[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

RE: That first note (or loop) . . .

On May 1, 2005, at 18:57, Kris Hartung wrote:
> On occasion, I hear artists claim that they are doing their own thing 
> without any influences from others, or when someone asks who
> influenced
> them, they shrug their shoulders and claim ignorance.  I find this
> laughable, if not arrogant and pretentious, as if they think they can
> compose in a vacuum outside the influence of human society...

>>I do partly agree, but in a certain sense I believe that you really  
can compose - and listen to music - "in a vacuum". 

I guess the question is whether we can objectively test this. If we
assume the possibility of subconscious or non-conscious influences, then
it is hard construct a sound argument either way, unless we start with a
blank slate or "tabula rasa"....and that is a whole different can of
philosophical worms.  Even with your childhood example, which I think is
a rather interesting one (recalling geometric shapes, etc....very
fascinating!), you were exposed to some musical patterns, albeit to a
limited degree. You consciously recalled goemetic shapes, but what else
was stored and integrated beyond your awareness?  Can we quantify the
influence that it had on you? (Just rhetorical questions, here).
Moreover, your case is interesting and probably counts as an exception
to my series of claims about influence...which I was applying primarily
to mature musicians who do listen to a fair amount of music. I wouldn't
mind hearing about other examples of childhood memories of music. 

>> Those forms and colors are still the  
same today, almost half a century later. Learning musical styles,  
scales and theory has not changed that way of experiencing music. So,  
I'm thinking that maybe there really are universal human "musical  
archetypes" (similar to what C.G. Jung described).

I'm certainly attracted to the idea of Jungian musical archetypes. It's
very intriguing.  I wouldn't be surprised if some theoretician has
written about this at length. What might we speculate those archetypes
to be?  For example, would there be an archetype depicting the general
feel of the minor key? (emotive archetypes) Or an archetype for scales,
or the 12 tone scale, or intervals,, etc.  Or are we talking about more
"Platonic" archetypes which are conceptual and boil down the essence of
a concept...such as the essence of "major key" or "major key-hood". Heh
heh.  Might birds tap into these archetypes when they sing their songs?
This goes further back than Jung. Pythagorus actually proposed that the
universe was composed of numbers, that is, that the essence of the
universe as numbers....real numbers as entities, not just conceptually
as a grid to understand the universe. And of course, we all know about
his contribution to our understanding of intervals, the octave, fifth ,
etc.  Plato took this one step further and said the essense of the
universe was "form" or essenses. Both Jung and Frued were influence by
Plato...speaking of influences. Both Pythagorus and Plato erected there
own sort of archtype systems.

....different but related topic, have you read the book "Synchronicity:
The Bridge between Matter and Mind" by David Peat? Very interesting
book, that ties both Freudian and Jungian concepts together with
physics.....proposes an "a-causal" production of coincidental events, or
an "unfolding" from a fabric that is neither physical or non-physical,
but much more fundamental than this.