# Tonality Is God



## millionrainbows

It's possible to construe that the system of tonality itself, based on an hierarchy of sonance in relation to a single tonic note, as the harmonics of a fundamental note relate, is a "sacred" concept, since it relates every diverse harmonic function to a tonic, which becomes the "great note,' metaphorically representing God, "the one." These harmonic functions of Western tonality are based on the division of the octave into 12 notes, which was derived from Pythagoras' (imperfect) cycling of the 2:3 perfect fifth, with its inverted counterpart, the 4:5 perfect fourth.

Fifths are a value of 7 semitones, and fourths are 5 semitones. These are the only two intervals which do not coincide _within_ the octave or divide it evenly until many cycles of projection are completed; in the case of fifths, 12 x 7 = 84, and for fourths this is 12 x 5 = 60. These are the main harmonic stations of traditional tonality, which is based on root movement by fifths as being most closely related.

12 is not divisible by either of these intervals, so an 'outside the octave' common denominator must be used. This makes these intervals "outgoing" by nature.

The other basic intervals (of the 6 possible basic intervals, not counting inversional counterparts) can be divided into 12:
1 (m2)
2 (M2)
3 (m3)
4 (M3)
6 (tritone)

These are intervals which coincide in their cycles or projections _within_ the octave, and divide it symmetrically, so I call these "inward-going" intervals.

Conversely, systems which are not tonal (based on harmonic models), but use local tone-centers and small divisions of the octave (geometric systems), like Bartok and most modern systems which diverge from harmonic-based hierarchies, are "inner-directed."

These two different systems represent what I have earlier called *"Western"* (outward-directed, objective), and *"Eastern"* (inward-directed, subjective).

If we continue to stretch this metaphor, we can see that each system represents a different way of conceiving a religious system, or _approach to the sacred.
_
_The Western represents an objective,_ outer system which must be approached in a receptive (and many times literal) belief in a God 'out there' which is part of the objective scheme of things. If anything, we are merely small extensions of this great oneness, if that. Until we establish a connection, we are separated.

_The Eastern represents a 'going within,' _a diametric reversal, where we are connected internally with the sacred. For me, this is a more inclusive model, as every being is assumed to have an inner connection with the sacred, with no recognition of external symbols necessary. For me, this precludes the establishment of 'objective' belief systems of religion.

On a number line, these two approaches, the inner and outer, can be seen as two directions to infinity (God): The Western going to the right, in ever-increasing numbers, from 1 into infinity; The Eastern going to the left, from 1 towards zero, in ever-decreasing degrees of fractions.

Both are based on the starting point of "1," the big note, or the octave.

Taking this metaphor further, tonality can be seen as the embodiment of a Newtonian universe, a universe based on "gravity" and in keeping with a church-based view of Man, that God is the center of all things.

Atonality, or serialism, can be metaphorically seen as the dissolution of the Newtonian universe, and of gravity, into a relativistic, Einsteinian universe, in which Man is insignificant by comparison to the stars. Historically, this reflects the diminishing power of the church, ans increasing secularism and a new scientific realism which now pervades.


----------



## Blake

Interesting. I shall not opine until it has marinated justly.


----------



## Taggart

Fascinating post. 

I don't accept the Eastern \ Western or inner \ outer dichotomy except as reflecting different approaches to spirituality - the contemplative \ active dichotomy which reflects the Christian belief that God is out there but his life (of grace) is within us.

Neither do I accept that atonality or serialism represents the dissolution of the Newtonian universe rather it represents a dissatisfaction with the increasingly formal structures of counterpoint and harmony much as Gödel and Turing showed that mathematics and computing had become so complex as to be unprovable. Even within scientific realism there is room for the divine. As Einstein said - God does not play dice - a comment on aleatory music perhaps? We can also see this in the work of Musica Facta on syntonic temperament where the Pythagorean tuning is one among many just as Euclidean Geometry is also one among many.

I wouldn't consider that composers who have moved away from tonality whether into modes or into folk themes are inner directed or subjective. Vaughan Williams and others of the English folk song revival are focused on the outward reality of the English folk culture.


----------



## david johnson

I'm thinking the Almighty enjoys His music in a different manner.


----------



## joen_cph

She probably does.


----------



## Piwikiwi

I think you're imposing meaning on something that has no meaning. Christ wasn't even born when Pythogoras invented the his tuning.


----------



## science

I've seen the same associations made to suggest that music since Schoenberg has sucked because it was implicitly atheistic. With either spin, I suspect hyperactive pattern recognition. 

What would, say, Richard Taruskin say of this analysis? Or Bruno Nettl? I'll take it seriously when I find out that they do.


----------



## science

Taggart said:


> I don't accept the Eastern \ Western ... dichotomy


This is crucial. I wouldn't have expected in 2014 to run into this colonialist reduction of half the globe's people to stereotypes of sub-rationality. Anyone who believes this stuff about the mystical Eastern mind needs to spend a few months abroad - and not in places where people will tell him anything he wants to hear in exchange for cash.


----------



## Guest

joen_cph said:


> She probably does.


If she exists.


----------



## joen_cph

gog said:


> If she exists.


My point too.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> This is crucial. I wouldn't have expected in 2014 to run into this colonialist reduction of half the globe's people to stereotypes of sub-rationality. Anyone who believes this stuff about the mystical Eastern mind needs to spend a few months abroad - and not in places where people will tell him anything he wants to hear in exchange for cash.


It's not so much about location as a terminology for a mindset. There are plenty of westerners with 'eastern' thought and vice-versa. Don't give the terms too much weight. It's simply pointing to a method of investigation.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> It's not so much about location as a terminology for a mindset. There are plenty of westerners with 'eastern' thought and vice-versa. Don't give the terms too much weight. It's simply pointing to a method of investigation.


Use the dichotomies like inward/outward or spiritual/material or mystical/rational all you want. I probably won't have much of an objection... certainly not any very strong one... But this looks like a step toward the admission that using them to stereotype billions of people is a mistake. So that encourages me.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> Use the dichotomies like inward/outward or spiritual/material or mystical/rational all you want.


_Thanks, I will._



science said:


> I probably won't have much of an objection... certainly not any very strong one... But this looks like a step toward the admission that using them to stereotype billions of people is a mistake.


_The "inner-directed" intervals (m2, M2, m3, M3, tritone) and "outer-directed" intervals (P5, P4) all have literal meanings, in terms of their relation to the octave, and how they are recursive either within the octave, or outside the octave.

Here's another stereotype: Western tonality is based on the 'outward projecting' intervals of fourths and fifths, which, as stations of root movement, go "outside" the octave into more and more distant key areas (the familiar V-I cycle of C-G-D-A-E-B-F#-C#).

This can be construed to metaphorically embody the conquering, dominating Western colonial mindset (which would include Spain, France, Germany, and Britain), which feels compelled to constantly 'modulate' or conquer new harmonic territory (invade and dominate foreign countries).

The inner-directed intervals are content to stay within smaller areas of local tonality._


----------



## Taggart

I've edited or removed some posts as they focused negatively on members. Let's try to refocus on the contents of people's posts instead. Please try and be less aggressive.


----------



## Xaltotun

When I read something like this, someone using terms like "Western" and "Eastern" in this manner, I never think that it refers to actual, living people. It's all metaphysical to me, completely unconnected to actual present reality and I'm sure that MR intended it that way.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> Use the dichotomies like inward/outward or spiritual/material or mystical/rational all you want. I probably won't have much of an objection... certainly not any very strong one... But this looks like a step toward the admission that using them to stereotype billions of people is a mistake. So that encourages me.


Inward/outward does take away the chance for misinterpretation. Some people are much more literal than others, as we've discovered. I knew exactly what he meant.


----------



## Kazaman

Could you explain just what you're trying to get at in simpler terms? From what I see you're mixing around some straightforward group theory (implicitly, anyhow; the quotient groups of Z/12Z and some of their properties) with some Pythagorean mysticism, some sort of odd usage of the field dependence/field independence concept from psychology, and some theological musings to top it all off. It's not really making much sense to me, I have to say.


----------



## amfortas

Xaltotun said:


> When I read something like this, someone using terms like "Western" and "Eastern" in this manner, I never think that it refers to actual, living people. It's all metaphysical to me, completely unconnected to actual present reality and I'm sure that MR intended it that way.


Maybe not connected to present reality, but apparently to past:



millionrainbows said:


> Western tonality . . . can be construed to metaphorically embody the conquering, dominating Western colonial mindset (which would include Spain, France, Germany, and Britain), which feels compelled to constantly 'modulate' or conquer new harmonic territory (invade and dominate foreign countries).


----------



## Vaneyes

If Tonality is God, then Atonality must be the Devil...purveyor of Humanism.:devil:


----------



## brotagonist

^ Thanks for saying it, Vaneyes  I've been wanting to say that all day :lol: I just didn't have the energy to go into battle


----------



## Blake

Some say even the devil is god's play....


----------



## Guest

This thread title reminds me of Kagel's Sankt-Bach-Passion - a parody of the musical deification of J.S. Bach and a simultaneous commentary on the godless state of Europe at the time.

Good work.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Umm... I think you are taking too seriously certain properties of 12-tone temperament (not necessarily equal temperament, but some kind of temperament system that allows you to play in different keys whether white or black notes). The fact that twelve fifths circle around from C back to C is solely a feature of our western chromatic scale. It isn't even strictly true from a just intonation standpoint.

You know, in 19-tone temperament (which if not for historical accident could have been western music's standard) no interval neatly divides the octave, for example you need to stack 19 major thirds in order to get from C back to C. This feature of 19 tones is just an artifact of using 19 tones, nothing fundamental. And the feature that 3 major thirds give an octave in 12 tones is also an artifact.


----------



## millionrainbows

SeptimalTritone said:


> Umm... I think you are taking too seriously certain properties of 12-tone temperament (not necessarily equal temperament, but some kind of temperament system that allows you to play in different keys whether white or black notes). The fact that twelve fifths circle around from C back to C _*(No, they don't; this is called the Pythagoran comma-Ed.)*_ is solely a feature of our western chromatic scale. _*(Yeah, that's where "12" came from-Ed.) *_It isn't even strictly true from a just intonation standpoint.
> 
> You know, in 19-tone temperament (which if not for historical accident could have been western music's standard) no interval neatly divides the octave _*(I assume you mean "divide the octave in half equally"...that's because 19 is an odd number and can't be divided evenly; 12 can.-Ed.) *_for example you need to stack 19 major thirds in order to get from C back to C. This feature of 19 tones is just an artifact of using 19 tones, nothing fundamental. And the feature that 3 major thirds give an octave in 12 tones is also an artifact. _*(because 4x3=12.-Ed.)*_


19-tone is an equal temperament. It's arbitrary, in that it is a *numerical* division rather than one based on small number ratios.

When Pythagoras stacked his 3:2 fifths, he wanted to preserve the acoustic purity of the interval, as well as preserving the octave. He stopped at 12 because the coincidence was so close; but not perfect, as it will never be. An octave cannot be evenly divided (acoustically) using small-ratio intervals. With the compromise of arithmetic and the 12-division, it can (at the tritone).

Read my blogs; you are confusing arithmetic with ratios.


----------



## millionrainbows

Vesuvius said:


> Some say even the devil is god's play....


The Church doctrine of privatio boni says that 'evil' is simply the absence of good. In this sense, atonality and serialism are 'evil' only insofar as they embody a state in which a tonal center is absent. In this sense, they are a 'diseased' form of music, in that for a disease or virus to exist, it must have a 'host' to feed on.

In this view, without tonality, atonality would not exist, and as such, atonality and serialism do not exist except as 'absenses' of healthy, tonal musical processes. In this sense, atonality is an 'unnatural' state of music, in that it removes music from its aural, sensually-based, and Human roots.

Therefore, since in this view atonality is a deficient form of 'healthy,' tonal, God-centered music, in order for it to exist as anything other than an 'absence,' we must create a new category for serialism.

Let's call it 'structural sound' and remove it from 'music' altogether.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> The Church doctrine of privatio boni says that 'evil' is simply the absence of good. In this sense, atonality and serialism are 'evil' only insofar as they embody a state in which a tonal center is absent. In this sense, they are a 'diseased' form of music, in that for a disease or virus to exist, it must have a 'host' to feed on.
> 
> In this view, without tonality, atonality would not exist, and as such, atonality and serialism do not exist except as 'absenses' of healthy, tonal musical processes. In this sense, atonality is an 'unnatural' state of music, in that it removes music from its aural, sensually-based, and Human roots.
> 
> Therefore, since in this view atonality is a deficient form of 'healthy,' tonal, God-centered music, in order for it to exist as anything other than an 'absence,' we must create a new category for serialism.
> 
> Let's call it 'structural sound' and remove it from 'music' altogether.


Are you advancing this as _your _beliefs about music or musing on someone else's? I'd suggest either way that the use of terms such as 'deficient' or 'diseased', 'natural' or 'unnatural', 'good' and 'evil' is inappropriate.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> The Church doctrine of privatio boni says that 'evil' is simply the absence of good. In this sense, atonality and serialism are 'evil' only insofar as they embody a state in which a tonal center is absent. In this sense, they are a 'diseased' form of music, in that for a disease or virus to exist, it must have a 'host' to feed on.
> 
> In this view, without tonality, atonality would not exist, and as such, atonality and serialism do not exist except as 'absenses' of healthy, tonal musical processes. In this sense, atonality is an 'unnatural' state of music, in that it removes music from its aural, sensually-based, and Human roots.
> 
> Therefore, since in this view atonality is a deficient form of 'healthy,' tonal, God-centered music, in order for it to exist as anything other than an 'absence,' we must create a new category for serialism.
> 
> Let's call it 'structural sound' and remove it from 'music' altogether.


I think you are extrapolating far too much here.


----------



## Blake

DavidA said:


> I think you are extrapolating far too much here.


I don't know why we're so serious around here. As if what's said on this forum really matters to anything. This is the place for extrapolating. For in society, all you are is just another brick in the wall.


----------



## KenOC

Vesuvius said:


> I don't know why we're so serious around here. As if what's said on this forum really matters to anything. This is the place for extrapolating. For in society, all you are is just another brick in the wall.


It's always wise to be serious when God speaks to us. And of course he speaks tonally, in C major. Well, if he's really pissed off, C minor. You really don't want to be around when that happens.


----------



## Blake

KenOC said:


> It's always wise to be serious when God speaks to us. And of course he speaks tonally, in C major. Well, if he's really pissed off, C minor. You really don't want to be around when that happens.


If there is a god as we come to think, I doubt he's even serious. This world is the divine comedy.


----------



## KenOC

Vesuvius said:


> If there is a god as we come to think, I doubt he's even serious. This world is the divine comedy.


Ooooooooh, you're in SO much trouble now!


----------



## SONNET CLV

Tonality is God?
I would have guessed "white noise". I suspect God to be more incorporative.
But since I also adhere to Buddha's definition of God -- "God both is and is not, neither is nor is not" -- I suppose He/She/It/Them could equally be "silence" ... simultaneously with being "white noise".
I'm only confused by what "sound" is the Devil. But if it's true that there's a lot of harp music going on in Heaven, I'm quite willing to find out about Beelzebub. If he is indeed atonality, I won't be so disappointed ... as long as the music does not come by way of harps. I hate harps.


----------



## millionrainbows

SONNET CLV said:


> Tonality is God?
> I would have guessed "white noise". I suspect God to be more incorporative.
> But since I also adhere to Buddha's definition of God -- "God both is and is not, neither is nor is not" -- I suppose He/She/It/Them could equally be "silence" ... simultaneously with being "white noise".
> I'm only confused by what "sound" is the Devil. But if it's true that there's a lot of harp music going on in Heaven, I'm quite willing to find out about Beelzebub. If he is indeed atonality, I won't be so disappointed ... as long as the music does not come by way of harps. I hate harps.


Getting back to *serious* metaphor, tonality is God because the scale is derived from, and is related to the 'key' note as "1". All other divisions of the "1" octave are ratios: 2:3, 3:4, 4:5, etc.

Really, the Devil only exists within tonality's purview, so the tritone is really the Devil (diabolus in music), because the tritone embodies the undoing of tonality, being related to the whole-tone scale (which is tonally neutral) and the diminished scale (which is a form of 'vagrant chord').


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> Getting back to *serious* metaphor, tonality is God because the scale is derived from, and is related to the 'key' note as "1". All other divisions of the "1" octave are ratios: 2:3, 3:4, 4:5, etc.
> 
> Really, the Devil only exists within tonality's purview, so the tritone is really the Devil (diabolus in music), because the tritone embodies the undoing of tonality, being related to the whole-tone scale (which is tonally neutral) and the diminished scale (which is a form of 'vagrant chord').


Shiva is called the destroyer, so atonality could be Shiva instead of the dirty devil, aye?


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Shiva is called the destroyer, so atonality could be Shiva instead of the dirty devil, aye?


Very nice!

Since Hinduism isn't one of "the main religions" millionrainbows's theory doesn't have to consider it. But Shiva is known to dance too, giving him perhaps an advantage over most deities in the musical realm.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> Very nice!
> 
> Since Hinduism isn't one of "the main religions" millionrainbows's theory doesn't have to consider it. But Shiva is known to dance too, giving him perhaps an advantage over most deities in the musical realm.


Certainly allows for different perspectives on these theories. I don't know enough about the thousands of other religious contexts out there, but it would definitely broaden this topic if some more were included.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Certainly allows for different perspectives on these theories. I don't know enough about the thousands of other religious contexts out there, but it would definitely broaden this topic if some more were included.


I think we should stay within Hinduism for awhile. Kali's beheading and disemboweling of Shiva represents polytonality.


----------



## science

science said:


> I think we should stay within Hinduism for awhile. Kali's beheading and disemboweling of Shiva represents polytonality.


Made a big mistake there. Change "represents" to "is." That kind of obfuscation renders much greater apparent profundity.

Kali's beheading of Shiva IS polytonality.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> I think we should stay within Hinduism for awhile. Kali's beheading and disemboweling of Shiva represents polytonality.


Sweet. Her many arms could be the true advent of the fugue.


----------



## millionrainbows

Since tonality relates all note to "1" as key note, then in a general, inclusive, universal sense tonality is the embodiment of unity with God or the sacred, and could also represent a Hindu or Buddhistic idea of "one-ness" which is universal to all humanity, and perhaps elephants and dolphins as well.

Western music best embodied "unity" with Gregorian chant or its early, drone-like, monotonic music. However, Western tonality began to modulate, whereas Hindu or Indian music did not.

Therefore, the Western erosion of "the universal drone" into increasingly chromatic music outside the diatonic scale represents *the "fall" of Western Man away from his true sacred nature into a dominating, ego-driven, imperialistic state of being, and a separation from God,* as The Inquisition demonstrates.

India and other drone-like folk musics are therefore more representative of a 'centeredness' within our universal sacred nature; chromaticism and modulation represent a falling away into an increasingly institutionalized, de-humanized mindset, until we reach the ultimate chromaticism in serial music, which eschews the human element in favor of an institutionalized, pseudo-scientific intellectual method. This is fine, as long as you do not require music to reflect human values other than intellect and objective musical syntax.

The serialist may have gone this direction after WWII as a way of escaping the cultural and nationalistic trappings of tonality, which inevitably evokes this baggage.

In a similar way, the popularity and success of Minimalism represents a return to the drone and tonality, albeit without the earlier trappings of Western religion, but as a re-joining into the world humanity of the "drone" shared by all. Philip Glass is Buddhist, as is Terry Riley, and Steve Reich is Jewish but shares this inclusive world view.


----------



## millionrainbows

Meanwhile: Christianity has died a slow, painful death, due to Dvorak and Schubert mixing the major and minor modes, thus increasing chromaticism and further degrading tonality's connection to 'the drone.' We then witness tonality spiraling into chromaticism, harmonic ossification, and loss of meaning and purpose...with music becoming, finally, what it is at its essence, a constructed language of sound, serving no other human purpose. At last, the separation of church and state!!


----------



## mmsbls

Please remember to comment on the substance of posts rather than the poster.


----------



## hpowders

Tonality is God? That's an assumption; a rather bold one at that, assuming a human knows God's plan. That would be the interviewing coup of all time!


----------



## Piwikiwi

millionrainbows said:


> Meanwhile: Christianity has died a slow, painful death, due to Dvorak and Schubert mixing the major and minor modes, thus increasing chromaticism and further degrading tonality's connection to 'the drone.' We then witness tonality spiraling into chromaticism, harmonic ossification, and loss of meaning and purpose...with music becoming, finally, what it is at its essence, a constructed language of sound, serving no other human purpose. At last, the separation of church and state!!


How do you explain the music of messiaen then?


----------



## millionrainbows

Piwikiwi said:


> How do you explain the music of messiaen then?


Messiaen is somewhat of an exception, since his music has religious content and purpose; but he is not part of the symphonic tradition and musical syntax which produced earlier religious music.

Generally speaking, the methods of Debussy, Messiaen, Bartok, Schoenberg, and serialism, which are not traditionally tonal or have eschewed tonality altogether, represent a departure from the 'collective' and institutional conceptions of music which existed in the past, and of which the tonal language embodied and represented. The Enlightenment, the rise of Democracy, and Romanticism ushered in a new emerging "individual" artist who began to depart from the institutional and collective status quo.

Thus, we see Debussy as the totally individual artist he was, using the trappings of tonality to his own ends, rejecting harmonic function and using harmony vertically a timbral and coloristic device.

By the time we reach serialism, the musical syntax was now serving artistic aims, rather than the institutional aims embodied by tonality, although many here would argue that serialism itself became an institution.

If serialism became an institution, it did so for the purpose of essentially artistic aims, and did not represent the institution of the church or state or royalty; it became the language of academicians, who were essentially 'researchers' in a scientific/academic sense, who were furthering the syntax of music in a new way which was divorced from tonality as the old language of older institutions. Serialism was really an expression of artistic individuality, albeit in a 'monastic' setting of academia. It became an end unto itself, not the voice of a collective.


----------



## ArtMusic

Tonality provides the soul to real art music. Pure and simple.


----------



## dgee

ArtMusic said:


> Tonality provides the soul to real art music. Pure and simple.


I remember now where it comes from!!!! I was reminded by thinking of "the soul of real art music" - a true classic of tonal lyricism


----------



## millionrainbows

Tonality is the institutional language of Western classicism, which was powered by Church, state, and a wealthy upper class. Thus, "tonality is God" also has a political/social/historical meaning, which adds to the metaphor. In musical terms, the relation of all notes to "1" is a very easy metaphor to grasp.

12-tone music and serialism conveniently represents and reflects the dissolution of tonality, being slowly replaced by Enlightenment logic, scientific reason, and a "democratic humanism," because the tonal center is gone, and all notes relate only to their adjacent notes.

The metaphor is so obvious that I couldn't resist using it; in fact it practically invented itself.

Of course, to really get the significance of it, you have to understand "why" tonality is tonal, and how intervals are expressed as ratios, and lots of other givens.


----------



## amfortas

millionrainbows said:


> Meanwhile: Christianity has died a slow, painful death, due to Dvorak and Schubert mixing the major and minor modes, thus increasing chromaticism and further degrading tonality's connection to 'the drone.'


You learn something every day. I would never have guessed that two composers killed Christianity--let alone that they were Dvorak and Schubert.


----------



## Taggart

millionrainbows said:


> Tonality is the institutional language of Western classicism, which was powered by Church, state, and a wealthy upper class. Thus, "tonality is God" also has a political/social/historical meaning, which adds to the metaphor. In musical terms, the relation of all notes to "1" is a very easy metaphor to grasp.
> 
> 12-tone music and serialism conveniently represents and reflects the dissolution of tonality, being slowly replaced by Enlightenment logic, scientific reason, and a "democratic humanism," because the tonal center is gone, and all notes relate only to their adjacent notes.
> 
> The metaphor is so obvious that I couldn't resist using it; in fact it practically invented itself.
> 
> Of course, to really get the significance of it, you have to understand "why" tonality is tonal, and how intervals are expressed as ratios, and lots of other givens.


So why did the Catholic church use modal music without a tonal centre? Surely it was the abandonment of Gregorian chant and the move to harmonised ditties after the Second Vatican Council that saw a decline in the influence of the church. In other words a move to tonality *not * its abandonment.


----------



## Blake

I'm quite amazed by your imagination, mill.


----------



## millionrainbows

Taggart said:


> So why did the Catholic church use modal music without a tonal centre?


Because music was not conceived in vertical terms yet. To say it was not "tonal" is technically correct, but I think that listeners inherently seek a tonal centre or "drone." Just the fact that a tetrachord has a starting point implies a tonal 'beginning,' if not an outright centre. And I have noticed that when listening to early chant, the tonality is ambiguous, not decisive, but still my ear seeks to find the key note. That's one reason I find it so fascinating.



Taggart said:


> Surely it was the abandonment of Gregorian chant and the move to harmonised ditties after the Second Vatican Council that saw a decline in the influence of the church. In other words a move to tonality *not * its abandonment.


I don't know my history well enough to respond to that; all I remember is the Nicene Council.

1) In the beginning was The Drone; and the drone was coming out of the void, without harmony; and it was good.

2) And God heard the drone, and said "It is good";

3) And God created the fifth.

Actually, in my little metaphor-world (thanks, Bob Ross), Man started out being in touch with his sacred nature, represented by the drone; institutional religion gradually turned this into a social, more collective pursuit. In my opinion, this gradually drew Man further away from his true inner subjective nature, and into being a member and believer in a social collective, the church being an institution which desired and wielded power and control over its adherents


----------



## millionrainbows

There is also a mathematical basis to my "ridiculous metaphor" that tonality is God:

"1" is the basis of tonality, and is subdivided into fractions to derive the scale steps.

Atonality, by contrast, operates on a number line with a zero point, since it is measuring interval-distances.

Tonality uses number as "identity" rather than quantity, as all scale notes are given a place in relation to "1" or the key note. This is an identity-relationship in an hierarchy, not a quantity of distance.

Tonality is congruent with the Western idea of measurement,in which* Time=Being=Identity.* These terms are all equivalent, and reveal the religious bias against the use of "zero" until much later, when we got it back from the Arabs, who had preserved many of the Greek mathematical treatises which the Church fathers had destroyed as heresy. The explanation follows:

We all know what *quantity* is. Let's say I have 53 sheep. If I trade you one sheep for your Suhr guitar (because you can't get any jobs playing fusion and need to feed your family), I have 52 sheep left. Easy enough.

However, if I number each sheep 1-53 in order to keep track of them, then they have been given a *number identity.* For example, if I trade you sheep number 52 for your '67 Marshall 50-watt head, then I will have 52 sheep left, although sheep #52 is gone. So now we can see the difference between number as *quantity* and as *identity.*

These two ideas used to get mixed up in the olden days; we had no *"zero"* because people tended to see numbers as representing actual objects, and when they counted their sheep, for instance, each number corresponded to an actual sheep. There was no "zero sheep;" the concept was useless to these lamb-eaters and traders, who dealt in concrete terms.

This is part of the reason *time* is usually measured in numbers without zero; there are 7 days in a week, but there is no "zero" day of the week; they are 1 thru 7, as identities. There is no "zero year;" Christ was crucified in the year 1 A.D., and the year before that was I B.C., not "zero." Clocks have no zero, they go from 12 to 1, *except in military time, which does have a "zero hour," but the military is the Devil's tool.*

From WIK: _Astronomical year numbering, used by astronomers, includes a year zero (0). Consequently, the first century in these calendars may designate the years 0 to 99 as the first century, years 100 to 199 as the second etc. However, in order to regard 2000 as the first year of the twenty-first century according to the astronomical year numbering, the astronomical year 0 has to correspond to the Gregorian year 1 BC. 
_

According to WIK:
_Start and end in the Gregorian Calendar

According to the Gregorian calendar, the 1st century A.D./C.E. started on January 1, 1 and ended on December 31, 100. The 2nd century started at year 101, the third at 201, etc. The n-th century started/will start on the year 100×n-99 and ends in 100×n . A century will only include one year, the centennial year, that starts with the century's number (e.g. 1900 is the final year in the 19th century).

1st century CE and BCE

There is no "zeroth century" in between the first century BCE and the first century AD. Also, there is no 0 AD[1]. The Julian calendar "jumps" from 1 BC to 1 AD. The first century BC includes the years 100 BCE to 1 BCE. Other centuries BC follow the same pattern._

_Arthur C. Clarke gave this analogy (from a statement received by Reuters): "If the scale on your grocer's weighing machine began at 1 instead of 0, would you be happy when he claimed he'd sold you 10 kg of tea?" This statement illustrates the common confusion about the calendar. If one counts from the beginning of A.D. 1 to the ending of A.D. 1000, one would have counted 1000 years. The next 1000 years (millennium) would begin on the first day of 1001. So the calendar has not 'cheated' anyone out of a year. In other words, the argument is based on the fact that the last year of the first two thousand years in the Gregorian Calendar was 2000, not 1999.
_

So, in our non-zero system, the first century consisted of the years 1 B.C. thru 100; the second century was 101-200; and so on, until we get to the eighteenth century, 1701 to 1800, and the twentieth century, 1901 to 2000. That's why many experts were telling us that the "millenium" was not actually the year 2000, but January 1, 2001.

Part of the reason for avoidance of zero was religious, and goes back to the Church doctrine of _*"privatio boni"*_... Look it up if you're interested.


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> Christ was crucified in the year 1 A.D., and the year before that was I B.C.


Well....



millionrainbows said:


> Atonality, by contrast, operates on a number line with a zero point, since it is measuring interval-distances.


I don't think you came back around to this point. Can you explain this to me?


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> Well.... I don't think you came back around to this point. Can you explain this to me?


I think you will have to figure this out for yourself, but I'll keep explaining it.*

Originally Posted by millionrainbows: 
*
*Christ was crucified in the year 1 A.D., and the year before that was I B.C.

*_There is no "zeroth century" in between the first century BCE and the first century AD. Also, there is no "0" AD. The Julian calendar "jumps" from 1 BC to 1 AD. The first century BC includes the years 100 BCE to 1 BCE. Other centuries BC follow the same pattern._
...That means, there is no "year zero;" once again demonstrating that when measurement and number are applied to time, or as "identities," or "being" in time (as applied to someone's birth), because time is in this case _identified_ with a number, rather than being _measured_ by it. This is the difference between cardinal and ordinal numbers. This is also why the idea of zero was prohibited for religious reasons; if God was the ultimate creator, there could be no "non-being" or nothingness. The doctrine of privatio boni was developed by Augustine to explain this.
_*

Originally Posted by millionrainbows:
*_
_*Atonality, by contrast, operates on a number line with a zero point, since it is measuring interval-distances.

*_...this is because in serial music, "1" no longer has the same significance or use that it does in tonality, where "1" is the prime identity against which all other scale members and their place and function is measured (as fractions in an hierarchy).

In serial music, there is no "prime relation" of all notes to a root or "1";

...intervals are the concern, and these are considered only as quantities or distances between 2 notes, and as relationships to each other, not in relation to a key-note or "1". This is more like scientific nomenclature than measurement of time, thus the use of zero.


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> I think you will have to figure this out for yourself, but I'll keep explaining it.*
> 
> Originally Posted by millionrainbows:
> *
> *Christ was crucified in the year 1 A.D., and the year before that was I B.C.
> 
> *_There is no "zeroth century" in between the first century BCE and the first century AD. Also, there is no "0" AD. The Julian calendar "jumps" from 1 BC to 1 AD. The first century BC includes the years 100 BCE to 1 BCE. Other centuries BC follow the same pattern._
> ...That means, there is no "year zero;" once again demonstrating that when measurement and number are applied to time, or as "identities," or "being" in time (as applied to someone's birth), because time is in this case _identified_ with a number, rather than being _measured_ by it. This is the difference between cardinal and ordinal numbers. This is also why the idea of zero was prohibited for religious reasons; if God was the ultimate creator, there could be no "non-being" or nothingness. The doctrine of privatio boni was developed by Augustine to explain this.
> _*
> 
> Originally Posted by millionrainbows:
> *_
> _*Atonality, by contrast, operates on a number line with a zero point, since it is measuring interval-distances.
> 
> *_...this is because in serial music, "1" no longer has the same significance or use that it does in tonality, where "1" is the prime identity against which all other scale members and their place and function is measured (as fractions in an hierarchy).
> 
> In serial music, there is no "prime relation" of all notes to a root or "1";
> 
> ...intervals are the concern, and these are considered only as quantities or distances between 2 notes, and as relationships to each other, not in relation to a key-note or "1". This is more like scientific nomenclature than measurement of time, thus the use of zero.


I know there's no year 0 - I teach history, right? But the date was set for Jesus's birth, not his crucifixion. It's a really interesting mistake to make, in terms of theology. Someone who would make that mistake is surely coming from a "crucicentric" theological background, but Christianity itself wasn't crucicentric back when the years were calculated. The big story back then was the incarnation.

Anyway, I don't see what 0 has to do with anything in atonal numbers. I know about using 1 to denote the tonic, but what is 0 supposed to denote in a serial composition? Also, are you making an analogy between measurements of time (the stuff about 0 and 1 and calendars) and harmonic relationships, or are you talking about musical time as well?


----------



## Guest

science said:


> but what is 0 supposed to denote in a serial composition? Also, are you making an analogy between measurements of time (the stuff about 0 and 1 and calendars) and harmonic relationships, or are you talking about musical time as well?


Your tenacity is commendable. I think I stopped at the title of the thread. That and when I got no answers to my questions.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> I know there's no year 0 - I teach history, right? But the date was set for Jesus's birth, not his crucifixion. It's a really interesting mistake to make, in terms of theology. Someone who would make that mistake is surely coming from a "crucicentric" theological background, but Christianity itself wasn't crucicentric back when the years were calculated. The big story back then was the incarnation.


_The year "1" is perfectly congruent with my metaphor: time equals being, or birth. I never mentioned anything about crucifixion._



science said:


> Anyway, I don't see what 0 has to do with anything in atonal numbers.


Zero is used in basic atonal theory to calculate intervals. There are negative numbers used in defining sets. This is basic atonal theory. See John Rahn's book, above.



science said:


> I know about using 1 to denote the tonic, but what is 0 supposed to denote in a serial composition?


I don't think a detailed explanation is possible without your doing some more research on your own to understand some basic givens.

Tonality deals with relations, not quantities, thus the use of fractions to express intervals. Tonality is based, ostensibly, on acoustic factors of sonance, which is expressed as ratios in relation to a constant of "one" or the tonal centre.

Serialism deals with quantities as intervals, but these intervals are not related to a constant "1", but only to each preceding and succeeding note (order), and as sonance of the isolated intervals themselves.



science said:


> Also, are you making an analogy between measurements of time (the stuff about 0 and 1 and calendars) and harmonic relationships, or are you talking about musical time as well?


No, not about rhythm. Harmonic relationships only. And number as _identity _rather than quantity. _There_ is the crux of the biscuit, *time* as representing* being *(or identity, or relation) which is essentially a religious use of number, rather than scientific.

There is a long history of the prohibited use of zero, as well. (see book *Zero: The Birth of a Dangerous Idea*) Do some research.

Privatio boni would be a good place to start, but things of this nature are slow in coming; you must ruminate and think, not just consume this information, because of its metaphorical nature, and because it involves the understanding of several diverse areas: time measurement, religion, number theory, music.

And, *hey: it's only a metaphor! *which I came up with for my own amusement. I do think it is useful in revealing the way people think about things.


----------



## amfortas

millionrainbows said:


> The year "1" is perfectly congruent with my metaphor: time equals being, or birth. I never mentioned anything about crucifixion.


You did mention crucifixion, and mistakenly dated it at year 1.



science said:


> Christianity itself wasn't crucicentric back when the years were calculated. The big story back then was the incarnation.


I believe that from pretty early on, the big story was the resurrection. As St. Paul said, "If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins." (1st Corinthians 15:17)


----------



## science

amfortas said:


> You did mention crucifixion, and mistakenly dated it at year 1.
> 
> I believe that from pretty early on, the big story was the resurrection. As St. Paul said, "If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins." (1st Corinthians 15:17)


You are probably right about Paul and maybe even about the first few generations of Christians. But from the third century or so until the sixteenth century or so, the incarnation got more theological attention than either the resurrection or the crucifixion. The crucifixion was raised to prominence with the satisfaction theory of atonement. That's a can of worms!


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> Do some research.


No, thank you! I'm plenty familiar with all the theological and mathematical ideas that you're throwing around. It's not like "privatio boni" or zero are obscure ideas. But especially since (transposing the boldface and italics)...



millionrainbows said:


> And, hey: it's only a metaphor! *which I came up with for my own amusement.*


... I don't expect to get a lot of light out of all this, so I am not going to put in any work! When your analogy between the measurement of time and the measurement of harmony becomes something like normal intellectual history, rather than a clever game you play, my attitude will change.

But for now, why not make a metaphor out of the measurement of distance as well? A ruler starts at zero... Or perhaps something with base-10 (used in most of our ordinary arithmetic) vs. base-12 (used in the arithmetic of atonality)... maybe you can compare it to the difference between the solar and lunar calendars....


----------



## amfortas

science said:


> You are probably right about Paul and maybe even about the first few generations of Christians. But from the third century or so until the sixteenth century or so, the incarnation got more theological attention than either the resurrection or the crucifixion. The crucifixion was raised to prominence with the satisfaction theory of atonement. That's a can of worms!


I would agree that the incarnation became more of a hot-button theological issue than the crucifixion (thus people were branded as heretics for their differing views on the nature of Christ, but not for their theories on atonement). My point was rather that the resurrection, not the incarnation, has been "from the very first the center of the message which the Apostles proclaimed" (Claude Beaufort Moss, _The Christian Faith: An Introduction to Dogmatic Theology_).

It really boils down to what one means by "the big story."


----------



## science

amfortas said:


> I would agree that the incarnation became more of a hot-button theological issue than the crucifixion (thus people were branded as heretics for their differing views on the nature of Christ, but not for their theories on atonement). My point was rather that the resurrection, not the incarnation, has been "from the very first the center of the message which the Apostles proclaimed" (Claude Beaufort Moss, _The Christian Faith: An Introduction to Dogmatic Theology_).
> 
> It really boils down to what one means by "the big story."


That's right. It also depends on whether we're taking a historical or a theological POV. In modern Evangelical Protestantism the incarnation may be reduced merely to something that had to happen to get to the crucifixion, but it isn't denied; in Eastern Orthodoxy (preserving the heritage of the 3rd-11th or so centuries) the crucifixion had to happen after the incarnation because of sin, but the incarnation itself was the great moment in salvation history. (Given that millionrainbows - I assume he knew better but just wrote/thought in a careless hurry - defaulted to the crucifixion rather than the incarnation as the justification for establishing "year 1" on the calendar, I can guess that the Christianity most familiar to him is the Evangelical tradition. Of course all I actually need to know to guess that is that he's from North America.)

But in any case, it's a question of relative emphases, and throughout the history of Christianity pretty much every version of Christianity emphasized the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection to one degree or another.


----------



## millionrainbows

amfortas said:


> You did mention crucifixion, and mistakenly dated it at year 1.


Opps! Sorry! I meant Christ was BORN in 1 A. D.! Everybody knows that! A typo, my mistake.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> No, thank you! I'm plenty familiar with all the theological and mathematical ideas that you're throwing around. It's not like "privatio boni" or zero are obscure ideas. But especially since (transposing the boldface and italics)...


Then stop asking for explanations which are inherent givens (the use of a number line with 'zero' in serial pitch calculation).



science said:


> ... I don't expect to get a lot of light out of all this, so I am not going to put in any work! When your analogy between the measurement of time and the measurement of harmony becomes something like normal intellectual history, rather than a clever game you play, my attitude will change.


*Sorry my ideas do not please you!* In order to understand atonality, you have to first figure out what tonality is, which I have done.



science said:


> But for now, why not make a metaphor out of the measurement of distance as well? A ruler starts at zero... Or perhaps something with base-10 (used in most of our ordinary arithmetic) vs. base-12 (used in the arithmetic of atonality)... maybe you can compare it to the difference between the solar and lunar calendars....


The measure of distance_* is *_used in serial theory; it is the distance between intervals. Here's another way of explaining it:

Tonality has a "circle of fifths." This could also be a circle of fourths, or a chromatic circle. The circle is a good model to use for tonality, because tonality is recursive, its identities and relationships repeat; its relationships repeat within the circle as identities, like clocks.

Thus, on a _*chromatic*_ circle, going *clockwise* from C (12 o'clock) to G (8 o'clock) is 7 (seven) half-steps; but going counter-clockwise from C (12 o'clock) to G (8 o'clock) is 5 (five) half-steps. This demonstrates the concept of* inversion *in tonality, and how it is contingent upon *direction* (clockwise or counter-clockwise) and* pitch identity* (C to G or G to C). Actual interval size (number of half-steps) is secondary; pitch identity is all-important, because we are dealing with* relationships to a central key note (identity), not actual distances or sizes of intervals (quantity/measurement).*

In serial theory, the inversion of C to G is the same *distance,* not the same *identity-note*, so in serial terms, C-G (+7) inverted becomes (-7), which is the note *F.*


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> Then stop asking for explanations which are inherent givens (the use of a number line with 'zero' in serial pitch calculation).
> 
> *Sorry my ideas do not please you!* In order to understand atonality, you have to first figure out what tonality is, which I have done.
> 
> The measure of distance_* is *_used in serial theory; it is the distance between intervals. Here's another way of explaining it:
> 
> Tonality has a "circle of fifths." This could also be a circle of fourths, or a chromatic circle. The circle is a good model to use for tonality, because tonality is recursive, its identities and relationships repeat; its relationships repeat within the circle as identities, like clocks.
> 
> Thus, on a _*chromatic*_ circle, going *clockwise* from C (12 o'clock) to G (8 o'clock) is 7 (seven) half-steps; but going counter-clockwise from C (12 o'clock) to G (8 o'clock) is 5 (five) half-steps. This demonstrates the concept of* inversion *in tonality, and how it is contingent upon *direction* (clockwise or counter-clockwise) and* pitch identity* (C to G or G to C). Actual interval size (number of half-steps) is secondary; pitch identity is all-important, because we are dealing with* relationships to a central key note (identity), not actual distances or sizes of intervals (quantity/measurement).*
> 
> In serial theory, the inversion of C to G is the same *distance,* not the same *identity-note*, so in serial terms, C-G (+7) inverted becomes (-7), which is the note *F.*


That is not actual distance but metaphorical distance. The metaphor works the same in tonal and serial systems - from C to C-sharp is traditionally defined as a half step in either case. So the metaphor of distance works the same whether C is defined as (probably "labeled" would be better here) 0 or as 1. Or, can you come up with a Christian or non-Christian way of measuring distance?


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> That is not actual distance but metaphorical distance._* (?-ed.)*_ The metaphor works the same in tonal and serial systems - from C to C-sharp is traditionally defined as a half step in either case. _*(No, not when you invert them -ed.)*_ So the metaphor of distance works the same whether C is defined as (probably "labeled" would be better here) 0 or as 1. Or, can you come up with a Christian or non-Christian way of measuring distance?


Tp understand this, you have to then *invert* the interval. In tonality, C to C# (clockwise) is a minor second, and the inversion C-C# (going counter- clockwise) is a much wider interval, a major seventh.

In serial terms, if C is zero, C-C# is a value of +1, while the inversion C-B is -1. A different note than the tonal inversion, as well as a different interval (when under inversion).



science said:


> Or, can you come up with a Christian or non-Christian way of measuring distance?


It's totally different, man. Can't you see that yet?

"Christian/non-Christian" measurement?" No, I wouldn't use that descriptor;

...why mention Christianity unless it's absolutely necessary?

It's really a matter of *scientific nomenclature *that is used in serial theory vs. the musical, traditional circle of "identities;" and I remind you that the avoidance of zero is historically associated with Christianity, and thus with music.

This change in numbers, and the gradual re-introduction of zero, shows how The Enlightenment and science/rationality began to slowly replace the Church's power, as it lost dominance, and a middle-class began to emerge.

In serial terms, "God Is Dead," except in the view of Allen Shawn, and Mahlerian, who assert that serial music is actually "tonal", as in Schoenberg's case.

  

In that case, "God is Dead but the Corpse Has Been Re-animated to Act as if it's Alive." This would be a sort of "Frankenstein" version of God.


----------



## amfortas

millionrainbows said:


> In serial terms, "God Is Dead," except in the view of Allen Shawn, and Mahlerian, who assert that serial music is actually "tonal", as in Schoenberg's case.


Strictly speaking, "serialism," "atonality," and "twelve-tone music" are three different things.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> In serial terms, "God Is Dead," except in the view of Allen Shawn, and Mahlerian, who assert that serial music is actually "tonal", as in Schoenberg's case.


And Roger Sessions, and Stravinsky, and many others...

We merely dispute the idea of atonality on the basis of our hearing, without recourse to theory.


----------



## millionrainbows

amfortas said:


> Strictly speaking, "serialism," "atonality," and "twelve-tone music" are three different things.


I'm not looking at those terms strictly, but only as "non-tonal" ways of thinking, in order to contrast them to tonality, and to illuminate how those approaches differ.


----------



## millionrainbows

The whole tone scale is an 6-tone based on the projection of the major second. The scale's interval content is M2s, M3s, and tritones. It repeats symmetrically; no matter which note you begin on, the resulting intervals are the same. It divides evenly at the tritone.

Tonality uses the 7-note diatonic scale, and its "dividing point" is the fifth.

That's because the 12-note chromatic scale was derived from the projection of the fifth; thus the circle of fifths. This is an acoustically-based method.

But actually, the 12-note scale is an anomaly, an approximation, based on the attempt to close the octave after 12 cycles of 3:2 fifths.

Thus, "12" is the resulting mathematical result of this error or approximation; there is no acoustic ("tonal") reason for its existence, other than that it approximates fifths. In ET, all these fifths are 2 cents flat, to compensate for this error, and to close the octave, which would otherwise spiral onward into irrational values. No ratio, such as the 3:2 fifth, can be divided into "1" (the octave) as a whole number (such as 12).

Thus, all the resulting symmetries created by "12" are mathematical in nature, and thus have a way of degrading tonality's supposed "acoustic" nature of ratios, and turning it into a mathematically/geometrically based system. Thus, the "undoing" of tonality was always inherent in the "12" based scale of Pythagoras.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> i suspect hyperactive pattern recognition.


Suspicion seconded.


----------



## science

View attachment 48528


Coincidence?

Or the work of a nefarious spiritual force?


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> View attachment 48528
> 
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> Or the work of a nefarious spiritual force?


...a nefarious force called Man.

Yes, tonality is based on a harmonic model of one note and its harmonics;

...but its *hubris* is that it desired to "stray" from the "one note" and seek the "fruit of excessive modulation" in distant areas of chromaticism. This is called "the fall."

Thusd, Man becomes lost in chromaticism, wandering aimlessly.

What did always exist, and always will, is "the Big Note." It is Man who has strayed....


----------



## Blake

Haha. You're relentless, mill. It may be beneficial just to make a sub-forum for you called _mill's playground_. A place where you could swing on your imagination as much as you'd like.


----------



## Lukecash12

amfortas said:


> I would agree that the incarnation became more of a hot-button theological issue than the crucifixion (thus people were branded as heretics for their differing views on the nature of Christ, but not for their theories on atonement). My point was rather that the resurrection, not the incarnation, has been "from the very first the center of the message which the Apostles proclaimed" (Claude Beaufort Moss, _The Christian Faith: An Introduction to Dogmatic Theology_).
> 
> It really boils down to what one means by "the big story."


I find it amusing that Ambrose, Augustine, the Cappadocian brothers, and Maximus the confessor were all considered by some to be heretics during their time. Now people are up in arms if you slight any of them, especially Ambrose or Augustine.


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> I find it amusing that Ambrose, Augustine, the Cappadocian brothers, and Maximus the confessor were all considered by some to be heretics during their time. Now people are up in arms if you slight any of them, especially Ambrose or Augustine.


Have you read Maximus the Confessor? He was my favorite theologian.

Edit: If not, have a shot at _Microcosm and Mediator_, a great coverage of his thought. For reading the man himself, I think the best place to start is in the _Philokalia_. I think his "Centuries on Love" are in volume 2, but if you're interested I should check that before you make any purchases.

In general the world of Byzantine theology is so foreign to western Christianity, especially under the influence of Augustine, that it takes years of study for westerners to adopt their minds to it, to get rid of various preoccupations and assumptions. But once you do.... No doubt I'm prejudiced, but I fell in love with the God of Jesus Christ of the Orthodox Churches in a way that I cannot imagine having done with the God of the western churches. Particularly liberating for me was getting rid of the satisfaction theory of the substitutionary atonement, which I'd now contend is even (from a Byzantine or other Orthodox POV) Satanic. I know that's massively strong language in the old tradition, but I've thought about it and I mean it. Before you guys take over the world again and force people to agree with you, work that thing out of your system!


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> Have you read Maximus the Confessor? He was my favorite theologian.
> 
> Edit: If not, have a shot at _Microcosm and Mediator_, a great coverage of his thought. For reading the man himself, I think the best place to start is in the _Philokalia_. I think his "Centuries on Love" are in volume 2, but if you're interested I should check that before you make any purchases.
> 
> In general the world of Byzantine theology is so foreign to western Christianity, especially under the influence of Augustine, that it takes years of study for westerners to adopt their minds to it, to get rid of various preoccupations and assumptions. But once you do.... No doubt I'm prejudiced, but I fell in love with the God of Jesus Christ of the Orthodox Churches in a way that I cannot imagine having done with the God of the western churches. Particularly liberating for me was getting rid of the satisfaction theory of the substitutionary atonement, which I'd now contend is even (from a Byzantine or other Orthodox POV) Satanic. I know that's massively strong language in the old tradition, but I've thought about it and I mean it. Before you guys take over the world again and force people to agree with you, work that thing out of your system!


Right, right, the idea of revelatory atonement. Let's just say I don't exactly agree with either viewpoint, but either way for me sola scriptura is the rule. It matters little to me whether or not a modern day thinker is performing an anachronism or one of the church fathers is, as any historian would agree it's always best to consult the original. When you don't you end up at absurd ideas like negative theology (like Pseudo Dionysus) and other concepts that are foreign to anything 1st century Christians would have been trying to communicate.

Yeah, I've had a bromance going with Maximus for a while too, he's probably my favorite thinker from that region. Lately though I've been enjoying Armenian theology. And let's not forget that there are more older order groups that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, there is some choice stuff from the Coptics and Greeks.

You're absolutely right that the resurrection story has always been at the center. But I think we've digressed enough, so yeah.... tonality and stuff? What is it with million and the "sacred" lately? One would think that with names like Stockhausen, Cage, and Messaien you can do anything with sound and express whatever sentiment you want. I mean, 4:33 is "sacred" in it's own right, I guess, if you look at it under lenses like Taoism.

And what about quarter tones in Japanese music? Microtones/sruti in Hindustani classical (considered very sacred)?


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> Right, right, the idea of revelatory atonement.


I don't know what that mans at all.

If you like Maximus, Gregory Palamas is another good one to check out. I found that these texts take a lot of work to go through. More accessible guides like Jaroslav Pelikan, John Zizioulas, Alexander Schmemann, John Meyendorff, and Andrew Louth can be very helpful!


----------



## science

We should probably note that a systematic allegorical interpretation of Byzantine chant's modality reveals the Holy Church's sacred tradition to be implicitly atheistic.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> We should probably note that a systematic allegorical interpretation of Byzantine chant's modality reveals the Holy Church's sacred tradition to be implicitly atheistic.


That was before tonality had developed. However, you have a point there; early chant used tetrachords and combined them, so unless you consider the starting notes, or possibly the ending notes (finals), of a tetrachord or phrase to be indicative of a tone-centric unit, then it's true that it's not tonal; but pre-tonal.

Does this mean "atheistic?" I think that's an exaggeration. Even the scriptures were not compiled until the Nicene Council of 300 A.D., and even at that point certain doctrinal questions were still not definitive, until declared so by the fathers.

On the other hand, since chant is so drone-like and does not modulate, it can be said to be closer to 'the Big Note' than later tonality, where it began to stray into new territory, further from the home note.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> I don't know what that mans at all.
> 
> If you like Maximus, Gregory Palamas is another good one to check out. I found that these texts take a lot of work to go through. More accessible guides like Jaroslav Pelikan, John Zizioulas, Alexander Schmemann, John Meyendorff, and Andrew Louth can be very helpful!


Revelatory atonement is the idea that Christ came to the earth to bring a new revelation, that we are saved because of this new understanding.


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> Revelatory atonement is the idea that Christ came to the earth to bring a new revelation, that we are saved because of this new understanding.


Ok. That doesn't have anything to do with Maximus' or Byzantine soteriology. _Theosis_ is not mere knowledge.

I went back to amazon to check out _Microcosm and Mediator_ by Thunberg, see whether it's available and all that, and I found out that he's written a condensed version of it, _Man and the Cosmos_. It was published by St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, the best theological press in the world, and it's a lot cheaper than _Microcosm and Mediator_. I also see that Andrew Louth, a great scholar, has a new book out - published by IVP of all people - titled _Introducing Eastern Orthodox Theology_. Should be good.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> Ok. That doesn't have anything to do with Maximus' or Byzantine soteriology. _Theosis_ is not mere knowledge.
> 
> I went back to amazon to check out _Microcosm and Mediator_ by Thunberg, see whether it's available and all that, and I found out that he's written a condensed version of it, _Man and the Cosmos_. It was published by St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, the best theological press in the world, and it's a lot cheaper than _Microcosm and Mediator_. I also see that Andrew Louth, a great scholar, has a new book out - published by IVP of all people - titled _Introducing Eastern Orthodox Theology_. Should be good.


You're right, revelatory atonement is just an element of Byzantine soteriology. However, it is the counterpart to substitutionary atonement, before they go off on a very different tangent. Mind you, revelation is not mere knowledge either, it is the step preceding theosis (the transformative process of union with god) and in their opinion the actual purpose of Christ's life and death (to facilitate theoria after katharsis/purification or more plainly their concept of the process of repentance). Moreover, in the Eastern Orthodox tradition knowledge isn't deductively confirmed, rather it is based on gnosiology/revelation and relies on things like asceticism more than scholasticism. This is interesting because of concepts in their theology that rely upon partially accepting Neoplatonism's terms in order to avoid errors like pantheism, so they preach theosis instead of henosis (oneness in energy rather than absorption and fusion into the same substance). The negative philosophy in particular from their theology draws from the Second Academy.

Of course, although revelation/theoria comes before theosis, before that comes purification/katharsis which involves struggle against sin, often asceticism/praxis. I'm sure you enjoyed reading the Philokalia too.


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> I'm sure you enjoyed reading the Philokalia too.


This part we can agree about!


----------



## millionrainbows

Lukecash12 said:


> You're right, revelatory atonement is just an element of Byzantine soteriology. However, it is the counterpart to substitutionary atonement, before they go off on a very different tangent.


Yeah, God is not a terrorist, and we don't have to submit to his demands for a ransom!


----------



## Lukecash12

millionrainbows said:


> Yeah, God is not a terrorist, and we don't have to submit to his demands for a ransom!


Hahahahaha, no comment.


----------



## ptr

millionrainbows said:


> Yeah, God is not a terrorist, and we don't have to submit to his demands for a ransom!


God don't need to be a terrorist as so many of those devoted to his cause are!

/ptr


----------



## millionrainbows

"Write a tonal symphony, or I'll kill this man!"


----------



## Lukecash12

millionrainbows said:


> "Write a tonal symphony, or I'll kill this man!"


Now if we look at some elements of Greek poetry and philosophy, there are valid connections between theology and the tonal system. They called it "music of the spheres", and this concept pervaded well into the Renaissance.


----------



## millionrainbows

Lukecash12 said:


> Now if we look at some elements of Greek poetry and philosophy, there are valid connections between theology and the tonal system. They called it "music of the spheres", and this concept pervaded well into the Renaissance.


Yeah, I can actually see how the Pythagorans turned math into a religion. After all, I've seen all the metaphorical connections they are talking about. These guys "lived" their knowledge in depth. I think that we moderns are missing a lot, and I hope I've revived some of that metaphorical "play."


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> Yeah, I can actually see how the Pythagorans turned math into a religion. After all, I've seen all the metaphorical connections they are talking about. These guys "lived" their knowledge in depth. I think that we moderns are missing a lot, and I hope I've revived some of that metaphorical "play."


I think the modern mind has become so sharp at dividing and compartmentalizing that to many it seems foolish to try and coalesce the abstract (spirituality) and the concrete (math). I think it's just different shades of the same consciousness, but my intellect isn't broad enough to explain what I experience viscerally.


----------



## science

Math is concrete?

I can't accept that. Where is pi? How heavy is it?

Spirituality is abstract?






We can debate what is going on there, but at least we can _see_ it.

I think we need to put a little more thought into this.


----------



## Blake

Well, this is already getting off to a very dull start....


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Well, this is already getting off to a very dull start....


Hopefully it'll get more interesting as our knowledge increases!


----------



## amfortas

science said:


> Spirituality is abstract?
> 
> We can debate what is going on there, but at least we can _see_ it.


We see something there, but I'm not sure it's spirituality.


----------



## Bulldog

amfortas said:


> We see something there, but I'm not sure it's spirituality.


It's God that we see. I thought he'd be taller.


----------



## millionrainbows

Vesuvius said:


> I think the modern mind has become so sharp at dividing and compartmentalizing that to many it seems foolish to try and coalesce the abstract (spirituality) and the concrete (math). I think it's just different shades of the same consciousness, but my intellect isn't broad enough to explain what I experience viscerally.


So whose side are you on, Vesuvius?

In Indian music, they are certainly able to make all sorts of connections to the metaphysical through music. Each raga represents a certain time of day, a certain emotion, and such.

Mathematics is just a tool; a "model" used to represent things. It seems obvious that ways of thinking are revealed by the way they are represented.


----------



## aleazk

millionrainbows said:


> Yeah, I can actually see how the Pythagorans turned math into a religion. After all, I've seen all the metaphorical connections they are talking about. These guys "lived" their knowledge in depth. I think that we moderns are missing a lot, and I hope I've revived some of that metaphorical "play."


But science is actually my religion.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> Math is concrete?
> 
> I can't accept that. Where is pi? How heavy is it?
> 
> Spirituality is abstract?
> 
> I think we need to put a little more thought into this.


This is basic stuff, and I'm surprised this is flying over everyone's head. Math is a concrete idea and system within the human psyche. It can be proven time and time again. Spirituality cannot be proven with similar objective test... it's an abstraction.


----------



## aleazk

Vesuvius said:


> I think the modern mind has become so sharp at dividing and compartmentalizing that to many it seems foolish to try and coalesce the abstract (spirituality) and the concrete (math). I think it's just different shades of the same consciousness, but my intellect isn't broad enough to explain what I experience viscerally.


Is really necessary to be that 'oblique' in your wording?

Say it: spirituality=no logic and math=logic; you don't like logic all the time: fine (although, of course, I disagree )


----------



## Blake

aleazk said:


> Is really necessary to be that 'oblique' in your wording?
> 
> Say it: spirituality=no logic and math=logic; you don't like logic all the time: fine (although, of course, I disagree )


Hehe, I enjoy my wordings. That's why I use it. I don't want to make this an ego measuring contest and say that one is stupid and the other is reasonable. One is more based on a visceral experience, and the other is mental calculations. Both valuable, to me.


----------



## echo

but it's still called number theory


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Hehe, I enjoy my wordings. That's why I use it. I don't want to make this an ego measuring contest and say that one is stupid and the other is reasonable. One is more based on a visceral experience, and the other is mental calculations. Both valuable, to me.


I don't know whether communication is something you value; perhaps you intend your statements to be something more like works of art that other people may or may not understand or appreciate and that's not your problem.

But I do value communication, and the kind of art that I appreciate most is the kind that communicates, the kind that I can understand. And I wish you'd express what you mean, using words that mean what you use them to mean. The alternative might be more superficially pleasing - it's fun to be zen, especially when it's free - but leaves me unsatisfied.

Saying this flirts with a violation of the TOS of the site, and this entire thread only occasionally flirts with relevance to classical music. But hopefully both the thread and the post will vindicate themselves as we come to understand each other better.

I really love science, and I appreciate mysticism - I hope we find a way to have both rather than oppose them to each other. In fact I think I do so. But if I do have to choose, if you force me to alienate them from each other and to take a side in a battle between them, I will choose the concrete benefits of science over the pretty profundities of mysticism. Like choosing music that I enjoy over music that I'm only supposed to enjoy because of some ideology.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> I don't know whether communication is something you value; perhaps you intend your statements to be something more like works of art that other people may or may not understand or appreciate and that's not your problem.
> 
> But I do value communication, and the kind of art that I appreciate most is the kind that communicates, the kind that I can understand. And I wish you'd express what you mean, using words that mean what you use them to mean. The alternative might be more superficially pleasing - it's fun to be zen, especially when it's free - but leaves me unsatisfied.
> 
> Saying this flirts with a violation of the TOS of the site, and this entire thread only occasionally flirts with relevance to classical music. But hopefully both the thread and the post will vindicate themselves as we come to understand each other better.
> 
> I really love science, and I appreciate mysticism - I hope we find a way to have both rather than oppose them to each other. In fact I think I do so. But if I do have to choose, if you force me to alienate them from each other and to take a side in a battle between them, I will choose the concrete benefits of science over the pretty profundities of mysticism. Like choosing music that I enjoy over music that I'm only supposed to enjoy because of some ideology.


Look, it's okay that people are different... and therefore communicate accordingly. I don't desire for us to be the same. It's too much of a chore for me to bend anymore than I already am. And this is an internet forum, so the consequences are very low... I've recently stressed that a strictly concrete approach to these topics is very uninteresting to me, as my way is uninteresting to you. So maybe we should ignore each other. 
:tiphat:


----------



## SeptimalTritone

science said:


> I don't know whether communication is something you value; perhaps you intend your statements to be something more like works of art that other people may or may not understand or appreciate and that's not your problem.
> 
> But I do value communication, and the kind of art that I appreciate most is the kind that communicates, the kind that I can understand. And I wish you'd express what you mean, using words that mean what you use them to mean. The alternative might be more superficially pleasing - it's fun to be zen, especially when it's free - but leaves me unsatisfied.
> 
> Saying this flirts with a violation of the TOS of the site, and this entire thread only occasionally flirts with relevance to classical music. But hopefully both the thread and the post will vindicate themselves as we come to understand each other better.
> 
> I really love science, and I appreciate mysticism - I hope we find a way to have both rather than oppose them to each other. In fact I think I do so. But if I do have to choose, if you force me to alienate them from each other and to take a side in a battle between them, I will choose the concrete benefits of science over the pretty profundities of mysticism. Like choosing music that I enjoy over music that I'm only supposed to enjoy because of some ideology.


Actually, from a Buddhist standpoint I would completely agree with Vesuvius. The problem is... he probably would have to explain the way in which Buddhism views consciousness and the mind before explaining why mathematical thinking and spiritual feeling are two sides of the same coin. But, I would basically guess that God, the universal source of consciousness, or the mind created both, and that vague understanding is enough for now.

You don't have to choose between science and mysticism, especially if you take the viewpoint that consciousness is something extra "on top of" our physical world that simply observes it. But... I'm so unknowledgeable about the philosophy of mind and philosophy of science that I hesitate to say anything in the affirmative. Sorry... it's difficult.

However, I must say that I'm very suspicious of naive viewpoints that view math/science as moving away from our spiritual roots.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Look, it's okay that people are different... and therefore communicate accordingly. I don't desire for us to be the same. It's too much of a chore for me to bend anymore than I already am. And this is an internet forum, so the consequences are very low... I've recently stressed that a strictly concrete approach to these topics is very uninteresting to me, as my way is uninteresting to you. So maybe we should ignore each other.
> :tiphat:


I've suggested that before, but it'd be a sad end. Not too sad I guess. But I do would rather you'd venture into the religion forum and sage us up there! Playing with these ideas is fun for me, I can hardly resist it even here where I constantly fear that the discussion itself violates the TOS, and we'd have a lot of fun in the religion forum.


----------



## science

SeptimalTritone said:


> Actually, from a Buddhist standpoint I would completely agree with Vesuvius. The problem is... he probably would have to explain the way in which Buddhism views consciousness and the mind before explaining why mathematical thinking and spiritual feeling are two sides of the same coin. But, I would basically guess that God, the universal source of consciousness, or the mind created both, and that vague understanding is enough for now.
> 
> You don't have to choose between science and mysticism, especially if you take the viewpoint that consciousness is something extra "on top of" our physical world that simply observes it. But... I'm so unknowledgeable about the philosophy of mind and philosophy of science that I hesitate to say anything in the affirmative. Sorry... it's difficult.
> 
> However, I must say that I'm very suspicious of naive viewpoints that view math/science as moving away from our spiritual roots.


Difficult or not, it's too interesting to leave alone, right? You too should go the religion discussion group and play with these ideas. We don't need to convince each other... but hopefully we can stimulate each other enjoyably!


----------



## Blake

science said:


> I've suggested that before, but it'd be a sad end. Not too sad I guess. But I do would rather you'd venture into the religion forum and sage us up there! Playing with these ideas is fun for me, I can hardly resist it even here where I constantly fear that the discussion itself violates the TOS, and we'd have a lot of fun in the religion forum.


I've been banned from that section. I'm too abstractly direct.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> I've been banned from that section. I'm too abstractly direct.


From the religion group? I didn't know that happened.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> From the religion group? I didn't know that happened.


The whole politics and religion sub-forum. Can't remember what I said, haha.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> The whole politics and religion sub-forum. Can't remember what I said, haha.


I see. I only found out that was possible a few days ago.

Anyway, there is a religion group. I don't know who moderates it, but I guess you'd be allowed in! Weeks or months ago I started a discussion there on a text you recommended to us in an earlier thread that fell into one of these discussions. (Autocorrect gave "dissuasions." I was tempted to leave it.)

Try to go here, see what happens: http://www.talkclassical.com/groups/religious-discussion-group.html


----------



## Blake

science said:


> I see. I only found out that was possible a few days ago.
> 
> Anyway, there is a religion group. I don't know who moderates it, but I guess you'd be allowed in! Weeks or months ago I started a discussion there on a text you recommended to us in an earlier thread that fell into one of these discussions. (Autocorrect gave "dissuasions." I was tempted to leave it.)
> 
> Try to go here, see what happens: http://www.talkclassical.com/groups/religious-discussion-group.html


Gotcha'. I might swing by if my schedule frees up... can't make any promises though.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Gotcha'. I might swing by if my schedule frees up... can't make any promises though.


No problem.

Fair warning / heads up: It's a bring your own beverage group.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> No problem.
> 
> Fair warning / heads up: It's a bring your own beverage group.


For sure. Speaking of... I have book on the Buddha coming in soon. I've really been attracted to these non-theistic ways. I don't know if you've studied Buddhism in length, but I'm intrigued.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> For sure. Speaking of... I have book on the Buddha coming in soon. I've really been attracted to these non-theistic ways. I don't know if you've studied Buddhism in length, but I'm intrigued.


That means you wrote a book on the Buddha, or you're getting one?

The only religion I've studied in depth in Christianity, but I've done a bit on Buddhism too, particularly varieties of Theravada mediation techniques, and Buddhism in Southeast Asia "in practice" (which means, what the people really do instead of what the monks or religious professionals or religious experts say they're supposed to do).


----------



## Blake

I have one coming in to read. A translation of his teachings. I'm in no position to write one myself, hah.


----------



## Guest

Why saying that this music is divine and the other is not? It is all a matter of concept and cultivation what you like or dislike.Some people get confused when they here a piece of Messiaen,what does that proof?There is a world to discover and to me it is not a good idea to say that there are valid and sound dogmas about this to start with.God is also a concept,a shrine wich hold many divisions.Exploration is fine but you have to start without all kind of bounderies.You can drown yourself in all kind of speculations .Who can explain beauty?


----------



## Ian Moore

My first question would be: what is tonality?


----------



## science

Ian Moore said:


> My first question would be: what is tonality?


Well, I believe in the apophatic tradition of musicology. So I say we cannot describe the attributes of Tonality. We can only say what Tonality is not. And then we have to negate our negations as well. For example: Tonality is not good, but nor is it not good. Tonality is not conscious, nor is it not conscious. Tonality is not one, nor is it not one. And so on. Even through the revelation of Tonality in J. S. Bach we can only learn some metaphors through which Tonality wishes us to conceive of him, but we cannot grasp the essence of Tonality itself. If we imagine that we perceive Tonality directly, it is a false tonality, and then we are committing modalatry.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> Well, I believe in the apophatic tradition of musicology. So I say we cannot describe the attributes of Tonality. We can only say what Tonality is not. And then we have to negate our negations as well. For example: Tonality is not good, but nor is it not good. Tonality is not conscious, nor is it not conscious. Tonality is not one, nor is it not one. And so on. Even through the revelation of Tonality in J. S. Bach we can only learn some metaphors through which Tonality wishes us to conceive of him, but we cannot grasp the essence of Tonality itself. If we imagine that we perceive Tonality directly, it is a false tonality, and then we are committing modalatry.


Seriously, negative theology applied to music? That's funny.


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> Seriously, negative theology applied to music? That's funny.


I was inordinately proud of "modalatry."


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> I was inordinately proud of "modalatry."


You're a regular Pseudo-Dionysus: http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/pseudo-dionysius


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> You're a regular Pseudo-Dionysus: http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/pseudo-dionysius


Luke, providing a link is insulting.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> Luke, providing a link is insulting.


You don't enjoy Peter Adamson? If I remembered correctly we already established that both of us are familiar with Pseudo-Dionysus, I just figured you would like Adamson's podcast. For the most part I've enjoyed seeing some names I'm not familiar with from Islamic philosophy on his podcast.


----------



## ziesha

yeah  even I think the same.


----------



## millionrainbows

Tonality is a perfect model for spiritual and religious systems, because in tonal terms, all things are related to "one" or the keynote. The other divisions of the octave (other scale members) are expressed as fractions of that "one."

Also, the gradual dissolution of tonality is a perfect metaphor for Man's "fall" away from God (the "1"), wandering aimlessly in the wilderness of chromatic root-movement, separated from God, in dissonant, unresolved anguish, like Dante in the beginning of _Inferno._


----------



## millionrainbows

Also, tonality is a good model for the idea of "singularity" or identity, rather than "quantity." Picture a number line. On the number 1, we can go left towards zero, in ever-decreasing fractions to infinity. Or, we can go to the right, towards increasing infinity. In the middle is "1", the singularity which solves all questions of infinity, and represents identity, being, and wholeness. Anything else is more scientific, and measures quantity without relation. Which is not bad in itself; but the average person seems to desire identity rather than look at things in a detached, scientific, quantitative way. They are interested in _qualities,_ not _quantities._

In this way, tonality embodies the identity of Man, as he has tended to see himself innocently, as the special, "chosen one" of God. The universe was created for us, and all revolves around our relation to it.

The alternative, serialism, modernism, and more scientific approaches, seem to discard the "idea of Man" as irrelevant and unnecessary, because look at where it has gotten us. Boulez, Stockhausen, and Cage dared to do away with the human ego, the bombast, the nationalism, and the hubris of Man. Is this bad? I don't think so; I find it fascinating.





















 Click to open expanded view


----------



## millionrainbows

So for that matter, "atonality is God" as well, if it evokes a quiescent state. Much of John Cage and Morton Feldman's music does this for me. Boulez' Structures, as well; it seem to invoke a sort of static, unmoving state, with no real goal or destination. One is forced to simply be in the moment and listen.

Boulez' goal in Structures was to create a system that would be self-generating. He considers the result to be unsucessful as art, but I still find it interesting.


----------



## millionrainbows

Indian raga scales are "tonal" in the general sense that they have a key note, and usually a fifth and a third, usually a seventh, and are "tone-centric." Each different scale is used to evoke different emotions or states of being. In this sense, India took seriously the premise that "tonality is God" long before I ever came up with this metaphor. 

So now, I have historical credibility. Didn't think I could do it, didja? And all this time, you thought it was just a metaphor.


----------

