My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Why music?

Bloke

Premium Member
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 :p
 

hanzosbm

Premium Member
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 :p
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...

Over the Thanksgiving holiday my brothers invited me out deer hunting with them. It had been a long time, but I figured why not. As we get to the farm and split up to find our own respective positions, I found myself (as one typically does while hunting) just observing nature on a cold Kentucky morning as the sun was getting ready to rise. It was obviously a beautiful sight, and while a dumb atheist might deny it, one would be hard pressed to not see the hand of the divine in it. Now, if one was asked to describe it, what language would they use? I could probably write a book just on that morning talking around the cold I felt and the first rays of the day filtering through the grey blanket of rain coming down. I'm sure a meteorologist could tell you about the air pressures causing the temperatures to drop and the rain to fall just after sun up. A geologist could tell you all about why the ravine stretched out in front of me was formed and the hills beyond it. An astronomer could probably speak ad nauseam about the rising of the sun, the lightening of the skies, false dawn, etc. A zoologist could probably tell you why certain animals were making certain noises. From a musical perspective, you could picture it perfectly with Rossini's Morning Song. A painter could apply pigment to canvas to capture the glowing skies and barren trees. There are probably a hundred more disciplines, each speaking their own language, who could try to capture that scene. But, none of them could, because language only describes. The divine creates what is. It is holistic and complex and fleeting. We, as humans, create languages to describe the world and events around us, but that's all it is; a description. Even when art, in any form, attempts to replicate some natural thing, it always fails to do so completely.

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.
 

Bloke

Premium Member
....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.

*double like*

And it is intetesting how some famous scientists came to that very conclusion. I feel that way....
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
*double like*

And it is intetesting how some famous scientists came to that very conclusion. I feel that way....
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.
 

hanzosbm

Premium Member
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.
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.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
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.
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.
 

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
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.
Very profound brother. Something to ponder on indeed.
 

hanzosbm

Premium Member
I'm not positive on how this fits into this conversation, but I found something today that I'd like to add. I was watching a YouTube video and in it, they compared our lives to a song. They discussed how, just as a piano has a great number of keys, so does life have a great number of variables. As a song progresses, individual notes (or groupings of notes) are played in a specific order to ultimately create a piece of music. They pointed out that if every key on the piano was suddenly slammed down at the same time as loud as possible that there would be no beauty to it. Likewise, the various, individual and unique events in our finite lives come together to make the song of our life.
I personally really liked that view on things and thought I'd share.
 

MaineMason

Registered User
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.
 

hanzosbm

Premium Member
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.
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.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
... 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.
 

MaineMason

Registered User
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.

You are quite correct, and Euclid even recognized that and he occupies a rather important place in Freemasonry. What many people who are not highly studied in music forget is that for much of its history it was a mathematical science. Palestrina and Bach, for instance. The 20th Century was a huge experiment in reducing music to its underlying science, at least as far as academic music is concerned. We must not confuse so-called "popular" music with academic music and the study of music as an academic discipline.
 

MaineMason

Registered User
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.
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.
 

MaineMason

Registered User
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.

There are subjective elements to be sure. I find it interesting that there seems to be quite some hostility to music in the Lodge among some Brethren.
 

hanzosbm

Premium Member
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 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.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
Music seems to me to be greater than the sum of its parts.

It's parts are mathematical. It's result is emotional. Music is the path of mathematics into the soul of the savage beast that is the rough ashlar.

Fear of change...

Fear of doing that which was always the standard but that was lost locally. The same as business meetings in the EA degree.

Blessed is the lodge that has a musician.
 

MaineMason

Registered User
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 suppose it depends upon what you mean by "modern" and what you mean by "music". I still hold that music is both art and science. As a composer, in order to arrange those various harmonics, as you put it, I must use proportion and mathematics. I must choose a meter (or several) for my music, and divide notes accordingly. Creating an effective composition of course requires considerable artistic talent however as my undergraduate mentor, Stanley Hollingsworth used to say, "Flair and talent are not enough; you must have CRAFT", and by "craft" he meant disciplined and thorough-going understanding of the theoretical aspect of the craft of composition. 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.
 

MaineMason

Registered User
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.

Furtwangler was an odd man, and had an extremely unusual style of conducting (you can see him on YouTube). However, the era of conductor as dictator ended years ago. I suspect Bernstein and Solti were among the last of that 19th century inspired approach. When I conduct orchestras and choirs, which I have done quite frequently, I take a very different and more collegial approach as do most conductors today. As for an orchestra warming up it is actually very necessary though it can certainly sound like discord. Actual tuning, traditionally led by the first oboist and then the concertmaster (first violinist) focuses on bringing all tunable instruments to a particular Herz frequency, in the US, typically 440, the "A" above middle "C". Again, more science!
 

hanzosbm

Premium Member
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.

While I agree with this, I think that at the heart of things, it speaks to recognized style. In that, as with any kind of art, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Just as with painting, there are certain "rules" that apply to different styles and understanding them allows the medium to fit nicely into that style, but the most untrained person can still make music. Granted, that music might not be appealing to everyone, but this again brings up the subjective nature of music.
I'm still having a hard time understanding music as being in the same category as the other 6. Appreciating art is great, but the other 6 are meant to teach us about the world around us. Music, as an entirely man made phenomena, doesn't fit this pattern, so I'm struggling to understand.
 
Top