# The Planets - Earth



## maestro267 (Jul 25, 2009)

If Holst added a movement for Earth to his Planets suite, I wonder how it would sound...


----------



## andruini (Apr 14, 2009)

Yeah, me too.
(Is that all there is to this thread? )


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Yes, Let us post in the composer forum a challenge to compose this piece!


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Of course, earth was not included in the Planets because Holst based his suite on astrology. Earth is not an astrological entitiy.

BUT, this is an interesting question. There is so much to earth. Serenity and violence. What aspects to portray? Plus, I think the inclusion of a choir human voices, in other words) would have been appropriate, since the planet is populated by humans.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

Has anyone heard the Pluto movement added by someone or other? I haven't, and don't really want to. Neptune is such a great last movement.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I have heard various synthesized versions of the Planets suite with Pluto added, usually as the standard new age spacey kind of thing. It's an exercise in hubris if ever there was one. Nothing could end the suite better than Neptune.

Besides, Pluto is not a planet. It's a Kuiper belt object and not even the largest of those.

Earth would be intriguing. I keep hearing Liszt's _Les preludes _in my head when I think of Earth


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

Tapkaara said:


> There is so much to earth. Serenity and violence. What aspects to portray? Plus, I think the inclusion of a choir human voices, in other words) would have been appropriate, since the planet is populated by humans.


I'd take it a couple of steps higher - a huge symphony portraying the birth of Sun, the formation of planets, then shifting the focus to Earth - from the early stages of development to complex lifeforms, then eventually the death of Sun - red giant, formation of a small nebula and becoming a white dwarf. What a cool concept for a symphony


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

nickgray said:


> I'd take it a couple of steps higher - a huge symphony portraying the birth of Sun, the formation of planets, then shifting the focus to Earth - from the early stages of development to complex lifeforms, then eventually the death of Sun - red giant, formation of a small nebula and becoming a white dwarf. What a cool concept for a symphony


Indeed! Do it!


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

If only I could... I can write music a little, but it's mostly done through hearing it, not through writing. I do have lots of ideas, but certainly not enough knowledge of the theory yet. But someday? Maybe


----------



## Sorin Eushayson (May 10, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Of course, earth was not included in the Planets because Holst based his suite on astrology. Earth is not an astrological entitiy.
> 
> BUT, this is an interesting question. There is so much to earth. Serenity and violence. What aspects to portray? Plus, I think the inclusion of a choir human voices, in other words) would have been appropriate, since the planet is populated by humans.


Maybe using Beethoven's 9th at the end of a performance of The Planets would work. Sure, they're not exactly stylistically similar, but the 9th symphony - with its sort of space-like wonder and expansiveness and its focus on humanity - might prove an interesting complement. The instrumental portions always bring to my mind a sort of "cosmic grandeur." Just a thought.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Sorin Eushayson said:


> Maybe using Beethoven's 9th at the end of a performance of The Planets would work. Sure, they're not exactly stylistically similar, but the 9th symphony - with its sort of space-like wonder and expansiveness and its focus on humanity - might prove an interesting complement. The instrumental portions always bring to my mind a sort of "cosmic grandeur." Just a thought.


Interesting thought. Kinda of raises a different (but perhaps related) question. What pieces of music best evoke the idea of space, the planets or the cosmos?

Sibelius's 7th is great "space music" if you ask me. It seems strange that many people (myself included) often see images of space, stars and planets when listening to this work. Why is this this? Could it be something tangibly "space-like" is built into the fabric of the music. In fact, an original working title for the work was 'Where the Stars Dwell." Coincidence?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Is it not a bit egocentric to have a movement about Earth focus on humanity? We're not the only life-form on this world. Indeed, it would seem more appropriate to create music that suggests the glorious nature of Earth as the only planet we know of yet capable of giving birth to life itself.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> What aspects to portray? Plus, I think the inclusion of a choir human voices, in other words) would have been appropriate, since the planet is populated by humans.


No, no, no... there are much more insects on Earth than humans, so instead of human choir composer should place a choir of mosquitos.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

Isn't it egocentric to focus on life-forms?


----------



## maestro267 (Jul 25, 2009)

With all these ideas, we could compose a whole suite about Earth! For choir, orchestra and taped sounds perhaps (real mosquitoes could be dangerous).


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

maestro267 said:


> (real mosquitoes could be dangerous).


 Why? I belive they could became regular members of orchestra.


----------



## maestro267 (Jul 25, 2009)

I've heard mosquitoes are rather good on percussion...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Ignis Fatuus said:


> Isn't it egocentric to focus on life-forms?


I don't think so; after all, it is _the_ thing that makes Earth unique in the solar system. Besides, it's much more satisfying than astrological clap-trap!


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

nickgray said:


> a huge symphony portraying the birth of Sun, the formation of planets, then shifting the focus to Earth - from the early stages of development to complex lifeforms, then eventually the death of Sun - red giant, formation of a small nebula and becoming a white dwarf. What a cool concept for a symphony


Yeah, but unfortunately Mahler died before he got around to it.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

Polednice said:


> I don't think so; after all, it is _the_ thing that makes Earth unique in the solar system. Besides, it's much more satisfying than astrological clap-trap!


Lol, really no. The presence of life is _a_ thing that makes earth unique. It's your egocentric interpretation that decides it's the only _important_ unique characteristic. It's location in space is also unique.

Isn't it egocentric to consider only the parasites slithering on the surface of the massive rock? Yes, and so it should be!


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Tapkaara said:


> What pieces of music best evoke the idea of space, the planets or the cosmos?


I would say the music of Ligeti and Xenakis.


----------



## dmg (Sep 13, 2009)

I immediately think of Grieg's _Morning Mood_.


----------



## laurele (Nov 11, 2009)

Weston said:


> I have heard various synthesized versions of the Planets suite with Pluto added, usually as the standard new age spacey kind of thing. It's an exercise in hubris if ever there was one. Nothing could end the suite better than Neptune.
> 
> Besides, Pluto is not a planet. It's a Kuiper belt object and not even the largest of those.
> 
> Earth would be intriguing. I keep hearing Liszt's _Les preludes _in my head when I think of Earth


Pluto is both a planet and a Kuiper Belt Object. Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion, and most are not planetary scientists. Their decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto. One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all! That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear, and it is inconsistent with the use of the term "dwarf" in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto's orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is essentially useless. Pluto is a planet because it is spherical, meaning it is large enough to be pulled into a round shape by its own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium and characteristic of planets, not of shapeless asteroids held together by chemical bonds. These reasons are why many astronomers, lay people, and educators are either ignoring the demotion entirely or working to get it overturned.

Colin Matthews wrote the Pluto movement and used the end of the Neptune movement to segue into it.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

Polednice said:


> I don't think so; after all, it is _the_ thing that makes Earth unique in the solar system. Besides, it's much more satisfying than astrological clap-trap!





laurele said:


> Pluto is both a planet and a Kuiper Belt Object. Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion, and most are not planetary scientists. Their decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto. One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all! That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear, and it is inconsistent with the use of the term "dwarf" in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto's orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is essentially useless. Pluto is a planet because it is spherical, meaning it is large enough to be pulled into a round shape by its own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium and characteristic of planets, not of shapeless asteroids held together by chemical bonds. These reasons are why many astronomers, lay people, and educators are either ignoring the demotion entirely or working to get it overturned.
> 
> Colin Matthews wrote the Pluto movement and used the end of the Neptune movement to segue into it.


Do they open the door to the choir again or do they sit in their own room for the whole movement? :]


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

dmg said:


> I immediately think of Grieg's _Morning Mood_.


When I first read that, for some reason, I saw the M as a W and thus read it as "Morning Wood."


----------



## nefigah (Aug 23, 2008)

Weston said:


> Besides, Pluto is not a planet. It's a Kuiper belt object and not even the largest of those.


It'll always be a planet in my heart


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

> If Earth were in Pluto's orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either


Ah, c'mon, it's small, it has way too big and weird of an orbit and there are lots of other similar objects out there like Pluto. It's either calling all these objects planets or simply throwing out Pluto out of the definition of the planet. Which they did, and scientifically they made a right choice, but Pluto had been considered a planet for about seventy years or so and that's what all the fuss is really about - in everyone's minds it's a planet, so let us call it a planet. Even though now we know that it's not a good name for it.


----------



## andruini (Apr 14, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> When I first read that, for some reason, I saw the M as a W and thus read it as "Morning Wood."


Come on, this is a classy place!


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

nickgray said:


> Ah, c'mon, it's small, it has way too big and weird of an orbit and there are lots of other similar objects out there like Pluto. It's either calling all these objects planets or simply throwing out Pluto out of the definition of the planet. Which they did, and scientifically they made a right choice, but Pluto had been considered a planet for about seventy years or so and that's what all the fuss is really about - in everyone's minds it's a planet, so let us call it a planet. Even though now we know that it's not a good name for it.


So many semantics to quibble over, aren't there? Isn't it enough that we know its dimensions, what it's composed of, it's orbital tendencies, etc?


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

Pluto was a planet in his early years and an urge for self-expression over balance changed him in to a Kuiper belt object. Oh wait, wrong discussion?


----------



## maestro267 (Jul 25, 2009)

Ignis Fatuus said:


> Do they open the door to the choir again or do they sit in their own room for the whole movement? :]


That's an idea. Get the choir to gradually walk into the arena to depict the gradual population of Earth with humans. (We could include male voices in this movement as well, possibly with actual words for the choir to sing)


----------



## mueske (Jan 14, 2009)

Fsharpmajor said:


> Yeah, but unfortunately Mahler died before he got around to it.


Good one.


----------



## laurele (Nov 11, 2009)

nickgray said:


> Ah, c'mon, it's small, it has way too big and weird of an orbit and there are lots of other similar objects out there like Pluto. It's either calling all these objects planets or simply throwing out Pluto out of the definition of the planet. Which they did, and scientifically they made a right choice, but Pluto had been considered a planet for about seventy years or so and that's what all the fuss is really about - in everyone's minds it's a planet, so let us call it a planet. Even though now we know that it's not a good name for it.


No, Pluto is not too small, as it is large enough to be rounded by its own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium and characteristic of planets, not of shapeless asteroids. There are only a few other known Kuiper Belt Objects large enough to be spherical, and they are planets too. A weird orbit does not preclude an object from being a planet; the majority of planets we have found orbiting other stars have eccentric and elliptical orbits, and these are giant planets. What is wrong with calling all spherical objects that orbit the sun planets? If we have hundreds of planets, then that is what we have. Any attempt to artificially limit the number is not science but an arbitrary decision for convenience's sake. Planet is a fine name for Pluto as long as we recognize that dwarf planets are a third class of planets in addition to terrestrials and jovians.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

laurele said:


> No, Pluto is not too small, as it is large enough to be rounded by its own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium and characteristic of planets, not of shapeless asteroids. There are only a few other known Kuiper Belt Objects large enough to be spherical, and they are planets too. A weird orbit does not preclude an object from being a planet; the majority of planets we have found orbiting other stars have eccentric and elliptical orbits, and these are giant planets. What is wrong with calling all spherical objects that orbit the sun planets? If we have hundreds of planets, then that is what we have. Any attempt to artificially limit the number is not science but an arbitrary decision for convenience's sake. Planet is a fine name for Pluto as long as we recognize that dwarf planets are a third class of planets in addition to terrestrials and jovians.


Did you join just to clarify this point?


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

laurele said:


> Planet is a fine name for Pluto as long as we recognize that dwarf planets are a third class of planets in addition to terrestrials and jovians.


Well it does say dwarf planet, doesn't it? Jupiter is a planet, but people with some knowledge about this stuff are likely to call it a gas giant. Meh, it's just words. Pluto, Ceres, Makemake and others are still out there, and no matter how we call them they'll still be out there.


----------



## laurele (Nov 11, 2009)

Ignis Fatuus said:


> Did you join just to clarify this point?


Not at all; I sing and act and love music, including Holst's "The Planets."


----------

