Why would Francis Bacon burn important books on music and attack William Gilbert, a Neoplatonic? How come Bach is more popular than John Bull or tenth century Ismaili al-Farabi?
https://www.facebook.com/notes/583522848369989/ scoop by Amit Maharaj
On the basis of surviving writings of Plato and of fragments of the work of his predecessors of the Ionian current, it is shown beyond admissible ambiguity that those Ionians and their collaborators were attacking precisely the problems we have so far defined, and also attacking them in a most rigorous and fruitful fashion. It is clear from the writings attributed to Aristotle that he not only had direct access to numbers of these Ionian works–some of which he cites–but that he set out deliberately to obfuscate those writings, not only by falsifying his commentaries in a sweeping fashion, but by focusing his frauds upon the most crucial features of such writings. That most crucial feature was, in broadest terms, the Platonic–or dialectical–method, and, emphatically, the method of rigorous scientific hypothesis derived from it.
The same method was employed, with no advance in sophistication of mental exertions, by Francis Bacon and later, by the associates of John Locke in developing the program of the British Royal Society.Notable is the comparison between Francis Bacon and William Gilbert. Gilbert, a Neoplatonic, competes with Avicennean Roger Bacon as the greatest scientific thinker England ever produced. It was Gilbert whose De Magnete provided Kepler with the indispensable final link for solving the problem of the solar orbits. Both were in the networks linked to Giordano Bruno, linked to the great center of Padua, the accomplishments of the Florentine Academy, and to the rigorous formulation of the method of crucial scientific hypothesis by Nicholas of Cusa. Bacon’s obsessive attacks on Gilbert are a degraded scandal, and Bacon’s Navum Organum a malignant “neo-Aristotelian” hoax.The point is made clearer by comparing Bacon’s attacks on Gilbert with his attacks on the English composer John Bull.Contrary to the mythology taught by the confused to the credulous in the music departments of our universities, Johann Sebastian Bach did not develop the well-tempered system as such. That system was fully developed by the tenth century Ismaili al-Farabi, whose writings introduced the system to medieval Europe through such influences’as Guido Aretino, centuries before Bach. AI-Farabi, writing in the tenth century, reports the well-tempered system to have been very ancient by his own time, and the surviving writings of a contemporary and adversary of Aristotle’s corroborate this. Bach’s accomplishment was not to develop the well-tempered system. Bach, previously thoroughly schooled in the well-tempered system, accomplished something quite different. Bach resolved the contributions of European vocal polyphony into a lawful, contrapuntal system of musical composition, to the effect that every note of a composition has a well-defined lawful significance, including those which represent dissonances. Later, Beethoven, himself intensely schooled in Bach during childhood, carried Bach’s accomplishment a major, qualitative step forward, beyond Bach’s formal system of reference, into the principle of self-developing systems of counterpoint–as exemplified by Beethoven’s own late major works.Bach’s work on methods of composition was not original to him. Exemplary, John Bull taught the well-tempered system to bodies of students as a method of composition. Together with his contemporary Sweelinck, Bull was one of the leading masters of the well-tempered system of composition in his time, and part of the heritage directly transmitted to Bach’s own teachers.Bacon drove Bull out of England and caused Bull’s writings on music to be destroyed.Bacon’s book-burning orgy is no isolated matter. The British intelligence services hounded Bach into isolation and attempted to suppress all knowledge of his work throughout Europe, to the point that even Bach’s virtuoso son was intimidated against performing his father’s compositions. A similar operation was dep!oyed against the influence of Beethoven–through Mendelssohn, Richard Wagner, and others. Although the factional issue so expressed was much older, there is a direct, unbroken factional tradition concerning music by the Black Guelph faction from Bacon to the present day. The British-promoted “rock” and the Frankfurt School’s promotion of the school of Schoenberg, Webern, et al., are consistent continuations of that issue.The British neo-Aristotelian music-doctrine was early associated–into the nineteenth century–with the irrationalist doctrine that musical thematic material was properly only an arbitrary selection of tunes, which were agreeable for one or another reason peculiar to the composer, or to the relationship among the composer, performer and audiences. Harmony for the British was merely a matter of an agreeable form of embellishment of the performance of the arbitrary tune; the other forms of embellishment of the melodic line, for which rococo performances are notorious, were argued to be a matter of idiosyncratic taste by the performer. The promotion of, first, Schoenberg’s school, and later “rock” by the British intelligence services, has the special significance of introducing the principles of the Phrygian cult of Dionysus into the neo-Aristotelian doctrine’s general application.From the ancient times, the well-tempered system was intrinsically associated with an opposite view of both musical composition and the function of music.
The prevailing mythology of the present-day music department bears on this issue directly. According to the neo-Aristotelian doctrine, the musical doctrine of Pythagoras defines a system of “natural” intervals. On this premise, with the aid of reference to the mechanics of vibrating strings, the ignorant edify the dupe with the doctrine that the Pythagorean scale is a “natural scale,” and that, therefore, the well-tempered system is an “artificial system” adopted for this or that plausible reason. Al-Farabi’s argument shows correctly that this view is nothing but absurd. The human requirement of the fifth, the derivation of the octave from this approach, and the fact of modulation from one mode (or, key) or other within a composition, illustrates the point that human beings are not “vibrating strings,” and that human music has nothing to do with the purported amusement of inorganic substances.
The greatest possibilities for such musical development originate as polyphony ordered in a well-tempered system. Thus, where the confused, miseducated dupe says “harmony,” the musician says “voices.” Each voice, elaborating its material according to the lawful ordering, is in active, lawful relationship to the concurrent voices, also proceeding lawfully. By shifts in accents and intonations, cross-voice “voices” are created, including relative dissonances. In this ordering, there are no “chords” being struck (or strummed) “in harmony” with a vocal melodic line. Every note is the ongoing activity of a voice, every note an activity of a voice which is in polyphonic (contrapuntal) relationship to everything else in the composition. Every voice, every note of each voice, must have a necessary role for the development of the composition, or it should not be sounded.
The folly taught as musical theory in most schools today is most directly derived from the nonsense produced by Rameau, the doctrine of harmony as arbitrary, neo-Aristotelian rules (fixed categories) enslaved to the irrationalist selection of a melodic element. It was this doctrine of Rameau’s which the British intelligence services promoted against Bach during the early eighteenth century, and which nonsense has left its embedded influence in the axiomatics of nineteenth century musicological theoretics and their various twentieth century derivatives.
Notable is the nineteenth century “romantic” school, which in its most banalizing aspects substitutes an unhinged and arbitrary obsession with sheer chromaticism as what was deemed an adequate alternative to the rigorously defined dissonance of the contrapuntal development processes of composition.
In consequence of the destructive influence of British intelligence services on music, we have reached the circumstance today at which good musical performers (and a vestige of a sane musical audience) exist almost entirely because of the influence of Bach, the late Mozart, and Beethoven upon their childhood instrumental (and) other training. In this way they have arrived at an “instinctive” insight into music. Yet, because the musical theory taught is the wretched myths and nonsense of the British influence’s effects, virtually no good performer is able to articulate his or her valid insights in the form of musical-theoretical statements–and there are no significant composers. There are those who possess valid “insight” into great music, but virtually none sufficiently familiar with the laws of music to be able to create a muslcal composition even by standards prevailing during the early nineteenth century, or the modern proper equivalent of such standards.
This indicated attempt to destroy music by Bacon and others was not original to the British neo- Aristotelians, or even their earlier, medieval predecessors. Aristotle himself was the ostensible author of the British neo-Aristotelian doctrine.
In the matter of music as in scientific knowledge generally, Aristotle and his imitators of the British Royal Society followed the same policy, and the same motive. Aristotle’s objective, as in his fraudulent commentaries on Plato’s and other writings, was to eliminate all evidence of and credit for scientific method, for the method of reason. Just as the principles of musical composition can be formally described only from the Riemannian standpoint we have identified earlier here, so the conceptions of Riemann are nothing but a derivative of the principles of reason in the Platonic-Neoplatonic sense of reason.
The same principle was applied by the British to Germany of the late nineteenth century. Most visibly, from approximately the time of Bismarck’s accession to the Prussian Chancellory, but beginning, more modestly, earlier, British influence in Germany focused on promoting two philosophical methods. The first was the so-called neo-Kantian fad; the second was the convergent phenomenology and existentialism leading into the existentialism of the Nazi Martin Heidegger, and more immediately agreeable to post-Bentham varieties of British “philosophical radicalism.” The nominal targets of this campaign were G.W.F. Hegel, and actually Immanual Kant himself–the neo-Kantians were in fact predominantly anti-Kantians.
Music is a sensuous medium of mental creative activity, in which the composer lawfully arrives at relative dissonances in various ingenious ways, within terms of the lawful order of an initial mode. These relative dissonances are resolved as transitions to another lawful mode….and, so on and so forth, such that the resolution of such developed relative dissonances in a composition defines a coherent totality, subsuming several modes and their made-necessary transitional connections. Thus, a good such musical composition resolves this process in the enunciation of a summarizing stretto or the equivalent, which, at the completion of the composition, resounds in the hearer’s mind as an affirmation that the development which has occurred within the composition is now demonstrated to be lawful in its own right. In other choice of terms, a successful musical composition is a demonstration of the coherence of freedom (creative expansion of what is lawful) with necessity (that everything must satisfy some form of lawful ordering).
In consequence, music which satisfies the principles of the well-tempered system of composition (and its evolutionary derivatives) is both an abstract form of and also a sensuous exercise of the creative potentialities of the minds of composer, performers, and audiences.