Hello,

I didn't actually want to get involved in this part of this discussion, but since misleading comments were made, comments that go directly contrary to my experience, it's only natural that I feel motivated.

Re: "Modern astrologers don't simply use the outer three planets, they go after them first and usually to the exclusion of almost everything else."

Many moderns are approaching from a psychological point of view. The outer planets, being trans-personal are harder to integrate into normal life, because their themes bridge issues beyond the personal and often go straight to what benefits the collective. Many of these troubling issues stick out like a sore thumb in the personality/life of the client and in the (related) positions of Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.

Re: "Noel Tyl teaches this. His method of reading a chart is mostly looking for aspects between the three outers (and Saturn) with the remaining classical planets."

Noel's method starts with:

A. Hemisphere groupings and stellia

B. Saturn

C. The Nodal Axis

D. The Sun-Moon blend

E. Dominant Aspects

As someone that has studied under Noel and has interacted with him directly and indirectly on his forum over the last 7 years, I find your statement to be obfuscating. Yes, the outers are important in Noel's teachings (they ARE planets and are there for the same reason as the others), but to reduce his teachings to basically the interaction of outer planets to the traditional seven is to leave out more of Noel's methodology than you have included.

In fact, Noel's main thrust through ALL of his teaching is on synthesis, the blending and correct understanding of the interaction of all factors, and this begins with the Sun-Moon blend (and other things mentioned above) which special, specific placements are then modifications/qualifications to what was initially understood.

What you have (falsely, imo) said about Noel, can be said about Adrian Ross Duncan, in that his approach mainly looks at Pluto, Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, and Jupiter contacting Mars, Venus, Mercury, Moon, and Sun.

Re: "Venus - Mercury contacts that we discussed in depth don't merit a yawn."

Again, quite the contrary, Venus-Mercury contacts are specifically discussed in Noel's teaching and even have a whole section dedicated to them. (relating to aesthetics and doing things to please, but also in terms of "idealism") The Mercury-Venus section is towards the very beginning of his Synthesis and Counseling book, where he is outlining his approach.

To say that, in his presentation, they "don't merit a yawn" is patently false and quickly disprovable...

Feel free to slam Noel or his methods as much as you are inclined to do... I only ask that when you are looking to find fault with his astrology that you do it through things that he actually does rather than your perception of what he does. Seems fair.

Note: I have had (over the years) my own criticisms of several issues with Noel and have publicly spoken about them. I could not criticize him for what you are stating, Tom, because I just don't see it.

Peace

James

Agreed.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to move this whole thread together with the more recent test to the natal astrology section? It would help everyone who use any techniques that could be labelled as non-traditional to participate without philosophical and exegetical issues and limitations. As far as I remember, that forum also gave place to similar discussions in the past.

I don't think so Levente. This thread was initiated by Tom in this traditional forum, as an invitation for those who want to use traditional methods to enage in the exercise he designed. The policies of this forum have been made clear enough - I've given the link above as a reminder and it has been said several times that if others want to present something similar in other forums they are perfectly welcome to do that. I'm more of the view that comments that have prolonged discussion of issues outside the focus of this forum should be removed as out of place, but I'll leave that for Tom to decide.

I think it would be a real shame if a great and really interesting thread dissolved into petty squabbling regarding traditional versus modern approaches.

It should be noted that nobody has witten any decree that somebody cannot start a similar thread on the Natal forum where the modern astrologers can use whatever methods they want. I don't recall anyone stipulating that this isn't allowed and that mystery charts are reserved for the traditional forum.

With that in mind, it seems odd to me that anyone would complain about the clear focus on traditional readings in a traditional forum. If you want modern readings use the modern forum.

It should be pretty straightforward right? In fact Deb has actually, as I understood it, gone further and even said that the odd modern observation is ok here, which, when you think of it, is actually quite generous.

But as for this thread, this is a traditional thread set up by a traditional astrologer in a traditional forum. It doesn't take much leap of imagination to understand that the goals of this thread in keeping with the goals of this forum is to maintain a focus on traditional usages of astrology.

But I don't think this is the thread to discuss everyone's disagreements with either traditional nor modern astrology. This has been a great thread, let's keep it that way and just quietly agree to disagree with one another where necessary.

I think it would be good to close this thread.
There is another quiz going on.

PD

hi,
i am with deb in her views on the nature of this. although i challenged the idea of leaving the outers out early in the thread while trying to poke fun at the nodes and pof being like dumb notes, the fact is i think it is an excellent exercise to try to get down to business with the basics which is really what many folks are trying to do here.. if someone wants to rattle on about these charts from a modern pov they can always do that in the general forum.. i like the way this whole process is at present in spite of my challenging comments at the beginning of the thread..

Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:04 pm Post subject:
Quote:

james_m wrote:
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.

Roy Haynes once shouted at me for Smoking. So if we can find the chart of a confrontational anti smoker , or someone prone to sore throats, or someone whose ma and pa died of lung cancer, ,,,,,,we may be on the money

Usually when music gets mentioned in astrological circles Holst's the planets appears and I?m sure we can all listen to this and think of all sorts of musical pieces that sound like his planetary conceptions.

I wouldn't associate different genres with just one planet, just some more than others. I may be more tempted to think about them in relation to elements. Jazz I would link to Air but not all Jazz. I already mentioned Garbarek, and perhaps a lot of the ECM catalogue? as having a Piscean or Neptunian quality. Sacred music tends to get linked in here. Also the minimalist?s repetitive sounds would fit in as we get into trance or mania type states or some of Bach. I think some older astrologers may have linked these feelings, or sounds, to the Moon? as would Psychological Astrologers but not just the Moon. I can think of a lot of classical music that isn?t particularly Piscean/Neptunian to my mind. For example, Stockhausen. . There are lots of fine, if not invisible lines, between which planets encapsulate which piece of Music, probably often a number of them in the one piece. Rhythm starting of with the human heart beat has a lunar comforting association I suppose.

Yes, here we are pondering what would have been considered prior to the discovery of Uranus with all these newish sounds. However I find it preferable to, at least initially, think about the music available to various astrologers? ears in their eras for clues not what arrived in the 20th century. We can take Jazz way back to Africa who knows when but I doubt many, if any, western astrologers bumped into this call and response groove, let alone wrote about it, until the 20th century? Anyway if we want to get deep into music and astrology we ought to start a thread on it.


Tom wrote: Quote:

Giving the three outer planets the same significance as the 7 visible planets brings the wrecking ball to the traditional system. Some people may think that's fine. I'm not one of them and this Forum was set up to use that system. But I'll repeat because I think it is worth repeating. Modern astrologers don't simply use the outer three planets, they go after them first and usually to the exclusion of almost everything else.

Psychological Astrologers don?t go after the outers, far from it. When I construct a chart I just put the Sun, Moon and Ascendant on it and only once I feel/think I have certain clarity as to the 'essential dynamics' will I add Mercury, then Venus..... (Von Schlieffen is a good example of this approach. Deb might be another, albeit coming at this ??luminary elevation?? from some other sources?). Quite a lot of the time I don?t get as far as Mercury!

The Pianist and Sportsman are coincidental examples of this schema as both had the luminaries in the subjective, egocentric, 'me ' focused, pleasure, anti ''growing up'', and what am I good at zone of the 2nd quadrant (not sure how 'explicitly' traditional this view of houses 4-6 are, maybe some resonates with folks here and some doesn't ?). Thus these 3 charts with just the Sun, Moon and Asc on would have led to the same guesses and probably a lot quicker, for me, than having to first encounter the distractions of the more incidental or peripheral Mer-Sat bodies.

really interesting comments nixx! i agree, a thread discussing this would be ideal. the ecm catalogue was really what i grew up on and first started with in the jazz spectrum.. keith jarrett and on. i agree that no planet is going to cover all of any style of music, and i am especially curious on your thoughts towards the later part of your post saying one may not need to go beyond the sun, moon and asc for much of the info.. your interpretation of the 2nd quadrant i think is a good one.. as someone who has sun in aries in this quadrant, i can really relate to it. perhaps you can take this approach to the new quiz up on the other thread.. thanks for your comments.

james_m wrote:really interesting comments nixx! i agree, a thread discussing this would be ideal. the ecm catalogue was really what i grew up on and first started with in the jazz spectrum.. keith jarrett and on. i agree that no planet is going to cover all of any style of music, and i am especially curious on your thoughts towards the later part of your post saying one may not need to go beyond the sun, moon and asc for much of the info.. your interpretation of the 2nd quadrant i think is a good one.. as someone who has sun in aries in this quadrant, i can really relate to it. perhaps you can take this approach to the new quiz up on the other thread.. thanks for your comments.

Jarrett's, or Redman's, Survivors Suite Lp was an album which I considered worthy of being analysed for this book I was working on. Do you know it ?

I had a brief look at the 3 new charts. I think Tom said he was going to throw in the vocations of the other two, if so I'll see if anything jumps out with this more fundamentalist trio system then. Like the pianist it helps, me, to know if we are dealing with a Hoffman or a Stallone. Actors nowadays can be well payed cultural icons followed about by the paparazzi whereas centuries ago they had less visible or lucrative fates so it might be interesting to find out more about some tradtional conceptions of this 'choice' for a career.

hi nixx,

yes i know that recording and have it.. it is with the picture of the house on the cover.. i can't remember the story on the house.. jarrett had the euro group and the american group running at the same time.. he had much more difficulty keeping the american group running on a smooth level as i recall from reading the book on him by ian carr.. do you play music?

James,

Yes, this is the one. One potentially interesting astrological angle to this LP is how the USA quartet hadn't previously gelled like the European one then managed to produce this extraordinary music.

You asked me about playing before. I was sent to a school where learning instruments was mandatory so by the age of 13 could play the piano and violin to about grade 5 standard but then gave them. Since then I returned to the piano a little and learnt the guitar to a pretty basic standard. Like a lot of folks it's a regret I was tempted away by more instantly gratifying teenage kicks.

Drums I was never tempted by, bloody noisy and I don't much like the look of them or the sound much come to think of it. Could be more of a Sun in Aries endeavour ?