I personally believe that the work of the divine is more along the lines of simply 'what is'. Obviously, we're now moving into beliefs and philosophy pretty deeply, but what the heck...Maybe numbers are just the descriptive language of the divine. Perhaps music is too..... except heavy metal of course... that's the devils work lol
....At the end of the day, maybe the lesson we ought to learn from the study of the various arts is not knowledge from having grasped some tiny fragment of the whole, but rather humility in learning just how little knowledge we will ever actually have.
Yes, but it was long after they did the work, making every effort to stretch themselves, rather than just sit back and say, "it can never be comprehended". They did comprehend enough to make a significant difference for all involved, before they shared this humility.*double like*
And it is intetesting how some famous scientists came to that very conclusion. I feel that way....
That's exactly the point. A person can't see the big picture without first learning these things. But, upon doing so, they realize that the truly big picture is unobtainable.Yes, but it was long after they did the work, making every effort to stretch themselves, rather than just sit back and say, "it can never be comprehended". They did comprehend enough to make a significant difference for all involved, before they shared this humility.
If you studied Engineering, and advanced physics, etc., you have studied numbers in time. You might not have studied music as a "category", but you have studied its fundamentals.That's exactly the point. A person can't see the big picture without first learning these things. But, upon doing so, they realize that the truly big picture is unobtainable.
I'm by no means an expert in any field, but through my studies for my engineering degree I've had to learn differential equations, organic chemistry, advanced physics, and several other disciplines. (although music has continued to elude me) While others understand far more than I ever will, it was enough of an insight for me to grasp the enormity of it as well as to understand just how limited it really is.
Very profound brother. Something to ponder on indeed.At the end of the day, maybe the lesson we ought to learn from the study of the various arts is not knowledge from having grasped some tiny fragment of the whole, but rather humility in learning just how little knowledge we will ever actually have.
I agree with you, but what is it about music that sets it apart and includes it as one of the seven arts? Why not painting, or sculpture? Both use mathematics. The other six can be seen as a progression culminating in an (attempted) understanding of the universe. Music (not acoustics) is man-made.As a professional musician trained in composition and about to be a Lodge Organist in January, I assert that music is inherently scientific, and the way in which it works upon the brain and emotions is inherently related to proportion and science, as is, say, architecture. It certainly belongs among the liberal arts we speak of in the lectures and certainly belongs in the Lodge. The fact that historically many lodges had (and still do) have pipe organs bears this out: the way the organ produces tones is totally based on mathematical principles, as is how all other instruments and even the human voice function.
... but what is it about music that sets it apart and includes it as one of the seven arts? Why not painting, or sculpture?
Sculpture is geometry so it is covered by a previous science. Painting is three dimensional images projected onto two dimensions so it too is covered by geometry.
I get that music can be reduced to geometry by string ratios and astronomy is all about geometry. That's why Masonry counts geometry as the greatest of the list.
Not to belabor this, but let's examine the Pipe Organ, an instrument found in many old lodges. What we call 8 foot pitch is generally within the range of the human voice and those pipes vary in length based on 8 feet. 16 foot pitch covers the lower octaves,4 and 2 foot pitch much higher. Then there are what we call "mutation" stops, where overtones are added based on mathematical fomulae. Regardless of how music makes us FEEL, it is based on solid scientific principles.I agree with you, but what is it about music that sets it apart and includes it as one of the seven arts? Why not painting, or sculpture? Both use mathematics. The other six can be seen as a progression culminating in an (attempted) understanding of the universe. Music (not acoustics) is man-made.
Music seems to me to be greater than the sum of its parts.
Not only are there notes there are also tempos. I recall reading an account of maestro giving lessons to a musician, explaining that a particular tempo must be warm, and having the student practice until it was so.
Consciousness and intent may be the most important aspects of music. Compare, for example, the wartime performances by Furtwangler of Beethoven with his peacetime performances a few years later.
I find it interesting that there seems to be quite some hostility to music in the Lodge among some Brethren.
I disagree with the assertion that music is based on scientific principles. Back to my earlier post, I would say that science (namely mathematics) can be used to describe what is happening in music. Harmonics is the study of waves and could probably be classified within trigonometry. If this is what is meant by music, then I suppose that is an avenue worth consideration. However, the modern usage of the term 'music' has to do with the arrangement of those various harmonics; something that is entirely artistic.Not to belabor this, but let's examine the Pipe Organ, an instrument found in many old lodges. What we call 8 foot pitch is generally within the range of the human voice and those pipes vary in length based on 8 feet. 16 foot pitch covers the lower octaves,4 and 2 foot pitch much higher. Then there are what we call "mutation" stops, where overtones are added based on mathematical fomulae. Regardless of how music makes us FEEL, it is based on solid scientific principles.
Music seems to me to be greater than the sum of its parts.
Fear of change...
I disagree with the assertion that music is based on scientific principles. Back to my earlier post, I would say that science (namely mathematics) can be used to describe what is happening in music. Harmonics is the study of waves and could probably be classified within trigonometry. If this is what is meant by music, then I suppose that is an avenue worth consideration. However, the modern usage of the term 'music' has to do with the arrangement of those various harmonics; something that is entirely artistic.
One could just as easily name interpretative dance as one of the 7 arts because body movements are based on solid scientific principles. Yet, it is not the movement of limbs nor the plucking of a string that makes dance or music respectively. Their arrangement is based on expression.
By the way, I should've mentioned earlier, I hope that none of this is coming off as an argument. That's not the way that it is intended. Rather, I'm trying to use discussion (including playing the devil's advocate) to inspire thought.
I recall an incident recounted by a member of the Berlin Philharmonic. The orchestra was tuning up and producing the usual discordant noise when suddenly the sounds became harmonious.
He looked around to see what was happening, and there at the back of the auditorium the conductor had stepped through the door. Just the presence of the conductor was sufficient to change the tunings from discord to harmony.
The conductor was Furtwangler.
Those who have studied both 15-16 century counterpoint (say, according to Fux's "Gradus ad Parnassum") and 18th century fugue as well as harmony, serial techniques and dodecaphonic theory--which would apply to every conservatory or university trained composer and to some extent or another instrumentalists and vocalists--are well aware that the art in composition lies in knowing how to manipulate the scientific principles which underlie Western music.