His ultimate suggestion, "alternative classical," may be adopted, or it may not. I don't much prefer it myself. But that doesn't take away from the excellence of the column, so do check it out. Sandow is a treasure, and his heart and soul are in everything he does.

First of all, Sandow is right to acknowledge, if only casually, that quite literally, everything is music. This point needs more reinforcing from our highest musical spokespeople. As Count Basie and many others have said, "There are two kinds of music: good music and bad music." Amen to that.\

How can we start the conversation about integral theory and music? How does this discussion fit into an integrally-informed discussion of music?

Any authentically comprehensive and non-marginalizing analysis of music, which anything "integral" has to be, would immediate realize that the "name" of a certain genre is in actuality only one of four primary perspectives one can have of music. There are four ways, essentially, that music can be-in-the-world. We can call those four native perspectives by many names, and one such set is: artist intention, raw musical elements, the formal organization of the music compared and contrasted to other examples, and the cultural interpretation of all of those. Those are four slices of the infinite music pie, so to speak. Each perspective, native and complete unto itself, nevertheless complements the other three. Simplified, the perspectives amount to: I-, It-, Its-, and We-based language and understanding. If we are to be complete and wholistic in our understanding of what music is, then we ought to at the very least be able to function fluently in each of these perspectives, as well as take them into account in any analysis. These four are known by the shorthand "the four quadrants." Taken as a whole, the four quadrants comprise one of the core components of integral theory.

In addition to the four native perspectives that we can take as we understand music, there is a second component that the best available research shows exists without a doubt. (I might add common sense tends to show this, as well.) Developmental structuralism is that very component, and it comes into an integral discussion, much to the chagrin of new-agers and postmodernity. What does "developmental structuralism" mean? It means people as individuals and as collective grow and evolve. More specifically for music, over time one's intention, skills to create music, and ability to interpret music all develop and evolve through one's life. We can measure development using a variey of "developmental scales" that roughly measure development all the way down and all the way up.

What are some of these scales? Here are some raw examples. First let's look at artistic intention. One's artistic intention can be informed by one's personal sense of inner beauty (of aesthetics), non-differentiated from anything else. That aethetic sense can further inform one's artistic intention when it includes non-differentiated inner beauty with beauty perceived from immediate surroundings and people. Furthermore, one's aesthetic sense can be informed by the beauty of everything sentient and non-sentient on the planet. Ultimately, the beauty of the entire manifest and un-manifest Kosmos can inform one's artistic intention in creating art. Such is what we call a mystical or spiritual awareness beauty.

Now to the skills in actual composing. One's composing skills can be pre-operational, or pre-rational, based upon unadulterated artistic impulsivity. Then the skills can include pre-rational, and add those that align with rational and formal operations and concrete rules of music, which are generally culturally decided upon. Finally, there are skills that include the two previous, plus can be according to abstract and mental conceptuality -- a post-rational inner calculus, if you will, of music. And I know you will.

Importantly, this particular scale applies to both the basic elements of music (silence, rhythm, tone, and color), as well as the organization of those in a music composition. The reason a single scale applies to both is that in both cases, we are referring to the objective perspectives of music -- or that which is empirical. Objective perspectives in singular and plural form -- which is what with the elements on the organization of those elements -- are similar enough that for introductory purposes, we can use the same developmental scale. In this case, that scale amounts to pre-rational, rational, and post-rational.

Finally to the skills in interpretation. One's ability to interpret music can be according to various value systems. Egocentric values determine value according to one's own self-determined system. Ethnocentric values are determined according to egocentric values as well as those of the tribe, group, society, or culture immediately around you. Worldcentric values are determined according to all ethnocentric values, plus the values inherent in most if not all world cultures. Kosmocentric values are all of the previous, plus those that are according to the deepest and most resonant creative energies.

So we have the four native perspectives of music, which in integral theory are called the four quadrants. The "I" of music, the "It" of music, the "Its" of music, and the "We" of muisic. Additionally, we have developmental scales for each perspective: one for I, one for It/s, and one for We. All this means we have, to start, perspectives and development in each. It is this sort of discussion that can get the conversation started about "integral music" in a meaningful and resonant way, one that begins to honor as much about music as we legitimately can. This is one way we can be truly whole in our understanding of music.

Now, the names cultures (and cultural critics) attached to music, as well as any kind of art, are sometimes offhanded, and sometimes intended. Sandow, in suggesting alternative classical, or alt-classical, is clearly following the latter pattern. That in and of itself is no indictment of his effort. As I said above, the term "new music" has come to mean contemporary classical, but in reality means very little at all. It is accurate as a term, as far as it goes, but just not very specific. "Post-classical," another term suggested to him by a friend, is worse. Stay away from "post-classical", I plead. Everything in the last 100 years in in actuality "post-classical"!

Whatever utilitarian name we use for contemporary music informed at the least by rational and post-rational levels of development, let's start to think along these comprehensive, all-inclusive, non-marginalizing terms. Let's take an integral approach to our discussions of music. We can and should include discussions such as Sandow's. This is important stuff. But what happens if we first learn how to consciously and intentionally take as much into account as we can. What does the world of music look and feel like then?

Music, being a mystical vibratory energy that ultimately defies any such terminology, truly deserves -- even demands -- nothing less.
Impermalink

matthew@matthewdallman.com

©2003 Electric Goose Productions