This is the highest end of music. There can be no greater musical purpose than to compose for Our Lord and Savior. Through the struggle to accurately fulfill this musical telos, the greatest of all works have been and will be composed. The most wonderful thing about this is that since these composers strive to portray the infinite, they will never reach it, and there will always be one better. After realizing this, I am more than ecstatic.
In this blog I intend to explore this concept, offering my own experiences in composition and performance. I am a young man, and so this should hopefully be an interesting progression of ideas, both personally and universally.
One point that I should make immediately is that I do not intend to damn music that is not sacred, for that is an evil as well. These other styles of music share in the Grace and Goodness of God insofar as they use what sounds He created. I quite enjoy jazz, bluegrass and other improvisatory styles in which music is made for the sake of entertainment and increase in friendship. While I do not state that these other styles of music are inherently evil, I do argue is that each type of music has its own place, and that there is a correct progression of thought that is to go into each. For example, popular styles of music should not be performed during a mass. It is irreverent to bring a jazz combo into a church and play loud, fast songs during communion. However, jazz is excellent for a concert, and is one of the best ways to explore one's musicality, especially as I mentioned before, in improvisation. This is a very simple concept, and I will expand upon it no further for now. Please post if you are troubled and would like greater explanation. I simply state that things done solely for God are the highest things and that ideas solely about God are the highest ideas; this includes music.
Now, for the most important point that will drive the rest of this blog. For one to continue reading this without lapsing into spite, these are the base principles that I build this upon:
First and foremost, there is a God. I call upon St. Thomas Aquinas' proof of His existence. I cannot seem to find what particular work the proof itself is contained in, so a paraphrase of St. Thomas from a friend of mine will do for now; he explains it clearly and excellently:
"Axiom: There is a multiplicity (One can deny this, but by denying it [one] admit[s] that the world is a singularity and that dogs and cats are the same thing. If [one] believe[s] in a subject and object, then this axiom should be no problem).
Conditional: There might exist a being whose essence is his existence (that is, a being who is defined only by the fact that he exists; a being who is who is; being per se). If this being exists, then there can only be one of them.
Proof of Conditional: Consider multiple beings whose essence is their existence. Now if being A is defined by his existence, and being B is defined by his existence, then being A is being B (vis a vis a philosophical transitive property), meaning that there is only one of such beings. Therefore if there is a being whose essence is existence, there is only one of them.
Proposition: There is a being whose essence is his existence.
Proof: The fact that there is multiplicity can be accounted for in three ways.
Either
1) Multiplicity just it; it has no efficient or final cause.
OR
2) Multiplicity is its own cause.
OR
3) Multiplicity was caused by something outside itself.
Consider the first way. If multiplicity "just is", then multiplicity is defined only by the fact that it exists, ergo, the essence of multiplicity is existence. This would mean that multiplicity, following the first part of the proof (the conditional proof), is actually simplicity/singularity/one-ness, which is absurd.
Consider the second way. Nothing can be its own cause; if a thing has a cause, then it cannot create itself.
Therefore, multiplicity must have a cause that exists separate from multiplicity. Now the only thing conceivably differentiable from multiplicity is a simplicity who is defined by his existence.
This simplicity that gives being to multiplicity we commonly call God."
Conditional: There might exist a being whose essence is his existence (that is, a being who is defined only by the fact that he exists; a being who is who is; being per se). If this being exists, then there can only be one of them.
Proof of Conditional: Consider multiple beings whose essence is their existence. Now if being A is defined by his existence, and being B is defined by his existence, then being A is being B (vis a vis a philosophical transitive property), meaning that there is only one of such beings. Therefore if there is a being whose essence is existence, there is only one of them.
Proposition: There is a being whose essence is his existence.
Proof: The fact that there is multiplicity can be accounted for in three ways.
Either
1) Multiplicity just it; it has no efficient or final cause.
OR
2) Multiplicity is its own cause.
OR
3) Multiplicity was caused by something outside itself.
Consider the first way. If multiplicity "just is", then multiplicity is defined only by the fact that it exists, ergo, the essence of multiplicity is existence. This would mean that multiplicity, following the first part of the proof (the conditional proof), is actually simplicity/singularity/one-ness, which is absurd.
Consider the second way. Nothing can be its own cause; if a thing has a cause, then it cannot create itself.
Therefore, multiplicity must have a cause that exists separate from multiplicity. Now the only thing conceivably differentiable from multiplicity is a simplicity who is defined by his existence.
This simplicity that gives being to multiplicity we commonly call God."
From this I draw that since there is such a being who created this multiplicity, all things are created by Him, and therefore according to Him. This sense of all things being made according to him is what we call order.
This order exists in the spectrum of possible sounds as well, being that it is made according to God, and therefore there are provided sets of sounds which naturally sound good and naturally sound bad. The goal of any religious composer, and any composer in general, should be to glorify God by finding these sets that naturally sound good and using them in conjunction with the ideas given us by God. Thus the importance of text is stressed as well, or at least subject, considering that not all pieces are written for voices.
As I said previously, this blog will explore these ideas, as well as my own findings in composition. I hope you enjoy reading this, and please comment with your own responses and ideas.
May God bless you and keep you!
No comments:
Post a Comment