Scientology/Music and tone
QUESTION: Hey Laurie,
I play guitar and i am good enough at singing to pass for a singer in the wog world but not good enough to feel like i am singing at a level i admire. My question is about that.
Hubbard said the MEST universe consists of heavy waves and music (or art) being a light wave causes the being to go down-tone. I don't understand the phenomena of wavelengths the way he is using it. Hubbard is very smart and sometimes had a tendency to mention complex phenomena casually.
Wavelength is generally understood to be a physical universe phenomena like a sound wave that can travel long lengths or short lengths of space depending on it's wavelength or how "spread out" it is. This is not how he using the term.
What does it mean when he says applying light waves to heavy waves causes one to go down-tone? And is the idea to not play music until one has handled this in auditing? Should songs be avoided if they cause emotional reactions that are below 2.0 on the wavelength? An OT at the church told me that low-toned music is still asthetic. I feel like there are not a lot of scientologist musicians or maybe the are but they are closet musicians. Not everyone likes to play music in front of others.
ANSWER: I know a ton of Scientologist musical performers, and nearly every Scientologist I know is at least somewhat musical. Of course, I come from an extended family of 3 generations of Scientologists, most of whom are musicians (including myself - I play guitar, write songs, and sing). I can think of two aunts, my mom, my dad, both daughters, an uncle, my older sister and younger brother, all of whom have performed professionally or semi-professionally. My younger daughter is a vocalist of pro quality who has performed a lot, as well as dancer and choreographer, and my older daughter teaches violin. So there's that...
But as to your question, Ron really means wavelength (or sometimes wave) when he says wavelength. The warning regarding "heavy" versus "light" waves strikes me as having to do with the physical universe and havingness. MEST is a form of havingness, and it is the only havingness many people have every experienced. Aesthetics, especially music, tend to be somewhat divorced from MEST, being a much finer, less "solid" wave. To follow or get engrossed in music is to lose touch to a degree with MEST, which causes a feeling of loss, which can drive a person down tone. That's how I get it, anyway. That's one reason, I think, that music, an aesthetic, can so credibly communicate loss, sadness, misery. At the same time, tending to draw a person away from the brute force of the physical universe, it can bring comfort to people singing the blues, old slave spirituals, etc. There can be beauty even in the saddest, most miserable things.
If a person has their aberrations concerning music cleared, then not only will their competence increase, and not only will their music "take one away," but it will also raise the tone of people hearing it.
As to "heavy" versus "light" waves, consider the sonic generators that are so forceful that they can actually put out a fire, knock someone down, or rupture ear drums. That is a "heavy" wave. Conversely, consider the wave of a length of silk used by a girl in rhythmic gymnastics. You could hardly think of anything lighter. I think that's the kind of concept Ron is getting at. He actually gets heavily into the concept of wavelengths and how they manifest, in "Scientology 8-008." You almost have to be a physicist to read parts of it.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: I know what you mean. It's the first Scientology book i ever purchased.
That's cool that you also play guitar and sing. i did not know that.
Do you know the theory aspect of music also? Do you feel that it improves the persons ability to perform? KRC would lead one to believe that but look at mariah carey. I feel like she might be the best singer of our time and she doesnt know theory.
I know very little of theory but dont want to compare myself to anyone else. I feel like theory might help me
My fundamental Theory is good, but my technical music reading is weak (I know how to read time signatures, clefs, note values - whole, half, quarter, eighth etc., the positions on the staff, know things like whole, half and quarter rest, repeat, etc. - but putting it together is something else.) Both of the girls are very strong in theory - both formally trained. Either one can look at a piece of music and sing or play it.
I've been a vocalist since I was about 8, and sang in formal performances both in school (including state choir competitions, etc.) and with my mom & grandma in community performances. I have what you might call perfect pitch and flawless natural harmony instincts (taught my kids how to sing) - but I was never happy with my vibrato - it just always seemed so "meh." UNTIL I watched a performance in 1977 in L.A. by a black female singer whose name escapes me, and who had been coached in vocal music by Ron. She sang "Mule Skinner" and it about peeled my skin back. I found myself involuntarily singing along - with a vibrato quality I really liked. My vibrato has been good ever since. I know - what? Oh, well. That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.