skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Book III of Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus
translated by David Pingree
Notes on Dorotheus III: the haylāj, Kadhkhudāh, and terms of life
by Deborah Houlding
Godfather of Modernity: The Alan Leo Legacy Vol. One - Early Astrological Journals 1890-1912, compiled by Philip M Graves
Reviewed by Deborah Houlding
Lilly's Considerations
compiled by D. Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Mystery Chart Exercise March 3 2012
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 1828
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tom,

'can't read sheet music' means - can't read.. sheet music is just a term for a piece of music on a sheet, which is usually the way it comes.. i don't know how true that is, but i have never read a bio on brubeck but had heard this before..

i did however read a bio on billy strayhorn a year or 2 ago... he was the main arranger and musical muse for ellington who created a number of his own songs - like 'take the a train' which are often associated with ellington... after reading the staryhorn book i came away with the impression ellington took some credit for material that really belonged to strayhorn. .. since strays was on ellington's paid staffs, ellington might have figured he would get it back via the royalties on what was really co-written material what he had paid to strays in wages... mills on the other hand was a publisher who had nothing to do with writing the music and yes, his name is on a lot of the ellington tunes giving us another fine example of the way things were done in the musical world back in the day...

i think if you talk to a jazz musician and ask them which jazz figure was the most significant in jazz in the 20th century, many along with brubeck would put ellington, or louis armstrong up high on the list... brubeck would be a ways down the list.. if you asked the general public would get a higher rating.. recognition back then seemed to hinge on what colour a person was more then the content of the music/composition.. i think brubeck would acknowledge this too.. the big band era was long over being gradually replaced by bebop and early rock and roll by the time brubeck made it to the cover of time.. last o/t musical commentary from me!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nixx



Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 295

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Atlantean wrote:
Hello Nixx,

May I ask if you are a musician? (not because I think you are, just for my own curiosity)

Re: Not seeing Jazz music as Neptunian,....specifically Take Five by Dave Brubek.



I wouldnít describe myself as a Musician, However Music is my main passion/interest in life, I once said to the wife if there was fire I would save my Vinyl collection before her and I wasnít joking either. (Easier and less expensive to replace!!)About 10yrs ago I started researching a book on the Astrology of Musical genius but gave it up after a year or so due to a lack of timings data, one day I may revisit it. One thing I did find, or didnít find, was any obvious Planetary Sign emphasis in folks who get the 'great' musicians label thrust upon them.

I can see some common ground with your ideas about Neptune, or whose ideas you are representing, but also areas of difference. To give a brief example, as this isnít the place to get into it at length, is musicians who 'step outside of the rules' I would more readily link this idea to Uranus not Neptune. In fact I think youíll find you are departing quite radically from more mainstream dogma here.

I donít see Brubeckís music as radical (or escapist), quite the opposite, regardless as to the playing about with timings. This isnít an Evan or William Parker figure or even a Charlie but someone whose tunes are twiddly, background, 'melodic', lounge, easy listening, 'light', mainstream, Radio 2, etc. Tom's YouTube links bear this out. Having said that Iíve probably only heard a handful of Brubeck LPís back to front and a few other doodlings of his over the years . Through a Psych Astro lens Brubeck has the chart of someone who might struggle to Ďgrow upí, a bit of a prima donna who needs a strong Saturn to be able to produce something out of the subjectivity. Similar to Picasso, also Sun and Moon 2nd quadrant , Scorpio/Sag dynamic as well.

To the extent to which Brubeckís relationship with Ivories was a paradigm shifter Iíd be a lot more inclined to tie this into the Uranus/Pluto/Moon, a quirky, tense but comforted by this trine. His philanthropy sounds more Neptunian. Gets me thinking had Tom posed the question which of these 3 is the philanthropist where would we/they have looked for this without the Outers. Jupiter, Venus, or perhaps the Sun?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gem



Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 953

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello

I've enjoyed the thread evern though I couldn't participate but I for one come here to learn about traditional tequniques and traditional astrology and if people want to use and discuss modern techniques such as midpoints and the outer planets then they can do so in the Nativity forum but hopefully not here (just my personal feelings).
The charts without outer planets served well even without of the purpose of obscuring data. It was refreshing because I could focus on the key planets without being distracted by additional factors such as the node and POF.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jill elinore



Joined: 22 Aug 2010
Posts: 48
Location: Worthing, West Sussex

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gem, your personal feelings are duly noted. If you are referring to me in your comments, thats fine. I realise now that it was not appropriate for me to post my non-traditional thoughts but I still maintain the outers absolutely did bring Brubecks chart to life, way too much to ignore for fear of posting in the wrong section. Also, the midpoint of sun = moon/venus is telling as moon is the asc ruler and venus rules 11 (vocation). To my mind, the ancients did use midpoints of a kind: antiscia and contrascia, another absolute favourite concept of mine showing the hidden qualities not always visible in the natal chart. Anyway, just for the record, I use both traditional and more modern techniques, specifically davison and event davison charts and midpoints of all sorts (am midpoint mad) but also I use whole sign houses and traditional rulers whilst observing the outers give the most profound turning points and character basis (imo). I studied horary with John Frawley and have read Lily and whilst see essential value in it all, find traditonal so maddeningly convoluted (the stuff used here is just the tip of the iceberg!) I have found an approach that keep things relatively simple. Respect to everyone who posts here though, all interesting stuff.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jill elinore



Joined: 22 Aug 2010
Posts: 48
Location: Worthing, West Sussex

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For example, Tom described the chart as phlegmatic and really rather dull (cant remember exact words) - but no astrologer would describe a pluto-asc person as that Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jill elinore



Joined: 22 Aug 2010
Posts: 48
Location: Worthing, West Sussex

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom wrote:
I don't mind the odd modern technique used in these exercises. I would put the outers in the chart if it wouldn't give anything away. I don't want the modern techniques to be the main thrust or used for competition. But let's limit it to what we can do with the three outer planets and maybe midpoints. No asteroids, hypotheticals or other esoteric techniques. I do find it interesting that modern astrologers are so uncomfortable with the idea of delineating without reference to the three outer planets.


I think using the outers is completely compatible with traditional astrology excepting using them for rulership. They neednt interfere with the elegant traditonal model of rulerships that way and it isnt a discomfort for me to not use them, just a jigsaw with lots of pieces missing or a drama without the supporting cast. If the ancients had been able to see them with the naked eye (uranus the exception there when opposing the sun), they would surely have used them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3209
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jill wrote

Quote:
I think using the outers is completely compatible with traditional astrology excepting using them for rulership.


Most people agree with that. My pet peeve is not that they are used, but rather that they are the default "go to" points in every chart. The vast majority of traditionalists came to astrology via the modern route. Old habits die hard. If they aren't there, then we're forced to use the 7 and in fact everyone here did that very well. But again, that isn't the reason I didn't put them in. I was trying to keep from putting temptation in the readers' minds.

@James: Armstrong and Ellington rate way above Brubeck for innovation. Strayhorn's contribution to Ellington's work is stylistically indistinguishable from Ellington's. They even sounded alike when they played the piano. I have an old recoding of a duet they played and it would take one fine ear to tell which is which.

And Ellington was not above a little poaching. Listen to the first few notes of "In A Sentimental Mood," then listen to the first few notes of Gershwin's "Someone to Watch Over Me." Then try and tell me the difference.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jill elinore



Joined: 22 Aug 2010
Posts: 48
Location: Worthing, West Sussex

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, maybe the outers are exaggerated as useful beyond the others but all 10 when personalised (especially on the asc imo) are pivotal and the chart is harder to read without them. What I find interesting is akin to homoeopathy regards the outers, the further away they are and in the case of pluto, the smaller they are, the more profound their influence is although more subtle and noticeable over time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
varuna2



Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Posts: 323
Location: Lemuria

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

delete

Last edited by varuna2 on Sat May 04, 2013 5:43 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 1828
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tom - yes to the similarities in their piano playing.. their compositional strengths differed more noticeably.. lush life is such a beautiful song that seems to help describe billy strayhorns life in many respects..

nixx - i think classical and strings more with neptune, and like you say more uranus with the jazz.. how would you define this with just the planets out to saturn? i would go with saturn/venus, but perhaps the heavy emphasis on rhythm could go to the moon which is a strong part to jazz music.. i play drums and i might be mistaken, but i note an usually high degree of drummers with cancer, capricorn more pronounced.. perhaps moon and saturn play an important role for rhythm, and one would think mars might enter the picture too..

an interesting chart to consider would be roy haynes who is still alive and kind of like the godfather of jazz drumming having played with parker on up to the present, remaining very youthful at 87 years of age this march 13 1925.. he is born in boston, but i don't have a time of day for his birth unfortunately.

Deb wrote:

I hadn't even noticed until now that Mercury is in strong aspect to the MC and Venus too (MC at 21 Pisces, Venus 23 Cap, Mercury, 24 Scorpio)

FYI, this is what Ptolemy says in his 4th book of the Tetrabiblos (from Ashmand's ed because it was easy to grab the text off the web):

Quote:
Further, should it happen that two arbiters of employment may be found together, and provided they should be Mercury and Venus, they will then produce musicians, melodists, and persons engaged in music, poetry, and songs.


deb - a few of us noted this on the first couple of pages of this thread.. the funny thing is chart 2 has the same set up if you take a look...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3209
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
yes to the similarities in their piano playing.. their compositional strengths differed more noticeably.. lush life is such a beautiful song that seems to help describe billy strayhorns life in many respects..


Lush Life is unique.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4194
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jill Elinore wrote:

Quote:
I think using the outers is completely compatible with traditional astrology excepting using them for rulership. They neednt interfere with the elegant traditonal model of rulerships that way and it isnt a discomfort for me to not use them, just a jigsaw with lots of pieces missing or a drama without the supporting cast. If the ancients had been able to see them with the naked eye (uranus the exception there when opposing the sun), they would surely have used them.


That is surely the point. The outers are essentially invisible to the naked eye. In ancient astrology the visual was far more important than it is today. Hence, the ancient and medieval astrologers considered the brightest fixed stars as the most important. I think that most of the great philosophical astrologers of the past would have argued that the soul perceives divine intent through the images that we see. Kepler in particular wrote a great deal about how the eye is the instrument through which the divine intention of the Creator is received. Other great astrologers influenced by such naturalism were Ptolemy and Morin. The excessive emphasis on the outers in modern astrology symbolizes the breakdown in the ancient focus on the eye as the window of the soul.

The fact we can see the outers with telescopes or track their orbits with computers doesn't change the difference between them and the seven visible planets. While I do work with the outer planets I think that as invisible points they should be treated with more caution than the seven traditional planets in natal astrology.

Mark
_________________
''Man is troubled not by events, but by the meaning he gives them"

Epictetus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jill elinore



Joined: 22 Aug 2010
Posts: 48
Location: Worthing, West Sussex

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

But the reality is they are there. The physical existence of something is unarguable; the writings of Kepler, Morin and Ptolemy and all that came before are thoughts based on ideas of reality solely on man making sense of the world to the best of their ability with a smattering of facts based on what they can see and what they perceive or assume. There is no doubt that the ancients had knowledge far beyond our understanding of 'how' they came to the conclusions they did, for example that mars is connected to iron and venus to copper and science has confirmed that those planets have an abundance of those elements in reality. They discovered minutiae by painstakingly observing correllations of how their earthly reality was affected by all sorts of phenomena but man imposing his structure and concept of the universe (see also religion) is limited. The notion that anything that happened beyond saturn (I think they called the space beyond Ouranus) had no affect on the earth was the theory based on probably not very much apart from that was gods territory (whoever s/he is). The philosophers were only philosophising, a love of the pursuit of wisdom doesnt equate to a mastering of it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3928
Location: England

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
deb - a few of us noted this on the first couple of pages of this thread.. the funny thing is chart 2 has the same set up if you take a look...


Hi James - the difference is that Venus and Mercury are not of equal significance to chart 1. Mercury is supporting the music association but Venus is dominating over that angle witha tight aspect, powerful phase and dignity rulership. Nothing like that occurs in chart 2.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3928
Location: England

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Jill

My feeling on this is that if I'd seen Pluto on the asc it would have coloured my view of the chart from the start. I'm glad I didn't approach the chart like that, because I think I understand the chart better for looking more closely at how the 7 planets were arranged by themselves. Afterwards, the knowledge that Pluto is rising adds an extra tone to the chart. The outers have no concepts of accidental modification, so all the rich detail attached to the visible planets cannot be applied to them. Even their retrograde motion offers little meaning since it cannot be observed - the ancients sources explain that in reality, none of the planets are moving backwards. It is a backwards motion that we perceive, like a 'sign', and we take meaning from it because of the way it appears to us. So whilst in reality the outers are there, what matters most in astrology is what we can interpret based on altered states of brilliance, appearance and motion. To me it is important that we understand the elevated role that the luminaries hold above all other astrological planets, and also that the special role that the 7 traditional planets play don't get underestimated by them becoming regarded as just '7 of the 10'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 10 of 12

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated