Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning For Bill: Sphere Music?

Bill,

Starting a separate thread, to keep things tidy!

Something is puzzling to me, and that is your constant use of the phrase "Music of the Spheres". Do you differentiate between a tuning, a 'chord' (multiple pitches sounding simultaneously), and a 'music'. I ask this in seriousness, for this reason: while I can understand that planets may have relationships between their distances or their orbits, and I could see this translating into either a tuning or a chord (if even a slightly changing one), I have a hard time grasping how this is 'music'.

Please bear in mind that it may be mostly a function of language (as in my post -

/tuning/topicId_39746.html#39779

- entitled Mr. Natural) being difficult when one's discussions enter "multi-disciplinary" mode! After all, isn't the term "music of the spheres" also appropriated by poets, playrights, and other artists?

If I have a better idea of how you view your data as "music", it will help me (and others, I imagine) to guide you in your quest for new insights.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com>

From: "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
Date: Sun Oct 20, 2002 8:14 pm
Subject: For Bill: Sphere Music?
Bill,

Starting a separate thread, to keep things tidy!

Something is puzzling to me, and that is your constant use of the phrase "Music
of the Spheres". Do you differentiate between a tuning, a 'chord' (multiple
pitches sounding simultaneously), and a 'music'. I ask this in seriousness, for
this reason: while I can understand that planets may have relationships between
their distances or their orbits, and I could see this translating into either a
tuning or a chord (if even a slightly changing one), I have a hard time
grasping how this is 'music'.

Please bear in mind that it may be mostly a function of language (as in my post
-

/tuning/topicId_39746.html#39779

- entitled Mr. Natural) being difficult when one's discussions enter
"multi-disciplinary" mode! After all, isn't the term "music of the spheres"
also appropriated by poets, playrights, and other artists?

If I have a better idea of how you view your data as "music", it will help me
(and others, I imagine) to guide you in your quest for new insights.

Cheers,
Jon

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why, Jon, thank you for caring to respond.

You know recently Margo and Joe Monzo posted about music theory 2:3:4 and Pythagoras,
and therein lies my concern. You know Guy Murchie wrote a book called MUSIC OF THE
SPHERES. And I am sure you know the CONTENT of that book, in which he showed
relationships, from his point of view, between the solar-planetary system and musical
numbers. Now: I have stated, and will repeat: I have friends who are musicians,
and will never understand music like you musicologists. But, you can understand
something I cannot, and both of us can arrive on the same "common ground" and
communicate. We cannot dispute that Pythagoras already knew that six-sided stones,
green, were emeralds, and eight-sided stones, clear, were diamonds. First the MATH,
and then the PHYSICS, or shall we say, physical explanation, taking Aristotle's
definition in mind, came after the MATH was percieved.

Joe Monzo has a Pythagoras page. Pythagoras, supposedly, created the Pythagorean
Theory of the 2,3,5 triangle and all kinds of other theories about numbers. Joe's
page of Pythagoras speaks to you musicologists in ways it does not speak to me.
It is about musical strings that sing! Can you relate to that? Because that
is HOW Pythagoras explained it, seeing the distances in a series of numbers,
whether planets or notes, they FELL at nautral numbers as Margo recently wrote.
Now: I admit there are variant tunings, but we also know there ARE some tunings
which are CLOSE to NAUTRAL WHOLE NUMBERS. You all know this much better than I.
But Pythagoras supposedly SAW in the spacing of the planets, which I believe he
saw as "octaval" distances, remembering, only the visible planets were visible
to him, the same spacing in certain scales in music called octaves. Now, if you
look at the MEAN data of the planets, and pick their closest IDEAL oribtal "natural"
numbers, Sun 0, Mercury 1, Venus 2, Earth 3, Mars 4, etc., well, lo! and behold!
Pythagoras APPEARS to be correct, and as Plato wrote, the REALITY does shadow
the IDEAL. Now: it was Pythagoras who expressed it METAPHORICALLY as the planets
sing [shall we say they were "knotted" like a quipu at certain junctures in a string?]!
I say quipu advisedly. A "quipu" is a knotted string which based on the arrangement
of the knots, their distances from each other, etc., actually communicated a message.
Thus, a knotted string or a series of notes or a series of planets can be seen as
a message. In other words, I agree with Pythagoras that a knotted string can sing!
Think of it as DNA or RNA--or note that if I write: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, someone will say,
hey, that is BLANK in numbering system BLANK, etc. And if I write: 2:3:4, musicologist
have heart spasms, Margo thinking of the 1300s, and Joe Monzo thinking of Pythagoras,
whereas a couch potato might go, "Huh?" The quipu sings to those who see the MATH!

If Pythagoras were here, I think he would say, knowing of the newly discovered planets,
and projecting the IDEAL based on their MEANS, that to PLAY the CHORD one must hit
all the O, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. notes, which I GUESSED were C notes and 2 Fs. I still
cannot get an answer or a better guess. For all I know they may be natural F# and
Fb or Gb. But then I do not know if they are natural anymore than I know that C is
a natural note. But really, Jon, it is the MATH underlying this all that fascinates
me. And I guess, if it fascinates Margo, and Joe Monzo, then it ought to fascinate
ALL musicologists, particularly those who are TUNING and doing ADVANCED TUNING.
Now, does that help? I am trying as hard as I can to be clear and precise with
words I could not master in musicology with twenty more years studying, and I am
too old to give it that time as the good Lord probably will not grand me that many.
So: can we get THERE [to an understanding] from HERE?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bill Arnold
billarnoldfla@yahoo.com
http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm
Independent Scholar
Independent Scholar, Modern Language Association
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is magic in the web" Shakespeare (Othello, Act 3, Scene 4)
-------------------------------------------------------------------

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

Bill,

I need to correct you on a couple of things (kindly, though!)

--- In tuning@y..., Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@y...> wrote:
> Why, Jon, thank you for caring to respond.

Oh, sure! I happen to be a sucker for passion, and you seem passionately involved in your 'quest'.

> You know Guy Murchie wrote a book called MUSIC OF THE SPHERES.

From your posts, yes.

> And I am sure you know the CONTENT of that book

I absolutely *do not*. I have never read it nor know even the most gross detail about it's contents, save what references you have made in passing, which never seemed close enough to my knowledge base to get my hands around.

> Now: I have stated, and will repeat: I have friends who are
> musicians, and will never understand music like you musicologists.

Whoa. Stop right there.

I am NOT a musicologist, and you must be quite careful to make assumptions like that on this list - it is a large and varied collection. I am a practicing, professional musician, and have been performing for over 30 years. My interest in tuning comes from a long associated with the composer Harry Partch and his works.

I am NOT a musicologist.

> Joe's page of Pythagoras speaks to you musicologists in ways it
> does not speak to me.

I very frequently find Joe's pages to be about as transparent as my shower doors, which (thankfully) spare the world from viewing me in the altogether.

[snip long Pythagorian explanation...]

> Thus, a knotted string or a series of notes or a series of planets
> can be seen as a message. In other words, I agree with Pythagoras
> that a knotted string can sing!

Fine. A static arrangement such as this is far from my view of music, unless I narrow down to what would actually be considered conceptual performance. If one wants to call this music, they may. I happen to still consider it relationships, or a tuning, or maybe a harmonization. And only if I were to feel poetic (with a license in my wallet) would I consider the orbits of the planets 'music'.

The entire gang at celetial-tuning would probably disagree, apoplectically.

> But really, Jon, it is the MATH underlying this all that
> fascinates me. And I guess, if it fascinates Margo, and Joe
> Monzo, then it ought to fascinate ALL musicologists, particularly
> those who are TUNING and doing ADVANCED TUNING.

Wrong. Not all tuning people are mathematicians, not all musicological tuning people are mathematicians, etc. I happen to be severely stunted in that area, but I thank good people on the list like Paul and Gene and Dave K. for giving me a greater understanding of how one can feel *exactly* as you do.

> Now, does that help? I am trying as hard as I can to be clear and
> precise with words I could not master in musicology with twenty
> more years studying

Yes, you are doing fine. I have a better understanding of your position, and also it makes clear that I may not have much more in the way of helping you. But stick with the list, focus your questions (probably one or two per message would yield greater reponses), and just don't get discouraged if everyone doesn't see it the same way. The biggest thing to remember: there are many interests on this list - math, musicians, tuning fans, world musics, etc.

> So: can we get THERE [to an understanding] from HERE?

Probably, so long as you accept the possibility that there isn't too much more to it!

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@juno.com>

🔗Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com>

My remarks, are below between the +++++++++++++lines
as such
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
Date: Mon Oct 21, 2002 2:59 am
Subject: Re: For Bill: Sphere Music?
Bill,

I need to correct you on a couple of things (kindly, though!)

--- In tuning@y..., Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@y...> wrote:

> Now: I have stated, and will repeat: I have friends who are
> musicians, and will never understand music like you musicologists.

Jon wrote:
Whoa. Stop right there.
I am NOT a musicologist, and you must be quite careful to make assumptions like
that on this list - it is a large and varied collection. I am a practicing,
professional musician, and have been performing for over 30 years. My interest
in tuning comes from a long associated with the composer Harry Partch and his
works.
I am NOT a musicologist.
Cheers,
Jon

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
OK: Jon, have I been calling you Joe, too? Sorry about that.
But, Jon, you ARE a musicologist, and I can prove it. Watch.
Music + ology + ist
translates etymologically
into
Music +study of +one who does

musicology [from THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE]
IS:
"The historical and scientific study of music."

PS: said "kindly"
PPSS also said "kindly:" The above definition data is FACT, and I have only drawn a
CONCLUSION
based on the messages on these boards that ALL members study the history and science
of music herein, and no
VALUE JUDGEMENT
has been made as to who is a Good musicologist
and who is a Bad musicologist, thus, I stand on the conculsion Jon Szanto, et al.,
on Tuning are musicologists.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_39806.html#39830

> Bill,
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@y...> wrote:
> > thus, I stand on the conculsion Jon Szanto, et al., on Tuning are
> > musicologists.
>
> OK, I can accept that. Just so long as everyone is aware what a
pitifully lame musicologist that I am! :)
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

***If Jon is a musicologist, I'll eat my "Partch-ment..." Actually,
though, he may be a "partched" scholar...

Bill, what you have to keep in mind is that music is divided into
many teeny tiny little (bikini) specialities.

For example, if you go for a PhD or DMA you must pass a *history*
prelim. *I* had to pass one. It was the *worst* part for me, and I
had to type *everything* out in outline form in order to remember it!

However, the *theory* prelim was no problem... so we all have our
little strengths and weaknesses within the field.

Generally speaking, *practicing* musicians and composers tend to lean
more toward the *theory* end rather than the *history* end.

Composer Otto Luening had a sarcastic thing to say about
musicology: "It's 'words without song...'" (There's a famous set ot
piano pieces by Mendelssohn, Bill, that's are called "Songs Without
Words." This is an *in* joke, obviously...)

Joe Pehrson