Integral Music?

Can you hear what perspective/worldview music has? Could you affect the listener to a certain state? Even though musical skill is considered a line of development, I always felt that music creates a state like nothing else. It has a well developed and open ended “language with grammar”. The grammar is still under development.

You could of course be highly developed in the “music”-line no matter the other lines of development. Do other lines affect the music creation even if someone is exceptionally developed in their “music”-line? I wonder about masters in the past. Could they be so great with just their musical line developed? Would a composer with no underdeveloped lines sound different and appeal to us more?

And what about levels? This interests me the most.
Is there a development through history? Is music going in a certain direction? Could you say that certain music ideas fit certain levels in the spiral? Do you know “read” or “orange” or “green” music?  (Well, if everybody has the same right in a band I don’t know how that would work – free jazz? Hard to get anything coherent but the musicians are usually having a great time even though the listeners are rather few... sorry I’m being nasty...)Are there music ideas today that just were impossible to imagine in the past? Is it more complex today or just a different worldview? It could be quite fun to look at the worldviews and try to make music that fit them, just as an experiment.

I studied music history quite a while ago and now I’m really getting interested in these questions and wish I remembered more of my studies. Perhaps there is someone out there who has thought of this?

Secular and sacral music have gone different paths but definitely have developed through the times. Once, you could only play certain chords and intervals in sacral music in order to be “pure”.  We might think that was ridiculous but I believe that was done with the utmost respect and conviction. Today, you can find music to be incredibly encompassing even though it is as simple as one note.
I guess the composer or performer defines the world-view. I especially think of John Cage’s “4:33”where there is complete silence, using an instrument for 4 minutes and 33 seconds. That is not sacral music though... Well, in my mind it is.

But no one seems to work and create music like in the past. Even though all levels have a chance to be present today, it does not seem to be anyone creating music like the “biggies” in the past. Today most productions seem to be about re-creating the past by just playing the same compositions that have been hailed as masterpieces over and over.
Of course circumstances are very different today and most of composers from, for example Baroque or Classicism, were recognized after their death. Today, creations like those of that time simply costs too much to produce today. Then, you needed some king or lord to keep you alive and you needed to please them and follow their goals. But the music of those times has a tremendous affect on most people.

I also think we just don’t want to “slave” and have that life style that many musicians had then which lead me to the next point:
We are too narcissistic today in order to create this music. We mostly just want to just express ourselves. OR we tend to flock like sheep around the “past” and strictly follow those rules with no chance for new ideas. Think of big orchestras, everybody sitting perfectly still, with the same dark clothes. I don’t know who they are playing for. Maybe their tough parents?  
“You won’t have dinner unless you play the sonata perfectly 3 more times, son!” (Again, I hope you permit my sorrowful arrogance... Of course this music is very valuable too)

Anyway,
It is healthy in some ways to focus on you more, and thank God we can, but I think one of the reasons the music from, for example Baroque, is so profound is because you could not have the greatest ego. Well, some of the composers did, but if your “supporter” did not like what you did, you were on the street. You could not just do what you wanted and tell everybody else to go to hell. This reminds me a little the idea about God in second person.
I think these composers were remarkable because they managed to create masterpieces that followed their passion and God as well, or perhaps the “god”-like supervisor. You had to step aside and be humble. I see that is one of the biggest problems in my own life.

There is a period of music called 20th century music, because too much happened in that time to name all the ideas. It does seem like all kinds of ideas sprang up with industrialism. Music became more and more deconstructed and for a while you could not create anything unless it was “totally new” and old ideals where thrown aside. You were “not allowed” to compose old ideas.
 Recently, there is more of an acceptance to do whatever you want and all styles are more appreciated. But interestingly, most people don’t know about 20th music, have not heard much and most people who get exposed to it find it way too intellectual or “far-out”. It seems to be music for the informed specialist.

Jazz music was very popular and I happen to still love it. Some people would argue with me on its popularity today. It definitely exists but is mostly appreciated by the experienced specialist, the musician who plays it. It started as popular music and slowly became a way for artists to “be themselves” on stage. The development here is from the masses to the individual. Interestingly, most of these masters were pretty rude, self-absorbed “dickheads” and often completely destroyed themselves.
Even though blues is not the origin of jazz it is still considered to be one of the pillars and I think this is still the most accessible music in the genre of Jazz and has lead to many developments today. Pop and Rock music has its roots there for sure.
Jazz today seem more about the central figure, a master, a guru who shines out inspirations onto others. God is on stage playing the saxophone. The origin of jazz was music for the group, it was more about playing and expressing together and God was somewhere else.

What is the next step? It seems almost impossible to continue the path of Charlie and Miles. I think a more integral view would include a little healthier life style and ideals as well and I think we are more interested in that. The whole idea of sacrificing yourself is less intriguing. And sacrificing to what exactly?

I know that the integral movement very much include the arts. But I find there is very little music still and not specifically diverse either even though the contributions are great.

So, I don’t know where to go with this. Just something that crossed my mind and I find it could be interesting to study more. So, the brave soul that read all this, perhaps has something to contribute? In the meantime I will see what else comes up.

Cheers!