|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
 Posted - Nov 15 2006 : 04:39:53 AM
|
I experienced something interesting the other day. I visited a concert performing Mozart's Requiem. A beautiful piece of music. I knew that Mozart wrote it during his last days in life, and that Süssmayer helped him to finish it. Süssmayer also changed some of Mozart's composition in some parts.
I had the most wonderful energy experience from the music. I was in a meditative state and my cells just vibrated in tune with the music. A carbon acid, tingeling feeling all over, as if my being was floating and merging with the soundwaves. It took my breath away in some parts.
Suddenly the feeling could disappear or get much less intense. Sometimes it could be some strophes or whole parts.
An idea hit me... what if the music Mozart made is the result of pure creativity, the divine creating through the body of Mozart, while Süssmayer's parts are more mind-made and distanced from the source... and what if what I felt was the difference!? What if one could tell who composed what part by letting a lot of multisensoric persons listen to it and see if the energy reactions would be similar? Wouldn't that be cool if it were detectable that way?
Have anyone noticed anything similar with this piece of music or another one?
Would you like to do a test and listen to the Requiem and report your sensations or feelings of different parts? Just a fun thought... |
Edited by - emc on Nov 15 2006 04:42:48 AM |
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 15 2006 : 10:49:18 AM
|
An idea hit me... what if the music Mozart made is the result of pure creativity, the divine creating through the body of Mozart,
Hi EMC,
it's quite possible that the better bits are Mozart's and the lesser bits Süssmayer's, but the truth is, that while he was certainly what we call a genius musically, not all that Mozart wrote is incapable of improvement. Mozart himself wrote what are generally considered improvements on Bach's work, another musical genius....
And, indeed, while we may mythologize geniuses, they are even ordinary insofar as sometimes, perhaps even unknowingly, producing bits of junk here and there. On his deathbed, it may be even more likely that he wasn't at his best.
Perhaps the story is quite different -- perhaps Süssmayer did such a good job of polishing the bits that you consider so good that you are now considering them Mozart's, unsullied by poor old Süssmayer! 
what if the music Mozart made is the result of pure creativity, the divine creating through the body of Mozart
I don't personally believe in these dichotomies of 'pure creativity' versus NOT, or 'the divine creating through' versus NOT. There are only varying shades of quality of what is created.....
If you fly us far enough back in a time-machine through our evolution as a species, my personal musical abilities, which would be considered very modest in this age, might be considered transcendent and evidence of 'the work of god' then. And indeed, they are in a way, 'the work of god', but we have to be careful what we mean by that. Our ability to talk is 'the work of god', no less than the music of Mozart. Some people are just ahead in certain talents. It's good, but let's not mythologize it.
Likewise, I believe "the Siddhis" are just stimulation of certain talents, to be respected but not mythologized.
Thanks for your post, it is interesting.
-D |
Edited by - david_obsidian on Nov 15 2006 3:20:13 PM |
 |
|
|
Alvin Chan
Hong Kong
407 Posts |
Posted - Nov 16 2006 : 12:14:33 AM
|
quote:
What if one could tell who composed what part by letting a lot of multisensoric persons listen to it and see if the energy reactions would be similar? Wouldn't that be cool if it were detectable that way?
That would be cool, IF it were detectable. But I don't think so. We can easily distinguish the music of Mozart from those of Beethoven, as they have quite a different mood. This is supported by a good understanding of their music, not by the instinct. In other cultures remoted from the west, these great masterpieces will make no sense at all. (and their greatest masterpieces are meaningless to us, too). So the cultural background is the key. The cultural background is the background our creativity breathes in. Without a cultural reference,
I have listened to the Requiem many times. It is a great piece of music¡XMozart, unlike certain composers (e.g. Chopin), is at the height of his creativity before he died. But while he is certainly a genius and wrote some of the greatest music of mankind, his early works is much inferior to his later works, indicating that he learnt in a similar way as we do (namely, through experience and experiments, taking feedback from other musicians, etc), not ¡§pure creativity¡¨ as if he doesn¡¦t have to learn.
The greatness of Mozart lies in the magical charm in such simple music, and the perfection of the form of his music. Few composers can match with him on this. It may be possible that EMC feel bored by Süssmayer's part. Mozart¡¦s part is greater, but his students got his main ideas and the his rough work that it should not deviate too much from Mozart¡¦s. So a more probable explanation is: EMC, your brain felt tired after listening for some time of this long piece of music that you can¡¦t apprehend the later part well. My advice: buy a CD and listen to the later sections when you are in a good condition.
I am an enthusiast in ¡§serious¡¨ Music and amateur pianist. I am very interested to know if western music has anything to do with yoga. Please keep trying! EMC, if you like Mozart¡¦s Requiem, I¡¦m sure you will enjoy his symphony no. 40, piano concerto no. 20. Next, try his symphony no. 41, all piano concertos from no. 19 to no. 26, Oboe Concertos, piano sonatas, etc. Don¡¦t forget his opera, especially ¡§magic flute¡¨. My experience? I feel light, excited but not the overwhelmed kind of excitement when listening to his music. It was simple and yet it can penetrate directly into my mind. |
|
|
|
Katrine
Norway
1813 Posts |
Posted - Nov 16 2006 : 04:20:30 AM
|
Hi All
Yes....Mozart
All I can say is that I have performed Mozarts Requiem on several occasions - it always leaves me totally cleansed and in deep peace. The simplicity of his music is a direct communion with truth. It is not only Mozart. It is you too. Direct communion implies the merging of you and him (the music). You become one. He touches you - and you let yourself melt. Quietly.
Singing Mozart does the most when it comes to stilling my mind. I have also done his flute concertos.....but transmitting through another instrument (than the vocal chords) somehow is more challenging. I never felt "the other guy" (Süss...) ruining the experience, however. I guess you could say that the focus was elsewhere
Emc - thanks for bringing this up! Your posts are always inspiring
And David...great reply. I am with you every way. |
|
|
|
Alvin Chan
Hong Kong
407 Posts |
Posted - Nov 16 2006 : 04:39:47 AM
|
quote:
If you fly us far enough back in a time-machine through our evolution as a species, my personal musical abilities, which would be considered very modest in this age, might be considered transcendent and evidence of 'the work of god' then.
It hardly would. More probably you will end up at most like Bach, not understood by most people in that era and discovered only much later. As I've said, a taste for music is based on a heavy cultural background. And most masterpieces are masterpieces because they, other than being very well-written and have great emotional contents, are on the edge of breaking rules (either technique-wise or by creating a new feeling using old techniques) |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 16 2006 : 10:37:44 AM
|
That's possibly true too. But the few who 'got' or saw my (now mediochre) musical skill would probably think I am a genius.
My main point though is that all levels of skill are relative. 'Genius' is relative, though we may mythologize it as if it is something magical. It is nothing more though than having a level of skill that is exceedingly beyond the average -- at the time. A person's level of skill is a combination of innate and learned. For example, Archimedes, from one point of view, was a genius probably as great or even greater than Newton or Einstein. But a reasonably good graduate in a modern engineering school, if he went back in a time-machine to Archimedes time, might be considered greater.
Alvin, you are saying the same thing as me when you say that Mozart learned from other musicians, just like other musicians. Hermetically isolated 'pure creativity' is indeed mythical, and I think the model is destructive in some ways. The right model for everyone is that we have to keep learning from life and each other. All the way until our dying breath.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Nov 16 2006 10:50:30 AM |
|
|
|
Alvin Chan
Hong Kong
407 Posts |
Posted - Nov 16 2006 : 8:39:51 PM
|
I agree with you on this. But certain people have really exceptional talents, that although they still have to learn from the others, they absorb the skills (e.g. language, music, mathematics; or other things that involve a mastery of skills rather than just knowledge) unreasonably quickly. The latest Field's Medalist Terence Tao ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_Tao), for example, exhibited an unexceptional talent. He can talked about mathematics at the age of 2, scoring 760 in the SAT at eight (a inofficial world record), got his master degree at 17 and Ph.D. at 20. It is not only the early attainment of these title, but also the high quality of his works.
The reasons for such exceptional talents is never clear. (other than being some "genetical accidents") I read in some (unreliable) articles that kundalini is the source of all these talents and creativity. Yet these statements are so mythological, that no one seems to be able to demonstrate a creativity at such level by stimulating their kundalini.
What's your take on this? |
Edited by - Alvin Chan on Nov 16 2006 11:32:40 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 17 2006 : 12:59:26 PM
|
The reasons for such exceptional talents is never clear. (other than being some "genetical accidents")
I'd say favorable genes is probably the main ingredient, just as it is for athletes. A huge amount would depend on the quality of the underlying biochemistry.
I read in some (unreliable) articles that kundalini is the source of all these talents and creativity. Yet these statements are so mythological, that no one seems to be able to demonstrate a creativity at such level by stimulating their kundalini.
Yes. It's just very vague. In my language, kundalini is something very real, but on the face of it is just a body process, albeit a very important one. I mentioned before that some people use it as a sort of metaphor for something like human biological/spiritual evolution itself. Then it eventually has, for them, the very meaning of the metaphor itself.
I do think though that the 'kundalini experience', when all smoothed out, will tend to enhance people's emotional and thought process, but I don't mythologize it as producing perfection by any means. We can say that for any aspect of yoga, or even something like good diet and exercise. There is a history of people who had the kundalini experience who are not strong thinkers, teachers, or leaders by any means. If they don't get mythologized as some sort of geniuses, they are in a much better position to make a generally-positive contribution.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Nov 17 2006 1:00:38 PM |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5241 Posts |
Posted - Nov 17 2006 : 1:22:12 PM
|
Hi All:
Interesting perspectives all the way around.
Just to add a few more cents, here is an AYP lesson on intelligence, bhakti and genius: http://www.aypsite.org/246.html
The meeting of heart, mind and the infinite intelligence behind it all...
All the best!
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Mozart's Requiem
