment that our current musical cosmology is so obscure.
    An analogy can be drawn here between the musical novice and the child with a toy. First, imagine a child discovering the intricacy and depth of color in the natural world that surrounds him, the infinite possibility of variation within, for instance, a leaf. Now, consider giving that child, instead, a palette of 6 or 7 colors, limiting his scope and even going farther to say that he ought to only use certain color combinations - that blue and red is the most preferable, even calling it "perfect". By limiting this potential the child views color in a narrow and taboo-ridden way.
    But of course this phenomenon in music is not merely a result of bad parenting, but rather a stagnant adherence to a limiting tradition. Hence it is not considered strange to offer a child the palette of a guitar, based on a primary color combination of perfect fifths, as well as a major third, and ask him to draw a rainbow.
    Again, this mode of thought to which we're accustomed is not wrong, and indeed rainbows can be drawn on a guitar, but the confusion and difficulty resulting from such a limited, blocky outlook is bewildering to a student - the commonality and mundaneness of the western layman's musical output and intake is a testament to this: teach one words and you will get sentences; teach one language and you will get poetry.
    In music, this difference is both subtle and glaringly obvious. In our current scheme, primary colors (such as C major and G major) are constantly in cooperation. The most common and impressive option outside of this is merely a reaction against it (such as too-eager Stravinsky's F#maj/Cmaj histrionics) rather than a development based on a deeper understanding of tonal relationships.
    Without yet investigating "western" music's (arguably) wisest pioneer of this deeper understanding - Richard Wagner - other, more basic examples can be found in venues unfettered by our limited scope. For instance, the tribes of Central Africa and other areas, who freely sing the forest, in intervalic and rhythmic complexity outside of any limitation.



Or, more familiarly, Indian music, whose ragas and polyrhythms have always held a mystical and rainbow-like quality to our tamed ears (to say nothing of their finer subdivision of tone itself). Thus, attempts of Indian music to bend to the limitations of the "western" mode of thought inevitably come out blocky and comical, as if a master painter were displaying his blue and red drawing of a stick figure to his less astute colleagues, awaiting their approval.
    In order to transcend these limitations, we must think of tone and music as more than a set of given variables which we are to learn by rote and then parrot with small variations in style or character. Instead, the task of anyone interested in harnessing the full potential of music is to investigate the deep significance of the relationship between tones. It is a significance which is at the roots of the nature of reality and therefore ought not be exclusively shared in academic circles and concert halls. Once the exclusive, obscure, at times elitist veneer of common music theory is peeled away, we see that music - in its methods and execution - is a door to a deeper understanding of reality.
    One key to this door is to be found in the calendric system of the Mayan civilization. I want to write more about that in a later entry. This will be all for now.

-Jimmy




(Post a new comment)


[info]jimmyandfriend
2007-11-17 11:24 pm UTC (link)
I understand your analogy of telling a kid with a paint brush that certain color combinations are the right ones. Of course he'll internalize that stuff and begin to produce art according to the model of beauty you've taught him.

But these days I don't think it's even necessarily such an active process of being told "You must use THESE colors, these ones are the perfect ones" that causes the problem.

For the most part, the days of nuns slapping our hands with a ruler to straighten out our handwriting are over. In fact, the same kinds of reactionary forces you bring up with the Stravinsky example created an opposite current of thought in education a while ago. And so when we were growing up there was a lot of stuff about us being unique and how there's no one else like us --- yes that's all true, but why hasn't a generation of kids hearing this stuff created an explosion of originality in the way we think and the way we create? (Maybe it has and someone can prove me wrong, but I haven't noticed it.) Especially when I was a teenager it staggered me how willing people were to be entirely unoriginal, satisfied to repeat the friggin sound bytes of popular culture.

So what's the deal? A couple things I think. First of all, the mainstream of ideas and music and art moves slowly. It's a business model -- because pop culture is a business -- that doesn't really need to move too fast. The entire music industry could subsist indefinitely on the same three chords if it wanted to. Of course, the mainstream does from time to time decide to incorporate "fringe" elements that are showing potential. And so a bunch of white boys start to approximate "jazz music" in a way that's palatable to the general public and stuff like that. (Eventually, by the way, the real thing will become palatable and the white boy approximation of it will be viewed as phony and squeezed out of the mainstream.)

Anyway, sometimes there are geniuses with new ideas, and their genius is so influential that they either have to be ignored or the entire business model has to change to allow some room for them. Your example of Wagner is good, I think, because how many people can really even comprehend how much of a genius that guy was? Well, thank god for people like Wagner, because it takes the burden of innovation off us. They're martyrs who come to earth to innovate because we're too lazy or talentless to do it ourselves; they die for our sins.

And they really do die, because we kill them with those little pre-packaged phrases -- "ahead of his time" and all that. It's always seemed to me that the implication of saying that someone in the past was "ahead of his time" is that today we must live in a 2007 world where we've finally realized and perfected the things that person hinted at all those years ago, and so from our advanced modern perspective we smile knowingly at the cute little baby-steps they made. If this were the case with someone like Wagner, imagine what stuff we'd be hearing on the radio. But these people are never ahead of their time because their time never comes.

So it moves slowly, and most of the stuff we're exposed to sucks my hard teenage cock. But back to us all being unique and wonderful. We are, but it doesn't matter because most of us just want to be like each other. Even without some old nun beating you up, you'll be kept more or less in line by some of the implicit requirements of society like not to show too much passion for anything, knowing all of the latest catch phrases, wearing the latest styles, and so on.

So anyway, Jumpy, I think the kind of place we live in is going to inform most people's notions of what music and art and things ought to be, even if people aren't directly told "this is what beauty is, got it? now go copy it". We might be approaching a new kind of awakening of innovation though, and maybe that's what you were going to get into with the Mayan stuff, so I'll let you do that.

But I think that since you can individually recognize this problem, and since you have the talent to individually solve it in your own terms, I think you can be a Wagner in your own time and that's probably enough for now. -JJF

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]jimmyandfriend
2007-11-19 10:08 pm UTC (link)
Wow I want to respond to all of it! What a great noggin you have Jap!

First of all, I definitely think we're in the middle of an awakening on a scale we've never known before.

"why hasn't a generation of kids hearing this stuff created an explosion of originality in the way we think and the way we create?"

There is a bustling of creation but any real gem within it has its place underground right now unfortunately. But it is on its way up for sure. All of this has to do partly with the fact that the world still moves within the capatalistic framework you're alluding to - a materialistic one in which innovation takes a backseat to profit.

Of course this model is doomed to fail, and you don't have to be an anarchist to think so: the farmer who depends on one or two crops for a whole season is bound to go hungry, and innovation and variety are the most healthy environments in which any kind of life can grow. And those who love life - of whom there is a vast majority in this generation - will soon shed this worn out skin. As we learn to live a simpler lifestyle without all the material we've come to depend on - perhaps by virtue of necessity (the mother of invention) - we'll learn the importance of creativity over productivity.

I love what you say about that damned phrase "ahead of his time". It reminds me of Sean Lennon asking Brian Wilson about the song, "I Guess I Just Wasn't Made For These Times" - whether he was meant to live before or after his time period. In reality innovators aren't ahead or behind, of course, but they're outside of time - because that's where the seed of creation is. This also gives a deeper and truer meaning to the term "timeless" - not that it will last forever, but that it comes from foreverness.

And the martyr analogy isn't far-fetched; Jesus, after all, was an innovator.

"Well, thank god for people like Wagner, because it takes the burden of innovation off us. They're martyrs who come to earth to innovate because we're too lazy or talentless to do it ourselves; they die for our sins."

It reminds me of something in the Gospel of Thomas:

Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.
When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

Christ - the state of being in which creation is not seen as something people do, but rather a thing happening in every moment of life - is in you and me and Wagner and everybody. And Christ's death isn't that of a hobo on a crucifix, but of a climax within a piece of music. The music goes on, but that gorgeous moment must be left behind and lost in a sea of tonal descent, in order to be able to look back at the moment in context.

I hope that made sense.

Anyway, thank you much for the compliment at the end - I think that's basically what I'm trying to say: we all have the potential to be the Wagner of our generation. And maybe we can't all be Jesus, but we can all attain that state of "Christ". And we will, and it will be "rapturous". =)

-Jimmy

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]princemononoke
2007-11-19 08:15 am UTC (link)
Do you think it'd feasible to create a way of writing music that accounts for the infinite possibilities, or is that purely theoretical?

It might be interesting to, before pounding in the primary colors, ask kids to develop their own way of accounting for the sounds and see what they come up with.



There are some parallels between this post and things I've thought about dealing with Linguistics before. Infants beginning to learn their first language are somewhat equivalent to the students of music handed down the traditional rules. In the case of learning a language though, rules aren't bad at all - they are essential, even, to communication. However as certain languages become dominant and others die out, we lose a bit of the great variation that language holds. Luckily with language unlike music, everyone (at least every baby) has the potential to be a Wagner and innovate their own system I think.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]jimmyandfriend
2007-11-19 03:23 pm UTC (link)
I definitely think that that's feasible and that's what I want to write about, my thoughts on that - I just meant this as an introduction.

I think music does share that quality with language - that every baby has equal potential to understand and express it in his/her own way. It's just that the system in which we've been indoctrinated can't contain music's full potential under its umbrella.

Linguistics is a great comparison, it's the way we ought to think of a science of music: not a set of ground rules, but a study of how its fundamental aspects have been emphasized and developed over time by all cultures and individuals. I definitely think that's possible to achieve with music, even if only in one's personal outlook on the topic, regardless of how it stagnates in theory textbooks.

-Jimmy

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]princemononoke
2007-11-19 10:37 pm UTC (link)
I like the sound of that - a science of music. Do you think maybe the issue is that most people, even musicians, don't care to think of it as a science? They might get interested in one particular genre and its set of rules and not feel inclined to step back and look at things more broadly?

I notice the same thing with language. People are willing and able to learn the language(s) directly relevant to their life, but much fewer study any others, or even attempt to study the science of language in general. I can't really blame them for not wanting to, but it does make my job difficult sometimes.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]jimmyandfriend
2007-11-20 01:56 am UTC (link)
Yeah I think that's what frustrates me about. In music, people tend to turn a blind eye to the overarching ideas, and sacrifice them for a much simpler - albeit great - expression than they could ideally reach. Perhaps, linguistically, "Finnegan's Wake" is a piece of literature which encompasses the broader perspective - thinking of limitless possibility rather than a set of rules.

And I guess I can't blame those who choose not to see that greater picture either (I can't understand any one page of that book). But one would think that a musician or poet (for example) would want to fully understand the nature of the thing he's working with.

Maybe our heads aren't big enough to take in all these languages and ideas yet. But maybe they will be someday. I hope so, that'd be nice.

-Jimmy

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]joentdothat
2007-11-24 01:22 am UTC (link)
"It is possible to draw rainbows on guitars."

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…