Any theosophical composers, who are still ALIVE?

Started by mikkeljs, October 20, 2012, 07:39:41 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

mikkeljs

I have been searching and searching for this. I asked my colleages in DK, and contacted a theosophical society on the same quest. To find some contemporary composers with a strong theosophical orientation. So far, the only ones I found were either dead or bad or both.

mikkeljs


mc ukrneal

Be kind to your fellow posters!!

Corey

There aren't any because it's a fad pseudo-religion that hasn't been popular since the 1920s.

mikkeljs

#4
Quote from: mc ukrneal on October 21, 2012, 10:42:05 AM
What is a theosophical compose?

In a way I think most composers have a slightly theosophical mentality in the connection of science and the spiritual. So thats why I find it puzzling that theosophy have become so unpopular in the environment of contemporary composers.

I contacted a theosophical society to research for some composers or musical traditions, but the only one they knew about was Scriabin. There must be someone else out there...

Quote from: Corey on October 21, 2012, 10:43:05 AM
There aren't any because it's a fad pseudo-religion that hasn't been popular since the 1920s.

One important distinction is that theosophy strongly promotes that each individual should find his/her own theosophy and not eat the Blavatsky works raw. It is allowed to disagree with any statement and the works by Blavatsky are not meant as complete but are suggestive.

Corey

#5
I guess I just don't understand the need for theosophy when there are plenty of philosophers past and present who have explored similar territory in more thorough ways, with less of an overt occultism. My suggestion: read Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, et. al. for thinkers who connected art and metaphysics.


mikkeljs

Quote from: Corey on October 21, 2012, 11:45:13 AM
I guess I just don't understand the need for theosophy when there are plenty of philosophers past and present who have explored similar territory in more thorough ways, with less of an overt occultism. My suggestion: read Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, et. al. for thinkers who connected art and metaphysics.

I like to read philosophers too, but thats pretty much the same path, isnt it? My impression is also that many young composers today and the composition education lacks philosophy and many have very limitted abstraction skills on their theoretical knowledge. The same thing is true for many contemporary artists in other fields than music too.

I havent yet read even a substantial portion of ISIS UNVEILED, but it seem to be so concentrated material, so much substance, whereas many philosophers tend to be quite repetitive. Theosophy is no more occult than algebra, but yes when it was introduced back in the late 18th century, ideas like radiation, parrallel universes and their geometry, extra dimensions, evolution as part of gravity etc., would probably have sounded a bit occult at that time.

I myself am quite a big admire of UG Krishnamurti and Jed McKenna, if you know them. They are known to be the exact opposite of this theosophical mentality, but everything we read depends upon our own understanding, and surely theosophy, like all the religions, have been severely misused by the new age culture and Hitler. Yet theosophy is what makes most sense to me.

Quote from: sanantonio on October 21, 2012, 12:21:19 PM
Not a composer, but W.B. Yeats was heavily into theosophy.  There might be some like-minded composers among his milieu, but I can't think of any.

That is news to me!  :) I will definately check it out. Thanks.

some guy

I don't understand what you'd have if you had a list of "theosophical" composers.

I found references to Mahler and Sibelius, too, along with Scriabin.

Mahler and Sibelius are often seen as antithetical in many ways, not the least in how they view the purpose of the symphony.

But that aside, does theosophy help one decide which pitch or which sound comes next? Which pitches or sounds to put together to sound at the same time? Whether to make a dotted quarter and an eighth note in 4 or a quarter and an eighth in 6? Whether to determine things or leave things to chance?

I can see Zen having some effect on the latter question--or, I know of at least one example of that. Though I also think in that case that the mind that was drawn to indeterminacy was drawn to Zen for the same reasons, not that Zen influenced that person to compose indeterminate music.

Anyway, I expect to see threads on Catholic composers and on Protestant ones. On the relative merits of Baptist composers and Methodist ones. Or even Baptist and Southern Baptist and Seventh-day Baptist. (Who ARE the Seventh-day Baptist composers?)

Corey

Quote from: mikkeljs on October 21, 2012, 01:15:14 PM
I like to read philosophers too, but thats pretty much the same path, isnt it? My impression is also that many young composers today and the composition education lacks philosophy and many have very limitted abstraction skills on their theoretical knowledge. The same thing is true for many contemporary artists in other fields than music too.

I havent yet read even a substantial portion of ISIS UNVEILED, but it seem to be so concentrated material, so much substance, whereas many philosophers tend to be quite repetitive. Theosophy is no more occult than algebra, but yes when it was introduced back in the late 18th century, ideas like radiation, parrallel universes and their geometry, extra dimensions, evolution as part of gravity etc., would probably have sounded a bit occult at that time.

I myself am quite a big admire of UG Krishnamurti and Jed McKenna, if you know them. They are known to be the exact opposite of this theosophical mentality, but everything we read depends upon our own understanding, and surely theosophy, like all the religions, have been severely misused by the new age culture and Hitler. Yet theosophy is what makes most sense to me.

I just don't see the necessity of it. Religious beliefs seem to arise, in instances where religious beliefs are seriously considered rather than unquestioningly accepted, out of a specific need. One can view their beliefs as the end result of a personal logic, but William James would say there's a jump from reason into faith, where reason fails. Which is why I can't give myself to any religion fully as it seems like the move into faith implies a hidden store of incontrovertible facts to which we don't have access, rather than viewing the universe as something continually revealed to us in our search for "truth" (if that is possible). From that it follows that theosophy is claiming to have knowledge of things not knowable, which is self-negating. If those are not its claims, why call it a religion?

Another issue is that, whatever truth value the beliefs a religion might have, any organized religion will inevitably become the ground of power struggles which are only valid within the circumscribed realm of the organization, and can be dangerous for the credulous people who fall into them seeking sympathy or belonging (especially in cults like Adidam which actually are dangerous). Even Buddhism, for which I have deep respect for many of its facets, is not immune from this. One need only look at the Soka Gakkai and the cult of personality built up around Daisaku Ikeda for an example of this.

Corey

I would say the best thing you could possibly do for your creativity is to, maybe counter-intuitively, acquaint yourself with the masterpieces of the other forms of art (literature, visual arts, etc), mathematics, philosophy, languages — all of which will inform and deepen your own art.

mikkeljs

Quote from: some guy on October 21, 2012, 01:21:19 PM
I don't understand what you'd have if you had a list of "theosophical" composers.

I found references to Mahler and Sibelius, too, along with Scriabin.

Mahler and Sibelius are often seen as antithetical in many ways, not the least in how they view the purpose of the symphony.

But that aside, does theosophy help one decide which pitch or which sound comes next? Which pitches or sounds to put together to sound at the same time? Whether to make a dotted quarter and an eighth note in 4 or a quarter and an eighth in 6? Whether to determine things or leave things to chance?

I can see Zen having some effect on the latter question--or, I know of at least one example of that. Though I also think in that case that the mind that was drawn to indeterminacy was drawn to Zen for the same reasons, not that Zen influenced that person to compose indeterminate music.

Anyway, I expect to see threads on Catholic composers and on Protestant ones. On the relative merits of Baptist composers and Methodist ones. Or even Baptist and Southern Baptist and Seventh-day Baptist. (Who ARE the Seventh-day Baptist composers?)

As a matter of fact, Im asking because Im looking for someone to study with. Finding the right teacher is quite an art in itself, I think, and the only thing that I know for sure, that will be a good indication at that, is someone with a theosophical orientation.

Yeah, I just found out yesterday, that Sibelius was into Kabbalah, which is about "recieving". That makes sense, since Sibelius composed through being very silent and just passively observing as a medium. Thats exactly what I do too. I have a feeling that Nørgård is very similar, but I already asked him for lessons, and he wants to spend all his time now devoted entirely to composition. Heck, maybe if Im lucky, he would give a few more lessons, but I doubt it.

Zen is pure gold too, but as you point out, I dont know either if one ever choose zen, or if zen choose one, but definately there is a long and profound process in meditation, in that the minds pursue to expand the mind requires an intention that is different than the outcome, if done succesfully. To me, meditation have been the single most important element in both my piano technique and in composition. Without meditation, I would be a newbie.

Theosophy just happens to take up the "substance", if you know what I mean. It deals more "directly" with your physical work, and it definately influences the way you work with composition. Most people today work with science, rational principles and to a large extent also their intuition in a robotic way, and never question the foundation of it, not realizing that algebra is modern day mysticism based on the belief in the unit. To deepen ones understanding of basic ideas like fx what tonality and atonality means, would be crusial not only to someone working with conventional harmonic functions, but also to the spectral composers, because what they are doing is basically working with harmony or complex means of interference. Without ever intently bringing focus on ones basic arithmetic soil, it will be substituted with a repetitive process.

When considering creativity as something constant and present everywhere, it seems that the main body of work in composition is really only that of notation and thought process, and I think these are actually very much connected. To perfect ones notation, I would say that its important to practice personal arithmetic, because the only substance to a unit and meaning, is the physical sensory one. That arithmetic experience could propably be developed much further with the theosophical insight of geometry. I work with my own notation through practicing passive arithmetic.

Personally I have been trying for the last couple of years to limit the distance between creativity and the paper, so I actually dont think much anymore when I compose. So naturally whatever theosophy could offer music theory, would apply much much more to composers who does a lot of construction work.

Quote from: Corey on October 21, 2012, 03:53:20 PM
I just don't see the necessity of it. Religious beliefs seem to arise, in instances where religious beliefs are seriously considered rather than unquestioningly accepted, out of a specific need. One can view their beliefs as the end result of a personal logic, but William James would say there's a jump from reason into faith, where reason fails. Which is why I can't give myself to any religion fully as it seems like the move into faith implies a hidden store of incontrovertible facts to which we don't have access, rather than viewing the universe as something continually revealed to us in our search for "truth" (if that is possible). From that it follows that theosophy is claiming to have knowledge of things not knowable, which is self-negating. If those are not its claims, why call it a religion?

Another issue is that, whatever truth value the beliefs a religion might have, any organized religion will inevitably become the ground of power struggles which are only valid within the circumscribed realm of the organization, and can be dangerous for the credulous people who fall into them seeking sympathy or belonging (especially in cults like Adidam which actually are dangerous). Even Buddhism, for which I have deep respect for many of its facets, is not immune from this. One need only look at the Soka Gakkai and the cult of personality built up around Daisaku Ikeda for an example of this.

I dont have any beliefs, apart from secondary ideas. No doubt that religious cultures and ideologies have been some of the most destructive elements in history, but so has the relativity theory.  ;D

some guy

Quote from: mikkeljs on October 21, 2012, 05:47:26 PM
As a matter of fact, Im asking because Im looking for someone to study with.
Well, that changes everything.

Good luck with your search, then!

pjme

You could try Michel Tabachnik. Not a real theosophical composer/conductor- but his life, acts and oeuvre offer enough "spiritual material" to keep you busy for a couple of decades.!

Read everything at http://www.tabachnik.org/
   
Scapegoat in the case of the Solar Temple

Testimony of Jacques-Marie Bourget

Grand reporter at Paris-Match

After the Swiss, French and later Canadian tragedies of the Solar Temple, I felt compelled to investigate for Paris-Match which put 5 journalists at my disposal as well as ample financial resources so that I would be able to conduct a full inquiry. Michel Tabachnik, a well-known conductor, was cited by TF1 (a French television channel) as "number 3 in the organization''.

For many days, my team and I crossed the entire world working on this accusation waged against Tabachnik. In the end, however, no one was able to find the slightest piece of evidence suggesting the conductor's culpability. Alone, I continued to work on this story for months discovering a banal truth : Tabachnik was guilty only of being simply an"innocent'' man enamoured with spirituality, a spirituality which lead him 15 or 20 years ago to frequent the group of STO (photos from this period have been published in order to convince us of his guilt). I have acquired proof that this group took cover behind the notoriety of the conductor, quoting him or putting his name forward, when Tabachnik was absent or uninformed about the members steps and declarations.

The dozen lectures given by Tabachnik to members of the Solar Temple greatly intrigued me. To attempt to understand their content, I had to delve into elements of Jung (Swiss disciple of Freud), then into aspects touching of Greek philosophy, Egyptian myths, and alchemy which are all part of general culture and of the patrimony of history and ideas. If these texts of Tabachnik had one default, it was - in my opinion - that they were very difficult to understand. But, they were never morbid nor did they preach death, even less announcing an Apocalypse. Tabachnik's lectures addressed ordinary members of the STO, in other words, several centenaries of Swiss, French, Canadian, and American adherents who are still alive today.

After spending two years investigating the "Solar Temple case'', I am certain that it is also the "Tabachnik-case'', one of a conductor, taken like others such as Stockhausen, Karajan, Celibidache, Messiaen, etc., by a philosophy which is not of a common herd. For this "strangeness'', and also because of his fame, Tabachnik has been thrown like a bone to public opinion in order to appease it. This unjust act was in fact a manipulation by the police. The journalist who established the myth that Tabachnik was number 3 in the STO were initially instigated (as they have themselves confessed) by French agents, officials of one of the two secret branches of the police : the "Renseignements Generaux''.

The media campaign conducted against Michel Tabachnik has now suffered its official blow. At the end of a five years investigation and a trial of two weeks, the French Justice, as well as the Swiss justice three years earlier, pronounced a "discharge" (Relaxe) stressing that Tabachnik could not be involved at any level in this case. The dossier of the examining magistrates obviously did not contain any accusation against him. The slander created by both the police and media has also forbidden him to practice his profession.

I would like to add that Michel Tabachnik, has discussed extensively his spiritual adventure and his subsequent misdeeds, in a book prefaced by Pierre Boulez (Un mot de Pierre Boulez ! ):"Bouc Emissaire'' (Scapegoat) (published by Michel Lafon).