Esoteric, (Hidden,) Knowledge

Sorry, made a linky-poo for ya

 

Thanksfor the link it made my dogcurious

 

Yeah... I've also played fretless guitar. Wasn't joking about that.

 

Your comments about not being able to hear or perceive ancient music is baffling and ridiculous to me. How do you know that I don't think ancient music sounds "right"? You're just assuming that? I naturally play Egyptian sounding shit all the time. It just comes out. And I've listened to older forms of music and I like it.

Somehow a tuning system is Science but a musical scale isn't? Doesn't make any sense.

 

Ha ha, in dog we trust!

 

I know you weren't. Ever heard Guthrie Govan play the Vigier fretless?

 

You are baffled and ridiculous

 

The Egyptian sound we hear today are actually held within the chromatic scale.. phrygian, lydian and harmonic minor - maybe some others. That's why that would sound normal.. but in contrast, the gamelan thing? I can kinda fit into that sound but mainly for interests sake.. it's not very aesthetically pleasing, although to be honest I'd rather listen to that than some Biebs.

Recommend a little project for you Cat.. make yourself a little kalimba and tune that by ear to something that sounds good to you. Pretty simple to make a shitty one, but it's quite an art to get the tines to resonate and sustain sweetly. The resonating chamber also has a sweet spot for it's volumes for the cleanest sound.. Yes you can do it by trial and error, but thankfully there are some clever scientists that have determined precise formulas to make the job take less than 10 years to perfect.
Harmonics my dear friend, all that crap that the flower of life analogy is getting at? There's a sweet spot for everything, which should be considered a rule of thumb.

"Learn the rules like a pro so you can break them as an artist" - Mr. Pablo Picasso

 

Here is one. Todays cabalic conflict has extended across human history and is not just a modern effect.
The players are originally the disciples and the pauline interpretation. The pauline interpretation perpetuating the patrmonial proprietary model. The jewish idea of the accumulation of wealth, verses the disciplined approach of manifesting the good. It extends then to the gnostics and the orthodox and further to the catholic church versus the protestent or humanet movement. It moves further along in history in the form of competing feudalities of the renesance and further into the colonial expansion era involving the two as englsh and the spanish. The english protestant and the spanish catholic. There are probably twelve what you would call imperial families on each side of the issue that are ensconced in the four directional quadrants of the globe which are north south east and west, which is the sign of the cross or what crosses us. If you notice in the western hemisphere the north is populated by the english protestant puritan and the south by the spanish catholics. Some historical cabals exist in the form of blue blood lines like the medici, banking, and the cortesans of france,of course the jewish estate, just to give a few examples. We have the roman conquest moving north through europe and the thrist of the norse coming down from the north. The contest is one between those who keep secrets and those who insist on acurate personal accounting. In the world now they popularly expresed as the fina ncial industry and the occupy movement

 

I can appreciate that Science plays a role in all of the instruments that we play. But the question of where to divide Art from Science is blurry. Is it a Scientist constructing a guitar or is it an Artist crafting a piece of Art? You could easily look at a guitar itself as a piece of Art. You can look at it any way that you choose I suppose.

There are actual Egyptian scales that are strictly Egyptian.

Whether it's the Sitar sounds of India, an Egyptian flute, or some medieval Harpsichord, or Moroccan Jajouka...I appreciate all brands and all ages of music, and will only be exploring them more and more as I get older. So I simply don't buy into this vibe that somehow my ears and body aren't suited to understand or appreciate the tones of this music. Especially the Tibetan and Morroccan music...which are very Trance inspired (pointing back to Ritual).

We all have different emphasis of points of view. I'll give it to you that I couldn't express much music other than singing and some basic percussion if it wasn't for Science. But some statement like "music rides on the back of Science" I just don't fully jive with. Music is the oldest of old. It's not riding on the back of Science. In ancient days, all natural means were used to make music. You could argue that a primitive human hitting rocks together is Science, but I find it a little redundant.

I love Science by the way. What I don't love, however, is the world-view of modern Science, which is what the Terence McKenna quote is pointing out, and which has lead to this whole latest discussion.

 

This is what we were saying in the either the first or second thread.. science and art are in the exact same boat, they both explore this dynamic elegance.

Everything is being prostituted these days in whatever way possible to either gain/maintain reputation or money. It's not only limited to science. Very little value is placed on the fact that we sit on the frontier of existence.. we're far too busy trying to maintain the concept of self which we erect from our ideal ideologies instead of being willing to throw them all away and actually learn something.

 

I'm gonna side with you, cat.... A little bit.

I once built guitars, as a matter of fact I taught guitar building for over 6 years. When I built a guitar it was extreme art, everything was a one off... no two alike. Some very eclectic instruments came from my hands, no factory could ever reproduce them. Each piece was made to fit the last piece, there were no plans, no blueprints or templates. BUT, to make them applicable to other musicians and modern music I had to use science and mathematics or they would just sound wrong, especially in a group situation.

Many traditional instruments that don't, or didn't, use science/mathematics in their design were solo instruments. Look at the Sitar, the frets are movable, tuning is to the players voice. Now look at what happened in the 60's when psychedelic rock groups tried to integrate Sitar into a band that was playing modern guitars/bass/keyboards... It sounded wrong, out of tune, or was generally not able to "play well with others". (something I was accused of quite often myself) Very quickly the Coral Electric Sitar took over which is just a modified guitar that almost, sort of, sounds Sitar-ish. Most of what you have heard in this style of music is not a Sitar at all. The same thing can be said for other traditional instruments like the Lute or the Lyra and early wind instruments... The can sound fine by themselves, but just don't mesh well with band situations using modern "scientific" musical instruments. You will see this as you "get older" as you say, and try to work with this stuff in more depth.

Now, being a musical instrument builder one would assume I must know music inside and out... I don't!

Scales, modes, chords.... "lol... Whut?" I don't have a clue what you are talking about... my eyes glass over and I react the same as if you handed me a math problem to figure out. (because, well, modern music and math seem to be based around each other, or so it seems.) Now, I write music and record music... My songs are well put together, or so I've been told. People don't cringe, some people have really liked some of the stuff I've produced. What I'm doing though is the equivalent of "banging two rocks together" as you put it, and it is music, it is art and not science. I've been told that it works, everything is in tune and the tempo is solid. (although I can't tell you what tempo it is) When writing music I don't know what I am "planning" before hand... I hear it for the first time when it comes out of the speakers and I make the next part fit the last part, just like when I built guitars. It's a gift, kind of like I'm channeling something from outside myself...

But guess what. I can't go to a jam and sit in, I can't find any of those notes the other guys are playing. I can't figure out how to play any of my favorite songs or learn from recordings... Hell, I can even screw up trying to read TAB. In general, "I don't play well with others" unless they are playing stuff I wrote. Then we could become rock solid... It would be extremely painful though if we had to do a cover song... My eyes would glass over again and I couldn't pull it off... Much like that Sitar in a rock group, I don't fit.

 

Why don't you post one of your electronic songs you made on a computer on to the internet again and let me know how that works out for you without science.

Clapping two rocks together and observing the effect is science. Manipulating the rocks and adding different materials, rhythms, etc, is experimentation, which is science.

Artists use science when they create art; they have to. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to choose from their works. A brushstroke this way or a brushstroke that way, wouldn't make a difference, because there would be no accounting for anything.

Your science can even be "I will paint until what I see makes me feel good", then you are observing yourself and your reactions as the primary criterion of artistic quality and applying a method to the madness.

We can't just have madness all the time.

 

Alot of eastern music uses microtonality which is not that common in standard western music, so having not grown up in that culture that may be why it's harsh to some people's ears.

Yah the science of music theory is very beneficial, particularly if you want to play with others. One thing that I think is pretty different from the 'science' of music compared to academic type science, Is that often times you learn the rules of music (scales, chords, key signature, etc.) Only to break them. That is most good players will often pour their souls or perhaps project their inner emotions into a song which sometimes inherently becomes dissonant, creates a poly rhythm or varies from what the rest of the band may be playing. A song wouldn't be cohesive if everyone was off doing their own thing and there was no resolution but this is in stark contrast to the parameters with which a science experiment sets up and must follow to produce testable results.

 

Not usurping your general gist, Ty
but the sitar is an Indian classical instrument and though there is no default tuning, there are specific tunings that can vary depending on the school or tradition and which particular raga is being played. As you pointed out, the coral electric sitar is not really a sitar at all.

Tuning to the players voice isn't entirely accurate, though they are tuned using the Indian classical solfége system, in which syllables are used to indicate the degrees of the scale.
In western solfége we use the syllables do, re, me, ect to indicate degrees of the major scale. Though there is a certain amount of player preference, generally the main playing string of the sitar is almost invariably tuned a perfect fourth above the tonic, the second string being tuned to the tonic. The tonic in the Indian solfège system is referred to as ṣaḍja, ṣaḍaj, or the shortened form sa, or khaṛaj, a dialectal variant of ṣaḍaj, not as vād, and the perfect fifth to which one or more of the drones strings are tuned is referred to as pañcam, not samvād. (wiki)

An interesting note, world famous sitar player Ravi shankar, performing at the Concert for Bangladesh in August 1971 (which George Harrison organised), was astonished when after the musicians had tuned up on stage for over a minute, the crowd broke into applause, to which the amused Shankar responded:
"If you like our tuning so much, I hope you will enjoy the playing more."

Shankar actually scored a concerto for sitar and orchestra that was performed by the london Philharmonic, Andre Previn conducted.

 

I wasn't implying there were no standards for Sitar, but the traditional instrument is widely "adjustable" to the artists preference.

Maybe you didn't listen to Cat's music, but there are REAL instruments that were recorded using a computer... Are you implying that once something is recorded it's no longer art? Is using an electric guitar not art but using and acoustic guitar art? or no music is art just because there is some mathematics used in the development of instruments?

If so I'm calling bullshit.

 

And thumbs up for that alone, I say. Real instruments are where the interface between humans and science can produce some real magic.

 

I like a lot of these posts and agree that I need to not be so defensive so much as it always just comes off as immature. I'm working on that.

But thank you to some for pointing out that I sure as hell didn't use any computer to make my music. I can't stand that as a matter of fact, which is precisely why I have stayed away from mastering music for the most part all the way until this point. I'm finally trying to now (just using Audacity) because I'm tired of waiting on different friends to master my music when they're not busy. So I'm finally trying to learn a thing or two about mastering.

I agree my solo music is far from perfect. It's kind of my space to fuck around, though, and channel out different vibes and play the fantasy of what it would be like if I was in a band with all ChinaCatSunflower02's in the band. And like I said what I have put up is not in any way a final product but a work in progress. I'd say what I posted flows a lot better than when I first posted it. Others have also expressed that they really like it.

I did, however, use a Synthesizer (not from the computer...fuck that shit. Never!) which is obviously reliant upon Science. Not to mention the instruments. It was extremely challenging for me to even consider adding in computerized effects with my music (backmasking towards the end) but I'm finally trying to stop being so stubborn about using computers in regards to music.

But, I think we are highly straying from the original point of Terence McKenna's quote. I'm fine with that, though, as I am highly enjoying talking about music. I had never heard of the Musica Universalis and I'm interested in exploring these tunings even if they sound "off" as I am very interested in diving into the depths of the Cosmos for sound and inspiration in any way I can. And I also happen to be fond of chromatic sounds.

The only point that was trying to be made in regards to the Terence McKenna quote is that Science, being the art of physical possibilities, tends to herald itself as the source and arbiter of all knowledge. You would have to listen to the entirety of the Unfolding The Stone video to grock what lead to him saying that.

And also just for the record, not that it matters, but I never record stuff directly onto a computer but I have a recorder (yes, I know, it's Science).

 

"Real instruments are where the interface between humans and Science can produce some real magic" ...yes. Totally agree with that.

 

I never said once something is recorded it isn't art. Not only did those words not appear in my post, neither did any implication of those words. In fact that position is patently absurd; are paintings not "recorded"? I was saying Chinacat's music, and our listening of it (the actual experience of music in this case) are impossible without science. It doesn't make a lick of difference that there are real instruments recorded; where are they recorded? How are we listening to them? "Where" is Chinacat's music?

Science has provided the instruments upon which Chinacat can use basic scientific and artistic principles to create his music with other instruments and then allow us to hear them.

Have to look at the big picture. If we spend all our time nitpicking this shit no one learns anything and only egos get inflated.


So much of this thread's motions are based on improperly defined, used, and understood terms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al1q01CZgtc