A taste of the Eastern flavor

In this paper I shall discuss issues realating to Western, Eastern and North American
traditions, and how they are contradictory. How they have been contradictory for thousands of years. I will base half of this scholarship on historical fact, and half on my own experience, perceptions and oppinions. Extensive technical jargon will be excluded, and my advocacy for Eastern psychological insights and how they apply not only to music, but life, will be discussed.


Since five-hundred A.D.the European Classical movement has been continuing it's course of development. It contains a very impressive and extensive history to say the least. It was at this
time that Western civilization emerged from the "Dark Ages" after the fall of The Roman Empire. The following twelve centuries or so, saw the development of the Christian Church, who would dominate Europe by instigating "Holy" wars with the East, administering their own brand of justice, establishing universities, and basically dictating the destiny of art, music and literature as they saw fit. It is believed that Pope Gregory I codified what is today known as Gregorian chant during this time, and it was also during this time (The Middle Ages) that western culture saw their first great name in music, Guillaume de Machaut.
Breezing right along here, the Renaissance, which is noted from about fourteen-twenty to
sixteen-hundred saw the flowering of secular music. Dance and instrumental music was in abundance
and was usually not notated. This bit here is similar to the approach of the blues, and rock and
roll some roughly five-hundred years later in North America and is perhaps why it was referred to as
"devil's music". Non-secular music also saw many developments with the introduction of polyphony and the pioneering Giovanni da Palestrina.
Then came what is my personal favorite period of Western Classical music, if I had to pick
only one, The Baroque Age, which is thought to exist from sixteen hundred to seventeen-fifty and taken from the name of the architecture of the time. It was during this period that composers were constantly trying to out do each other in terms of pride, pomp and ornamentation. In my oppinion, it is the most productive and radical period in the history of music because of this competition. The most beautiful counterpoint exists in this period and has not been exeded since. It has that gorgeous pulse to it and everything falls right into place at just the right time.
In addition, opera was introduced to the world by the Italians. The one and only thing I do not like about this period is the concept of musicians being percieved as servants by the aristicracy, and unfortunatly, this idea has remained as truth for the masses ever since. Notable names from this period include J.S. Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, Albinoni, Monteverdi and Scarlatti among others.
The Classical period followed with a stripping down of the extravagance of the Baroque by such composers as Gluck. It is generally known to start in seventeen-fifty, however the historical date it concluded varies. In my oppinion it should always be considered eighteen twenty seven, with the significance of Beethoven's death as the end of an era. Mozart and Hayden along with Beethoven are considered to be the three giants of the period, and forms such as the minuet and symphony among others were born here. Vienna, Austria became the mecca of Europe where students would come to study and this still holds true today.
By the end of this period, the envelope was starting to be pushed
in terms of form and tecnique, notably with Schubert taking the torch from LVB and
running with it into the Romantic era.
Romanticisim was a movement from eighteen twenty seven to the turn of the next century, where composers had an almost extreme tendency to show their emotive potential. On many occasions, in my oppinion, orchestral works by Berlioz, Brahms, and Schumann seem to wander aimlessly. Of course this was common in this period. Plenty of fire and emotion, but no definate structure to keep it in line, which gives many of the pieces a sort of, over self-indulgant feel. Rules were being made and broken as they went along, thus the music was very chaotic. However, many new developments and improvements were made to already existing instruments, especially the piano, and entirely new ones were created, which gave the symphonic structure a notably richer, fuller and more powerful effect and sound .
The two nationalist composers Verdi and Wagner virtually dominated opera in this period.
The twentieth century or (modern) era, basically continues in this expanding of musical
boundaries which gives the music a feeling of insecurity. Composers such as Bartok and Schoenberg really explored the uses of unorthodox harmonies, therefore the music has lots of tension and not much resolution. However, a glimmer of hope of returning to a more structured approach existed in composers Puccini and Rachmaninoff. Finally, french composer Claude Debussy was notable in exploring the different tonality of music of the East such as Asian and Indian music, though he did not adhere much to it's theory and philosophy. I will delve into that very shortly, since it is the approach I use in my music, both writing, teaching and performing it.
Obviously all of the above is a condensed historical journey of Western Classical music. I will not go into detail about it's theories since I believe that it's theories are very much exessive and unnecessary, as is Western science and medicine, though I will make direct contrasts between East and West to illustrate my point.
As the twentieth century martial artist and philosopher Bruce Lee once said, "When there is freedom from mechanical conditioning, there is simplicity. The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow. You are not understanding yourself." This is the most concise way I can express my feeling towards how Western Classical music is taught and learned. Of course there are postive elements to this system which I will adress in my conclusion, however the body of this paper is to bring outside concepts to the table and expose the weak points of Western culture and thought.
Here I will directly relate the Eastern theory of music, using Japanese theory as a model, and why I think it is more effective than the Western approach. First of all, Japanese theory derived from Chinese music theory, which dates back as far as at least five hundred B.C. Of course, this pre-dates any form of Western classical theory by about one thousand years. In fact, in almost every aspect of civilization, the East was well established and doing things, long before anything in the West, therefore it deserves it's proper respect, and this is one of the main reasons why I do not comprehend why only Western Classical music is subjected to students in Europe and North America as "The Way". More on this later. The Japanese beleive in the philosophy of esoteric and exoteric music. All music is based on two fundamental human functions: speech and movement. Speech is representative of music in it's tones, cadences and rhythms. That is to say, music is an exaggeration of the tonal and rhythmical qualities of human speech. Movement is saying that music gives sound to the movement of the body. Exoteric music is designed to be comprehended and feasable to perform by a large number of people, which tends to be closer to the origins of music in speech and movement. Esoteric music is designed for an elite bunch who cannot understand or perform the music without a specific kind of training. This approach tends to veer away from the true origins of what music really is. It also causes some, not all, in this area to aquire a snobbish attitude.
However, few would disagree, in any culture, that this esoteric value deepens one's understanding of how music is performed and listened to. It is the reason why most laymen do not like certain styles of music, it does not necessarily have to be classical. They simply don't understand it. In Japanese music theory, again derived from the Chinese, and it is notable to say that the Japanese adopted most of their culture from the Chinese up until they severed ties in nine hundred and seven A.D. after the fall of the Tang dynasty, is rooted in it's value of simplicity. The scale consisted of only five notes, or the pentatonic scale, which blues players would perform hundreds of variations on thousands of years later. These five notes relate to the other "fives". The other fives are the material agents and elements in nature:

Kung(Earth) 1st note, Shang(Metal) 2nd note, Chiao(Wood) 3rd note, Cheng(Fire)4thnote,Yu (Water)5th.
This was, and still is in my oppinion, a sophisticated theory of change. All change, in life
and in music is governed by these five agents and how they interact with each other. Yin and Yang was also incorporated into the musical theory of Japan, with the pentatonic scale being divided into ryo and ritsu(male and female). The most important, or as the west would say, the dominant, degree in the pentatonic scale is the third. The Japanese refer to this as the "cornerstone". In the West, everything is built upon the "tonic" or first scale degree. In Chinese and Japanese theory, the cornerstone(Chiao) is what dictates if a scale is ryo or ritsu. For instance, if Kung and Chiao form a perfect third in any particular scale and key, the scale is male, if Kung and Chiao form a perfect fourth of a scale in a particular key, it is female. This works in any Western scale as well, though we are dealing with the pentatonic here. Also, Japanese theory based itself on eight categories of sound:

Metal(bells), Stone(chimes), Earth(ocarina), Leather(drums), Silk(stringed instruments), Wood(double reed wind instuments), Gourd(sho), and Bamboo(flute).



The differences between the approaches of East and West should be obvious enough. The
benefits of the West's approach is in the preservation of the material by it's system of notation.
It produces dead on accurate translation from the original composers, and creates some of the most beautyful music in creation. Though it is not the "only" beautyful music in creation. I suppose that is my beef with the system of the West in general. It is narrow minded in it's acceptance of different styles, and looks upon them as inferior in many cases. As I stated earlier, this is not the case of all, but a significant amount of Classical musicians have this attitude of "elite" and it makes me sick frankly.

However, it is this very thing that causes it's rigidity and lack of fluidity in it's approach to
handing it down from generation to generation. There is very little room, if any, for personal
interpretation and creativity. Too many "rules" that tell you "that is not correct", therefor it is
not beautyful or acceptable. I would hope that classical readers do not take this personally, since
we are all musicians, and that the ultimate objective in music is to take the listener into the
psyche and emotional state of the performer and piece. Certain musicians are simply more adept, or at least more willing to do that than others. Mature musicians also know that there is more than one way to obtain this objective, which transcends technique and theory. My point is that in almost all universities, the effects, theories, methods and approaches to music of all civilizations, cultures and styles should be represented. Showing how they can interact and be in flowing harmony with one another, as opposed to shutting itself off from it, thus creating truly well rounded and versed musicians. Not only well rounded in one style.


The Eastern theory has been in existence far longer than Western thought, and should be offered as a field of study in more University music programs. It prides itself on the beauty of simplicity rather than exess. It strips away the unessentials so that the truth can be revealed.
It is not rigid in it's forms and teqniques. It's theory uses the harmony of nature and the universe as it's guide, where Western Classical uses mathmatics to govern it's harmony. Music is not mathmatical or logical. It should not be demeaned by intellectualization. Music should be felt, with very little thought involved. It should flow like water so that it can assume all forms. It should penetrate every fiber of one's being, not just the brain. Again, quoting Bruce Lee, " Don't think. Feel. It is like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss out on all that heavenly glory".