351

3.1 Notes and thoughts regarding the frustrations

and worries on writing a piece on the first

astrological house

I want to write a piece on the first astrological house of the zodiac. But I don‟t want to

write a “fluffy” New Age piece. These kinds of things don‟t go with my personality

and style (as a person and as an artist), and I am impatient with them: they irritate me.

I have a methodical, rationalistic mind, even with the spiritual and para-rational,

which some call irrational. I prefer to think of it as trans-rational, as something that

lies beyond rationality but which can be partially understood and can start to be

described and grasped through a rational, methodical way of thinking. The

understanding of it can be approached, even if not attained, through rationality.

I do my research on how others have tried to find musical equivalences to the zodiac

in this kind of rational way, and I find speculative music, harmonic science and

astrological harmonics. I am relieved to see these disciplines exist and that they

approach the problem as I prefer to approach it, in a systematic, rational way.

Problem of inconsistencies

But I soon become frustrated with the awful amount of inconsistencies in this theory.

It must not surprise me, as even if harmonicists, astrologists and speculative music

theorists work in a manner akin to that of science, these occult sciences are after all

not normative, mainstream science, and in them dissension and inconsistency are not

352

persecuted, but are considered to be an inevitable result of a personalized and

individualistic approach to knowledge, in which the findings of one individual can not

necessarily be applied or even used by all others.1 This I understand.

Yet after decades of being epistemologically immersed in the scientific-theological

outlook of ontological dualisms (there is only one truth, if it is not true it must be

false, etc.), it is difficult to think outside of this. And a bit annoying.

Godwin tells us what the major authors and theorists in the relationship between

music and astrology throughout history have deduced are the corresponding keys for

the first astrological house: For Ptolemy, it is A major. For Henschel, it is C major –

and Schneider agrees – for McMullin it is B major; the Rosicrucianist2 Heindel

mentions C# and Bb as possible correspondences, while the Antroposophical tradition

gives the equivalencies of C major – like Ptolemy or Schneider – but add its relative

A minor in addition to the Ptolemaic correspondence.3

1 “[…] the present state of speculative music is not a body of knowledge, nor anything that can be

learned and enclosed in a book. It is, rather, a frame of mind.” Joscelyn Godwin, 'The Revival of

Speculative Music', Musical Quarterly, 67/3 (1982), 373-389. Quote from page 387.

2 “Rosicrucianists” are members or followers of modern renditions of Rosicrucian traditions – such as

the A.M.O.R.C. or Heindel‟s own Rosicrucian Fellowship – while “Rosicrucians” are followers of the

original XVII century ideals, which unlike its modern counterparts actually never materialized into any

form of organized fellowship or society. See Antoine Faivre, 'Renaissance Hermeticism and the

Concept of Western Esotericism' in Van Den Broek and Hanegraaff (Eds.) Gnosis and Hermeticism

from Antiquity to Modern Times (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1998), and Tobias

Churton, The Golden Builders: Alchemists, Rosicrucians and the first Free Masons (Lichfield: Signal

Publishing, 2002)

3 Joscelyn Godwin, Harmonies of Heaven and Earth: the Spiritual Dimensions of Music from Antiquity

to the Avant-garde (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 1987) pp. 140-148.

353

Five keys. Which one should I use? Since the house system of astrology is a division

of the sky into twelve sections, I believe must use something which tells both the

listener and myself there is such a limit, such a division. Tonality seems like a good

way of doing this. I therefore decide to write the piece around a tonic centre or in a

certain key, rather than make it freely floating through an atonal treatment. In order to

be consistent with the historical knowledge around this, I should use one of the keys

the major authors and researchers propose, after their long and well though-out

researches. But which key, out of five? I feel lost, frustrated.

Making a decision

After many days agonizing over this, I can‟t make up my mind. There is no system

which is preferable over another; all of them are well thought-out and internally

coherent. They have come to be how they are for very good reasons. There is not one

of all which is clearly superior to the others. None of them is „right‟, and so therefore

none of them is „wrong‟ either, and can not be discarded on the grounds of its

incorrectness. A decision of one over the other can not be made on the grounds of

validity or truth, but only through preference. But I discover all of them are attractive

also. So I don‟t prefer any of them over the others. I am stuck, and can‟t make up my

mind...

A piece in three keys

After a few more days pondering this I decide finally to work my piece for the first

house of the zodiac on all of the proposed tonalities simultaneously: a polytonal piece

in A major, Bb major, B major, C major and C #major. I decide to write a piece for the

354

piano which will be a simple one-line melody accompanied by static chords. In order

to stress the polytonality of the piece, I decide to use only the first degree of each key

(the tonic chord) in the accompaniment. I will give myself “license” to use it in

different inversions, but I will only use the tonic chords of the five keys. By

superimposing two tonic chords from these different keys, often seventh chords are

generated. These are not “dissonant chords” in this context (and thus do not require to

be resolved), but rather simultaneous apparitions of two tonic chords (in a polychordal

and polytonal setting).4

For the melody, I will use pitches that are typical or basic in any of these keys (mainly

the tonic and dominant, though also the mediant, which determines the modality of

the key), and, whenever possible, pitches that are shared by all of the keys, or at least

by two of them.

The piece itself

And so the piece opens, with the successive statement of each of the tonic chords of

each key in the accompaniment, and also in the melodic line. After this opening, my

working method for the piece is the one I best perform with, which has given me best

results in the past: a dialogue with the instrument, in which by trial and error, by ear, I

accommodate my seminal idea (in this case using three different keys either

simultaneously or in quick succession). I “propose” my idea to the instrument, and the

instrument seems to communicate with me, and to answer back, communicating “its”

4 Persichetti, Vincent, Twentieth-Century Harmony: Creative Aspects and Practice (New York: W. W.

Norton, 1961) [1961]. Chapters 7 and 12.

355

opinions about my ideas to me through my hands or my ears. I will ask the piano then,

which of the several options theoretically viable it prefers...5

Thus the piece is born, in about an hour, after much thinking and agonizing over the

“correct” correspondence, and the conclusion that all of them should be applied

simultaneously.

Afterthought, written after finishing the piece:

Interestingly enough, the first house corresponds in astrology to the Self, innermost

identity, the personality.6 As mentioned above, during its composition process and

dialogue with the instrument the piece constantly looked for this identity of itself, its

centre (very literally a tonal centre in this case), and on hearing the final product it is

clear that it gravitates between several identities (keys). This searching for identity is

something not only this particular piece does, but many people, and certainly myself,

undergo similar “modulations” while in the process of exploring their own inner life.

5 Reassuringly, it seems this way of working is not so peculiar and unheard of in the world of

composition, and Joseph Dubiel describes a similar mode of working in one of his writings. See Joseph

Dubiel, 'Composer, Theorist, Composer/Theorist' in Cook and Everist (Eds.) Rethinking Music

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 262-286.

6 A.T. Mann, The Round Art of Astrology: an illustrated guide to theory and practice (London: Vega,

2003), pp. 99-116.

356

357

358

359