An­swer: Yes. But now just the sec­ond ques­tion again: to what ex­tent is Medi­cal Reso­nance Ther­apy Mu­sic^® ‘mu­sic’?

Peter Hübner: As I have al­ready said be­fore, from a musi­co­logi­cal point of view, our Euro­pean mu­si­cal his­tory sys­tem­ati­cally and logi­cally mir­rors a proc­ess of cog­ni­tion in the mi­cro­cosm of mu­sic sphere.

Even if, from the point of view of the sound crea­tors, this cog­ni­tion process runs intuitively – which is simply a sign that our thoughts too, in their very na­ture, fol­low a proc­ess of har­monic evo­lu­tion – then to­day it is pos­si­ble with the help of sci­en­tific cog­ni­tive meth­ods to prove that the in­tui­tive cog­ni­tion of our great clas­si­cal sound crea­tors co­in­cides with the har­monic re­al­ity of the mi­cro­cosm of mu­sic.
One can­not, of course, claim that these mu­sic crea­tors sought only to rep­re­sent and re­veal the laws of har­mony of the mi­cro­cosm of mu­sic – or, in­deed, the ex­tent of their knowl­edge in this sphere.

It is, how­ever, a fact that, be­yond all their crea­tive achieve­ments and di­ver­sity in re­spect of in­sight into the mi­cro­cosm of mu­sic, a con­ti­nu­ity in har­monic cog­ni­tion can be proven, as we only know in the de­vel­op­ment of the dif­fer­ent sci­en­tific dis­ci­plines.

From a musi­co­logi­cal point of view, Euro­pean mu­si­cal his­tory can in­as­much be seen as a pure proc­ess of cog­ni­tion in re­spect of the mi­cro­cosm of mu­sic, in which the dif­fer­ent mu­si­cal works re­veal a greater or lesser de­gree of in­sight into this har­monic crea­tive sphere.

On the other hand, we cus­tom­ar­ily pay scant re­gard to this cog­ni­tive the­ory as­pect and look only at the crea­tive di­ver­sity of the sounds – com­pletely re­moved from these laws of har­mony.

So it can also be ex­plained that for cen­tu­ries it did not occur to the pro­fes­sional mu­sic world that his­tori­cally, at some point, the har­monic proc­ess of cog­ni­tion in the mi­cro­cosm of mu­sic was no longer car­ried for­ward, but ac­tu­ally went into re­verse.
And it is proba­bly only be­cause I con­cern my­self in­ten­sively with this natu­ral sci­ence of mu­sic, that I am the first one to rec­og­nize this to­day.

But the de­vel­op­ment in com­po­si­tional tech­nique made by our great clas­si­cal com­pos­ers and the hi­er­ar­chy they im­posed on the in­di­vid­ual com­po­si­tional tech­niques ex­press very clearly that they too – if only in­tui­tively – at­tached far greater im­por­tance to the mi­cro­cosm of mu­sic and its har­monic struc­tures than to­day’s quali­fied mu­si­cal ex­perts would even think pos­si­ble.

Even if ul­ti­mately ac­cord­ing to the to­day`s in­ter­pre­ta­tions of their mu­sic the great clas­si­cal com­pos­ers mainly wrote homo­phonic mu­sic, they nev­er­the­less re­garded po­lyph­ony as the higher ar­tis­tic mu­si­cal craft – and it is only this that we find in the mi­cro­cosm of mu­sic.
The func­tion of the laws of har­mony in space and time can­not be con­veyed by ho­moph­ony; for this one needs po­lyph­ony, the coun­ter­point and the fugue.

It is then a ques­tion of whether our clas­si­cal sound crea­tors can be firstly seen from a hu­man­ist view point as in­tui­tive re­search­ers in the sphere of the laws of har­mony of the mi­cro­cosm of mu­sic and only sec­ondly as art­ists and crea­tors of emo­tion­ally char­ged work of sound, in the way that the world of pro­fes­sional mu­sic would have us be­lieve.

And if this thesis is cor­rect, then we have to com­pletely re­value and reas­sess our clas­si­cal sound crea­tors, their works and their his­tori­cal sig­nifi­cance, as well as their sig­nifi­cance for our fu­ture.

In early high civi­li­za­tions mu­sic was one of the most highly re­garded sci­ences or arts be­cause, in­deed, one saw in mu­sic the theo­ries of all other sci­ences most com­pre­hen­sively dis­played – po­ten­tially, at least – where­by the musi­co­logi­cal point of view surely pre­domi­nated.

Nowa­days, sight of this has been lost even to the ex­perts. The as­pect of mu­si­cal or­der has been given sec­ond place be­hind the as­pect of emo­tional ex­cite­ment, the interpreter before the sound crea­tor. The logi­cal re­sult is that, in terms of mu­sic the­ory, chaos domi­nates. And then in turn, the mu­sic it­self has a cor­re­spond­ing ef­fect on so­ci­ety.

The mi­cro­cosm of mu­sic does not know this dys­func­tion in the in­ter­pre­ta­tion. The sound crea­tions of the mi­cro­cosm of mu­sic de­velop and dis­in­te­grate quite with­out sen­sa­tion.

The mi­cro­cosm of mu­sic pre­sents us, then, with a mu­sic-na­ture, the sole pur­pose of which is to cele­brate and expose the crea­tor’s laws of har­mony and pro­vide us with a key to teach these laws of har­mony once more – there where they are no longer on an even keel.

Socrates propa­gated such teach­ing for those en­er­gies of the soul which had slipped off bal­ance, and Pythagoras wanted to use it in or­der to nor­mal­ize those en­er­gies of the hu­man or­gan­ism, which were no longer on an even keel.

If one looks around to­day’s mu­sic world, one asks one­self, along with Socrates, Pythagoras and nu­mer­ous other great minds from other high civi­li­za­tions: is this really still mu­sic?

The mi­cro­cosm of mu­sic pro­vides us with the an­swer of the crea­tor or of na­ture: it is, at best, a pe­riph­eral mu­si­cal phe­nome­non – in the same way that long fin­ger nails are a hu­man phe­nome­non of pe­riph­eral im­por­tance, the de­ceased parts of which we find ir­ri­tat­ing and so cut off.
Surely, how­ever, these fin­ger­nail clip­pings do not rep­re­sent the core or cen­ter of bio­logi­cal life, as, by com­pari­son, the mu­sic in­dus­try and those mu­si­cal ex­perts in its pay would have us be­lieve is the case with their mu­si­cal productions.

Ques­tion: So in our pre­sent sci­ence-domi­nated age one can best say about Medi­cal Reso­nance Ther­apy Mu­sic^® that it is a medi­cal in­for­ma­tion car­rier, that is to say, it is medi­cally valu­able in­for­ma­tion which has a thera­peu­tic ef­fect – good for the health?!

Peter Hübner: Yes. This har­monic in­for­ma­tion can­not be ade­quately con­veyed in words alone, and it is there­fore that we use the sound as an in­for­ma­tion car­rier; but it is good to use the verbal in­for­ma­tion as a com­ple­ment.