# Why music?



## hanzosbm (Nov 18, 2015)

In the second degree we are taught of the 7 Liberal Arts.  The argument could easily made that they can be seen as a progression of wisdom.  Upon understanding common language and grammar one can express thought and clearly convey ideas.  With this skill in hand, one is then able to use that language to give depth and persuasion to their words from which we get rhetoric.  Moving on from there, rhetoric must be tested and can be used to logically argue a point if the next liberal art is utilized.  With logic in tow, the language of the universe, founded upon logic, can then be understood in the form of mathematics.  Math, when coupled with the three dimensional world in which we live, gives way to geometry in explaining shapes.  These shapes however are static.  In terms of engineering, the next progression from static is to dynamic and understanding the way in which things move.  What grander movements are there to understand than those of the heavenly bodies, and thus we have astronomy. 

But what of music?  It's is beautiful, it speaks to our emotions, it can be translated in a mathematical fashion, but as art, it is not dictated by logic and therefore seems to fall out of line with the rest.  Furthermore, the order that the arts are given to us in make music all the more enigmatic.  It seems to be an unfinished tangent, and even then is rather clumsy when attempting to insert it into the progression of the others. 

Were the creators of the ritual needing a seventh and therefore tossed this in, even though it is a poor fit?  If so, why the importance of 7?  Were the arts given out of order indicating that after understanding the fabric of the cosmos that one should then look inward to the soul and how it is moved by music?  Or does it stand in its rightful place yet is misunderstood? 

What are your thoughts, brothers?


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 18, 2015)

You bring up very interesting points that, with my limited Masonic experience, had not occured to me. Will be watching this thread to see what others have to say.


----------



## dfreybur (Nov 18, 2015)

The trivium and quadrivium were imported into Masonry not created by Masonry.  As such we can just point to the outside source and see what they have to say.  But where the fun in doing that?  ;^)

Masonry is supposed to complete the entire man.  To tie it all together to make us a better man.  To keep our eye on the possible but rarely achieved goal of being a perfect ashlar.

Humans are emotional creatures.  In lodge we offer the hand of fellowship to build love.  We subdue our passions learning to harness our other emotions to power our actions.

Music is emotional.  In lodges lucky enough to have a musician we include music in our meetings.  It is said that music tames the wild beast.  We all have in us that wild beast.

There's a further level that was likely well known in the past that is no longer well known.  It's the physical skill aspect of music.  All operative Masons knew the physical skills of carving as well as the intellectual skills of design.  Back in the day when recorded music meant sheet music more men knew musical instruments than is common now.  There is a cluster of composition, sight reading music, playing music, listening to music, feeling the emotions of music that is not as common as it was a century ago.  That cluster parallels designing a structure, writing them on the trestle board, sight reading the plans, carving the stone, feeling the emotion of building a cathedral.


----------



## hanzosbm (Nov 18, 2015)

I completely agree with you in regards to music speaking to our emotions.  In addition, I think one could argue that there is a need to understand the first 3 arts, maybe even the 4th, to truly understand music.  This could be seen as a progression all on it's own and a branch, after mastering those first 3 or 4, speaking to the emotional side with geometry and astrology speaking to the logical side.  But again, it is placed AFTER geometry, which doesn't make a lot of sense.

As I've been writing this, I'm considering a different avenue of approach.  Each of the arts independently are nice, but it is clear that they are meant to be a progression.  That being said, maybe we ought to look at this more like a tree than a vine.  I think we all see the progressive nature of the trivium, but, after the trunk of the tree is established with those 3, maybe the quadrivium are to be seen as independent branches. 

While today, we view a knowledge of mathematics to be the foundation of geometry, that was not always the case.  Yes, the two are related, but with practical knowledge and certain tools, geometry can be performed without mathematics, at least in its rudimentary levels.  Consider the ancient problem of squaring the circle; the entire challenge was to do so with geometry and excluding mathematics.  Likewise, the movement of the stars, while now known to be dictated by physics, can be observed, recorded, even predicted via logic and without true mathematics.  Perhaps the quadrivium are all independent of each other, yet all requiring the common foundation of the trivium.


----------



## hanzosbm (Nov 18, 2015)

Doing a bit of reading on Wikipedia (dangerous, I know) I found the quadrivium discussed.  Proclus, a 5th century philosopher said:

The Pythagoreans considered all mathematical science to be divided into four parts: one half they marked off as concerned with quantity, the other half with magnitude; and each of these they posited as twofold. A quantity can be considered in regard to its character by itself or in its relation to another quantity, magnitudes as either stationary or in motion. Arithmetic, then, studies quantities as such, music the relations between quantities, geometry magnitude at rest, spherics [astronomy] magnitude inherently moving.

This idea of the study of relations between quantities is an interesting one and brings to mind a special I saw awhile back discussing the seemingly constant examples of mathematic ratios in nature.  Part of the special also talked about music and how certain ratios (I.e. notes and their combinations) were more pleasing to the ear.  It could be argued that music is essentially an auditory representation of geometry, and if viewed again as a progression, it would be necessary to have at least some understanding of geometry to progress.  Just a thought.


----------



## hanzosbm (Nov 18, 2015)

JamestheJust said:


> The word "music" is an adjective and not a noun.


I must disagree with you.  Not only from a grammatical perspective (there's that first liberal art) but also from a practical one.  It is one of the liberal arts, those arts being nouns, it is, therefore, a noun.


----------



## hanzosbm (Nov 18, 2015)

Once again, music is a noun, not an adjective.  Musical and musically are both adjectives, but music is a noun.  Furthermore, I'm currently holding the monitors for 2 separate jurisdictions, neither of which have anything even remotely close to mentioning a muse.  They both, however, refer to music as a liberal art, a noun. 
I asked for thoughts, and I am fully interested in hearing different ideas, but those ideas need to be based on something.  If I'm missing what that something is, please enlighten me.


----------



## Classical (Nov 18, 2015)

Nice discussion! I have a Bachelor of Music, so I'm pretty sure it's a noun....

The ancients considered music a discipline on par with mathematics and other human rational/emotional endeavors. Many religions have tried to restrict music and/or ban it outright in human worship of God for just the reasons we are speaking of: In that music affects the heart in ways that are not easily understood by objective means. This scares the hell out of many fanatical religions and I think we can see why.

Actually, now that I think about it, ALL of the seven Arts are pretty scary to petty minds and doctrines of human control. I think this is what Pike was hinting at in his first chapter of Morals & Dogma.


----------



## Mel Knight (Nov 18, 2015)

432hz


----------



## JJones (Nov 18, 2015)

Classical said:


> The ancients considered music a discipline on par with mathematics



This is why I always assumed music was a liberal art. Octaves, frequencies, and so forth, are very mathematical in nature. I sort of suspect the creators of our ritual had this in mind.


----------



## Bloke (Nov 18, 2015)

Mel Knight said:


> 432hz


Tell me more 
I vote music is a noun.
Every thought it was cause Solomon was a rock star of his day ? He is attributed with the Song of Solomon which appears in some of our VSLs 

(I'm in a silly mood, though there is a comnection there. ..)


----------



## Classical (Nov 19, 2015)

Bloke said:


> Tell me more
> I vote music is a noun.
> Every thought it was cause Solomon was a rock star of his day ? He is attributed with the Song of Solomon which appears in some of our VSLs
> 
> (I'm in a silly mood, though there is a comnection there. ..)


Just make sure you dial it up to 11!


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 19, 2015)

JJones said:


> This is why I always assumed music was a liberal art. Octaves, frequencies, and so forth, are very mathematical in nature. I sort of suspect the creators of our ritual had this in mind.


I like this!


----------



## hanzosbm (Nov 19, 2015)

I read on Wikipedia that originally, when the ancients spoke of the art of 'music', they were really talking about harmonics.  That would certainly make sense regarding the mathematical nature of music having to do with ratios and how they affect harmonics.  That being said, it's Wikipedia.  Does anyone have anything that could be added along those lines?


----------



## Browncoat (Nov 30, 2015)

_"There is geometry in the humming of the strings, there is music in the spacing of the spheres."_ — Pythagoras

Yes, *THAT* Pythagoras. He was very much into the study of how mathematics relates to music.


----------



## Emjaysmash (Nov 30, 2015)

Let me throw this idea out there: I think we can all agree music has mathematics as a foundation. Could the jump from geometry to music possibly have to do with creation beyond the physical? Geometry employs mathematics to physical means: shapes, angles, all or which need to be physically created (be that in building or on the trestle board). Music takes that one step further- creation of mathematical patterns that are not necessary confined to a physical apparatus (although often is in order to be re-created by others) but are fleeting and momentary. Could this not point to a GAOTU that created from nothing? Could it also serve as a reminder of our fleeting creation and that all are to meet death eventually?

Something to think about.


----------



## coachn (Nov 30, 2015)

Arithmetic (The Rhetoric of Symbols as Numbers) = Numbers and Operators
Geometry = Numbers and Operators in Space => Space Management
[Trigonometry = The Bridge between Geometry and Music]
Music = Numbers and Operators in Time => Time Management
Astronomy (Physics!) = Numbers and Operators in Space and Time => Physics Management


----------



## hanzosbm (Dec 1, 2015)

One thing I'd like to point out, which is a common misconception even made in that video, is the idea that the physical world is all created according to mathematics.  It is not.  Rather, mathematics is simply a language used to describe the physical world.  Just as a digital picture is a collection of small dots of a substance that refracts light with similar properties to physical objects in the world around us, that doesn't mean that the world is created based on pictures.  I often here that music is mathematical, and respectfully, this is not true.  Music, like everything, can be described through mathematics, but it can also be described through pictures, through written descriptions, and sometimes through color.  But that doesn't make music pictorial, literary, or chromatic.  Music is simply musical, and we can describe it in a great number of ways. 
Now that my little rant is over, I feel that it brings me back to my original question.  Yes, music can be described with mathematics, but it does not require mathematics, so it still places it outside of the linear progression of sciences listed.


----------



## coachn (Dec 1, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> One thing I'd like to point out, which is a common misconception even made in that video, is the idea that the physical world is all created according to mathematics.  It is not.  Rather, mathematics is simply a language used to describe the physical world.  Just as a digital picture is a collection of small dots of a substance that refracts light with similar properties to physical objects in the world around us, that doesn't mean that the world is created based on pictures.  I often here that music is mathematical, and respectfully, this is not true.  Music, like everything, can be described through mathematics, but it can also be described through pictures, through written descriptions, and sometimes through color.  But that doesn't make music pictorial, literary, or chromatic.  Music is simply musical, and we can describe it in a great number of ways.
> Now that my little rant is over, I feel that it brings me back to my original question.  Yes, music can be described with mathematics, but it does not require mathematics, so it still places it outside of the linear progression of sciences listed.



I agree with all that you have written, except for your conclusion.  The STUDY of Music was purposeful and in line with a continuum toward Physics.  You can do all the music appreciation and playing of instruments you want.  Without the foundation, study of numbers and operators in time, you're just a user of sound.  The study is not about sound.  It is about shaping the mind to recognize, understand and apply numbers in time.  That also included development of the anticipatory, estimation and sequencing circuits of the brain.  Its study develops these and quite a few other things too!


----------



## Warrior1256 (Dec 1, 2015)

coachn said:


> The study is not about sound. It is about shaping the mind to recognize, understand and apply numbers in time. That also included development of the anticipatory, estimation and sequencing circuits of the brain. Its study develops these and quite a few other things too!


Whew!!! Heavy stuff.


----------



## Bloke (Dec 1, 2015)

Maybe numbers are just the descriptive language of the divine. Perhaps music is too..... except heavy metal of course... that's  the devils work lol


----------



## hanzosbm (Dec 2, 2015)

Bloke said:


> Maybe numbers are just the descriptive language of the divine. Perhaps music is too..... except heavy metal of course... that's  the devils work lol


I personally believe that the work of the divine is more along the lines of simply 'what is'.  Obviously, we're now moving into beliefs and philosophy pretty deeply, but what the heck...

Over the Thanksgiving holiday my brothers invited me out deer hunting with them.  It had been a long time, but I figured why not.  As we get to the farm and split up to find our own respective positions, I found myself (as one typically does while hunting) just observing nature on a cold Kentucky morning as the sun was getting ready to rise.  It was obviously a beautiful sight, and while a dumb atheist might deny it, one would be hard pressed to not see the hand of the divine in it.  Now, if one was asked to describe it, what language would they use?  I could probably write a book just on that morning talking around the cold I felt and the first rays of the day filtering through the grey blanket of rain coming down.  I'm sure a meteorologist could tell you about the air pressures causing the temperatures to drop and the rain to fall just after sun up.  A geologist could tell you all about why the ravine stretched out in front of me was formed and the hills beyond it.  An astronomer could probably speak ad nauseam about the rising of the sun, the lightening of the skies, false dawn, etc.  A zoologist could probably tell you why certain animals were making certain noises.  From a musical perspective, you could picture it perfectly with Rossini's Morning Song.  A painter could apply pigment to canvas to capture the glowing skies and barren trees.  There are probably a hundred more disciplines, each speaking their own language, who could try to capture that scene.  But, none of them could, because language only describes.  The divine creates what is.  It is holistic and complex and fleeting.  We, as humans, create languages to describe the world and events around us, but that's all it is; a description.  Even when art, in any form, attempts to replicate some natural thing, it always fails to do so completely. 

At the end of the day, maybe the lesson we ought to learn from the study of the various arts is not knowledge from having grasped some tiny fragment of the whole, but rather humility in learning just how little knowledge we will ever actually have.


----------



## Bloke (Dec 2, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> ....At the end of the day, maybe the lesson we ought to learn from the study of the various arts is not knowledge from having grasped some tiny fragment of the whole, but rather humility in learning just how little knowledge we will ever actually have.



*double like*

And it is intetesting how some famous scientists came to that very conclusion. I feel that way....


----------



## coachn (Dec 2, 2015)

Bloke said:


> *double like*
> 
> And it is intetesting how some famous scientists came to that very conclusion. I feel that way....


Yes, but it was long after they did the work, making every effort to stretch themselves, rather than just sit back and say, "it can never be comprehended". They did comprehend enough to make a significant difference for all involved, before they shared this humility.


----------



## hanzosbm (Dec 2, 2015)

coachn said:


> Yes, but it was long after they did the work, making every effort to stretch themselves, rather than just sit back and say, "it can never be comprehended". They did comprehend enough to make a significant difference for all involved, before they shared this humility.


That's exactly the point.  A person can't see the big picture without first learning these things.  But, upon doing so, they realize that the truly big picture is unobtainable. 
I'm by no means an expert in any field, but through my studies for my engineering degree I've had to learn differential equations, organic chemistry, advanced physics, and several other disciplines.  (although music has continued to elude me)  While others understand far more than I ever will, it was enough of an insight for me to grasp the enormity of it as well as to understand just how limited it really is.


----------



## coachn (Dec 2, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> That's exactly the point.  A person can't see the big picture without first learning these things.  But, upon doing so, they realize that the truly big picture is unobtainable.
> I'm by no means an expert in any field, but through my studies for my engineering degree I've had to learn differential equations, organic chemistry, advanced physics, and several other disciplines.  (although music has continued to elude me)  While others understand far more than I ever will, it was enough of an insight for me to grasp the enormity of it as well as to understand just how limited it really is.


If you studied Engineering, and advanced physics, etc., you have studied numbers in time.  You might not have studied music as a "category", but you have studied its fundamentals.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Dec 3, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> At the end of the day, maybe the lesson we ought to learn from the study of the various arts is not knowledge from having grasped some tiny fragment of the whole, but rather humility in learning just how little knowledge we will ever actually have.


Very profound brother. Something to ponder on indeed.


----------



## hanzosbm (Dec 7, 2015)

I'm not positive on how this fits into this conversation, but I found something today that I'd like to add.  I was watching a YouTube video and in it, they compared our lives to a song.  They discussed how, just as a piano has a great number of keys, so does life have a great number of variables.  As a song progresses, individual notes (or groupings of notes) are played in a specific order to ultimately create a piece of music.  They pointed out that if every key on the piano was suddenly slammed down at the same time as loud as possible that there would be no beauty to it.  Likewise, the various, individual and unique events in our finite lives come together to make the song of our life. 
I personally really liked that view on things and thought I'd share.


----------



## MaineMason (Dec 8, 2015)

As a  professional musician trained in composition and about to be a Lodge Organist in January, I assert that music is inherently scientific, and the way in which it works upon the brain and emotions is inherently related to proportion and science, as is, say, architecture. It certainly belongs among the liberal arts we speak of in the lectures and certainly belongs in the Lodge. The fact that historically many lodges had (and still do) have pipe organs bears this out: the way the organ produces tones is totally based on mathematical principles, as is how all other instruments and even the human voice function.


----------



## hanzosbm (Dec 8, 2015)

MaineMason said:


> As a  professional musician trained in composition and about to be a Lodge Organist in January, I assert that music is inherently scientific, and the way in which it works upon the brain and emotions is inherently related to proportion and science, as is, say, architecture. It certainly belongs among the liberal arts we speak of in the lectures and certainly belongs in the Lodge. The fact that historically many lodges had (and still do) have pipe organs bears this out: the way the organ produces tones is totally based on mathematical principles, as is how all other instruments and even the human voice function.


I agree with you, but what is it about music that sets it apart and includes it as one of the seven arts?  Why not painting, or sculpture?  Both use mathematics.  The other six can be seen as a progression culminating in an (attempted) understanding of the universe.  Music (not acoustics) is man-made.


----------



## dfreybur (Dec 8, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> ... but what is it about music that sets it apart and includes it as one of the seven arts?  Why not painting, or sculpture?



Sculpture is geometry so it is covered by a previous science.  Painting is three dimensional images projected onto two dimensions so it too is covered by geometry.

I get that music can be reduced to geometry by string ratios and astronomy is all about geometry.  That's why Masonry counts geometry as the greatest of the list.


----------



## MaineMason (Dec 9, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> Sculpture is geometry so it is covered by a previous science.  Painting is three dimensional images projected onto two dimensions so it too is covered by geometry.
> 
> I get that music can be reduced to geometry by string ratios and astronomy is all about geometry.  That's why Masonry counts geometry as the greatest of the list.



You are quite correct, and Euclid even recognized that and he occupies a rather important place in Freemasonry. What many people who are not highly studied in music forget is that for much of its history it was a mathematical science. Palestrina and Bach, for instance. The 20th Century was a huge experiment in reducing music to its underlying science, at least as far as academic music is concerned. We must not confuse so-called "popular" music with academic music and the study of music as an academic discipline.


----------



## MaineMason (Dec 9, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> I agree with you, but what is it about music that sets it apart and includes it as one of the seven arts?  Why not painting, or sculpture?  Both use mathematics.  The other six can be seen as a progression culminating in an (attempted) understanding of the universe.  Music (not acoustics) is man-made.


Not to belabor this, but let's examine the Pipe Organ, an instrument found in many old lodges. What we call 8 foot pitch is generally within the range of the human voice and those pipes vary in length based on 8 feet. 16 foot pitch covers the lower octaves,4 and 2 foot pitch much higher. Then there are what we call "mutation" stops, where overtones are added based on mathematical fomulae. Regardless of how music makes us FEEL, it is based on solid scientific principles.


----------



## MaineMason (Dec 9, 2015)

JamestheJust said:


> Music seems to me to be greater than the sum of its parts.
> 
> Not only are there notes there are also tempos.  I recall reading an account of maestro giving lessons to a musician, explaining that a particular tempo must be warm, and having the student practice until it was so.
> 
> Consciousness and intent may be the most important aspects of music.  Compare, for example, the wartime performances by Furtwangler of Beethoven with his peacetime performances a few years later.



There are subjective elements to be sure. I find it interesting that there seems to be quite some hostility to music in the Lodge among some Brethren.


----------



## Bloke (Dec 9, 2015)

MaineMason said:


> I find it interesting that there seems to be quite some hostility to music in the Lodge among some Brethren.



Fear of change...


----------



## hanzosbm (Dec 9, 2015)

MaineMason said:


> Not to belabor this, but let's examine the Pipe Organ, an instrument found in many old lodges. What we call 8 foot pitch is generally within the range of the human voice and those pipes vary in length based on 8 feet. 16 foot pitch covers the lower octaves,4 and 2 foot pitch much higher. Then there are what we call "mutation" stops, where overtones are added based on mathematical fomulae. Regardless of how music makes us FEEL, it is based on solid scientific principles.


I disagree with the assertion that music is based on scientific principles.  Back to my earlier post, I would say that science (namely mathematics) can be used to describe what is happening in music.  Harmonics is the study of waves and could probably be classified within trigonometry.  If this is what is meant by music, then I suppose that is an avenue worth consideration.  However, the modern usage of the term 'music' has to do with the arrangement of those various harmonics; something that is entirely artistic. 
One could just as easily name interpretative dance as one of the 7 arts because body movements are based on solid scientific principles.  Yet, it is not the movement of limbs nor the plucking of a string that makes dance or music respectively.  Their arrangement is based on expression. 

By the way, I should've mentioned earlier, I hope that none of this is coming off as an argument.  That's not the way that it is intended.  Rather, I'm trying to use discussion (including playing the devil's advocate) to inspire thought.


----------



## dfreybur (Dec 9, 2015)

JamestheJust said:


> Music seems to me to be greater than the sum of its parts.



It's parts are mathematical.  It's result is emotional.  Music is the path of mathematics into the soul of the savage beast that is the rough ashlar.



Bloke said:


> Fear of change...



Fear of doing that which was always the standard but that was lost locally.  The same as business meetings in the EA degree.

Blessed is the lodge that has a musician.


----------



## MaineMason (Dec 9, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> I disagree with the assertion that music is based on scientific principles.  Back to my earlier post, I would say that science (namely mathematics) can be used to describe what is happening in music.  Harmonics is the study of waves and could probably be classified within trigonometry.  If this is what is meant by music, then I suppose that is an avenue worth consideration.  However, the modern usage of the term 'music' has to do with the arrangement of those various harmonics; something that is entirely artistic.
> One could just as easily name interpretative dance as one of the 7 arts because body movements are based on solid scientific principles.  Yet, it is not the movement of limbs nor the plucking of a string that makes dance or music respectively.  Their arrangement is based on expression.
> 
> By the way, I should've mentioned earlier, I hope that none of this is coming off as an argument.  That's not the way that it is intended.  Rather, I'm trying to use discussion (including playing the devil's advocate) to inspire thought.



I suppose it depends upon what you mean by "modern" and what you mean by "music". I still hold that music is both art and science. As a composer, in order to arrange those various harmonics, as you put it, I must use proportion and mathematics. I must choose a meter (or several) for my music, and divide notes accordingly. Creating an effective composition of course requires considerable artistic talent however as my undergraduate mentor, Stanley Hollingsworth used to say, "Flair and talent are not enough; you must have CRAFT", and by "craft" he meant disciplined and thorough-going understanding of the theoretical aspect of the craft of composition. Those who have studied both 15-16 century counterpoint (say, according to Fux's "Gradus ad Parnassum") and 18th century fugue as well as harmony, serial techniques and dodecaphonic theory--which would apply to every conservatory or university trained composer and to some extent or another instrumentalists and vocalists--are well aware that the art in composition lies in knowing how to manipulate the scientific principles which underlie Western music.


----------



## MaineMason (Dec 9, 2015)

JamestheJust said:


> I recall an incident recounted by a member of the Berlin Philharmonic.  The orchestra was tuning up and producing the usual discordant noise when suddenly the sounds became harmonious.
> 
> He looked around to see what was happening, and there at the back of the auditorium the conductor had stepped through the door.  Just the presence of the conductor was sufficient to change the tunings from discord to harmony.
> 
> The conductor was Furtwangler.



Furtwangler was an odd man, and had an extremely unusual style of conducting (you can see him on YouTube). However, the era of conductor as dictator ended years ago. I suspect Bernstein and Solti were among the last of that 19th century inspired approach. When I conduct orchestras and choirs, which I have done quite frequently, I take a very different and more collegial approach as do most conductors today. As for an orchestra warming up it is actually very necessary though it can certainly sound like discord. Actual tuning, traditionally led by the first oboist and then the concertmaster (first violinist) focuses on bringing all tunable instruments to a particular Herz frequency, in the US, typically 440, the "A" above middle "C". Again, more science!


----------



## hanzosbm (Dec 9, 2015)

MaineMason said:


> Those who have studied both 15-16 century counterpoint (say, according to Fux's "Gradus ad Parnassum") and 18th century fugue as well as harmony, serial techniques and dodecaphonic theory--which would apply to every conservatory or university trained composer and to some extent or another instrumentalists and vocalists--are well aware that the art in composition lies in knowing how to manipulate the scientific principles which underlie Western music.



While I agree with this, I think that at the heart of things, it speaks to recognized style.  In that, as with any kind of art, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  Just as with painting, there are certain "rules" that apply to different styles and understanding them allows the medium to fit nicely into that style, but the most untrained person can still make music.  Granted, that music might not be appealing to everyone, but this again brings up the subjective nature of music. 
I'm still having a hard time understanding music as being in the same category as the other 6.  Appreciating art is great, but the other 6 are meant to teach us about the world around us.  Music, as an entirely man made phenomena, doesn't fit this pattern, so I'm struggling to understand.


----------



## Classical (Dec 10, 2015)

Have any of us heard (or better, performed in a lodge) the ritual music written by Jean Sibelius? I am a devotee of his music but have not heard those pieces. I don't know if Sibelius was active in a lodge, but he was a Freemason. Near the end of his life, even in his silence from composing, he composed a set of pieces to go with parts of the ritual. Are any of you familiar with them?


----------



## MaineMason (Dec 10, 2015)

Classical said:


> Have any of us heard (or better, performed in a lodge) the ritual music written by Jean Sibelius? I am a devotee of his music but have not heard those pieces. I don't know if Sibelius was active in a lodge, but he was a Freemason. Near the end of his life, even in his silence from composing, he composed a set of pieces to go with parts of the ritual. Are any of you familiar with them?


I know that he wrote them, and intend to make myself familiar with his Masonic works if I can find them. I do, as incoming Lodge Organist, intend to use some arrangements of Bro. Sibelius' works for use in Lodge as well as those of Mozart and Haydn--also Freemasons as I am sure you know--and also original works of mine written or improvised for the occasion.


----------

