i hope tim sees that this "deeper analysis of the nature of music" is extremely pertinent and fundamental to an understanding of musical aptitude in astrology and leaves this conversation on the board..
In other words, there is no house that corresponds to music? Gotcha. What about planet?
commoditisation is a tremendous problem in its effect on envaluation (perhaps we could take "a" and "problem" out of that statement for objectivity). if something is worth money, there is often a generalised sentiment throughout society to maintain this envaluation, eg. what is and what isn't astrology, what is, and what isn't music, even when we are not charging money for it ourselves.
i think it would be better to target the inquiry into "planets that pertain to *influence*" or perhaps "entrainment". and there, we can see that this requires an interest and a sense of potentiation to enact, and is of a profoundly wide scope in the analysis of character, behaviour and identity. perhaps too wide to say that it is anything other than generally human, or vital.
can we say that virgos are less apt to engage in entrainment activities than leos? it's extremely subject to context, i don't think it's practical to make a discernment as i beleive it's obvious there is a wide set of vital factors that bear here. but this is an astrology site and of course technical, distended enquiry is the order of the day.
simply, as someone whose life's work is the study of memetic transference, i feel obliged to point out that music is not just "wonderful creativity we happen to value," that a much wider understanding is appropriate when attempting to truthfully identify the relation of "musicality" to astrology.
Whatever music "is" it's obvious that you have some who create it as well those who enjoy it and even those who don't like it. Are they no differences between them.
i've seen dozens of "empowerment" programs where people are made to feel reauthorised through creating music (in the 1980's, "men's groups" where men would go off in the forest and drum and say men things were trending).
and truly i put forth that this is precisely because music is used to sell, to lead, as semantic authority and model.. remember how in the eighties, high schools had like, three social classes and all had their own kinds of music.. like mods/rockers in the 60's, "maybe these classes are manufactured to add malleable devinition to social vectors" but let's not go into tavistock here -
the shyster has to stay one step ahead of the marks in terms of definition, the ability to define, and redefine. it is better to corroborate feelings of inadequacy, inability, ineptness, whatever you can..
Some would say it is more fundamental than language. Don't you think this view has something to do with your Venus being in the heart of the sun?
if we look at acoustic spaces from caves to vocal tracts to the syrinx, we see that even forms which are not approximated "linear resonators" have the ability to produce signals similar in nature.
what we could call formantisation, or emphasis on points in the harmonic series, even if we have inharmonic partials, "could be" a more fundamental communication than language, and perhaps something so fundamental it is "superliminal" or so common we fail to give it our attention.
generally, biological organisms have transducers designed to receive the frequencies that species generates in communication.. there are moths that produce extremely loud clicks (eg. 112 dB iirc) above the range of human hearing.
so, as we can admit, we often pay attention to a narrower field of signals than what is presented to us.
i suppose it doesn't matter what you call it.. language, music, presence, awareness. i like to say, "attention is the most valuable commodity in the universe". and, metaphysically, that is only the beginning of a deeper consideration beyond the scope of worldly communication
Would you say that with the same amount of blood, sweat and tears I could have been as great as Beethoven? You don't believe that there are some who are born with a greater talent of "using a mechanism to transduce energy into audible vibrations"?
first, i want to thank you sincerely for reading and considering my post.. it is my place, as a social advocate, to "work with" the idea that some of us are empowered and some of us are disempowered. the way you say your singing voice became worse i would say has to do with your changing social context, being part of a larger world than the nurturing home, immediate family, a place where social pressures ask you to pipe down, and not presume you are of equal talent to the icons. so.... i would say "there is no difference in innate ability" because i champion empowerment... truthfully, i see little outside of social forces that allow one talent to flourish and another not to.
given my admitted relativity of perspective, i would say to honestly answer this, i think we cannot without addressing the consideration of all causality in existence, why one person is here and another there.
but, we can look at eg. steiner, who believed that music should be used generally in education. i have for decades championed that audio synthesis be used generally in education, as it immediately transfers appreciation between ideal/theoretical forms and physical forms.. we can immediately hear all of this math in the world and integrate it.
Back in high school, my friends and I would spout of cheesy ryhmes off a beat during lunch time. While we were fooling around, I can't square that we were taking advantage of each other.
be careful about how you understand "influence" - or "in-flowing" !! it doesn't necessarily mean malice.
but why not?
indian gurus speak about "the trap of intellect", i think we entrain ourselves frequently in pride, perhaps you were engaging in a celebration of knowledge, cleverness, or perhaps you were "influencing" each other in a more positive, uplifting way, to feel capable, empowered, of accomplishing things that envaluated persons accomplish.. "see, we're just as good as those phony idols."
a word on entrainment..
like the bobby mcferrin "baaa" thing, we often focus on one thing, so that other things ("superliminal" is a nifty term) seem superfluous and pass out critical evaluation. the relationship between bpm and heart rate is so fundamental to music, but because msuic is so much more complex than this, we often fail to even consider it.. we're more focused on the lyrics, or nifty tiimbres, clever/keen samples et c. so we totally space on bpm to heart rate.
Is that all music is though? I've heard a lot of music and I can't say they've all had that common denominator of influence to them.
back to "in flowing" - influence, entrainment isn't something we're always conscious of.. sometimes we chat with other people to solidify/confirm somethnig within ourselves... if i make and try to sell music, it may have more to do with my desire to feel like a valuable member of society or self image more than influencing you.. and as such, partake in a ritual of producing the appropriate symbols et c. to feel "like a proper human being".
jupiterasc, definition of music as sounds arranged in time so as to be evocative -
some guy revving his muscle car qualifies. anything that moves produces sound, if your ears are good enough, and we know that there are persons who happily define anything as music, see life as dance, and such. truthfully, it is not unknown for people revving their car engine to do so with the intent for it to be appreciated by others as well as themselves, and that the timing and expression can be intentful and composed.
iirc it was genesis p-orridge that gave the "two points in time" (i think he may have said "beats") definition, but, as we know, a performance doesn't necessarily end so discretely, but continues, in the subsequent actions, or in our hearts, so that our selected terminii are certainly as arbitrary as our caprice. which is why i say, two points define a line..
..in composition, space, silence, is as ("or maybe more!") meaningful than signal.
i know this is all very long winded, but i hope you can see, it is not to celebrate this or that, but because i strongly feel that the commoditisation of music *and now audio* as much of what is retailed in recordings can be extremely lax in the "arranged/intentful" arena (eg. recordings of forest sounds, synthetic music produced with stochastic processes..) exemplifies the "expansion" (preexisting, out of time) of musical form/consideration to go far beyond our ideas of trained performers and a finite set of resonators/instruments.
if public enemy's dj in the 80's can make a record by placing sequences of old jazz records next to each other with a drum machine beat, (this is a gross simplification, those recordings are actually rather complex), the region between "musical peformance" and "musical appreciation" begins to grow indistinct..
..continuing technologies and expressions (famous avant garde examples eg. john cage) must broaden our consideration of "what music is" to a point where we really must redefine "what a musician is" just as well
you see?
certainly, i can see my anti-commoditisation as being "cynical," but it's really more, gregarious, to empower those who have been disenfranchised, who have stopped singing at an early age and lost their empowering throat chakra.
yo entirely benevolent y'all, "and they say i'm argumentative" i'm a trouble ender.
? we would like to study his chart.
I'd be happy to share it!
, but note this is HIS drive for creative expression (1st/5th) his music - not mine - to overcome his 4th house domination of the mother (moon-pluto you are speaking of?)
