Astrology and Music: The Interval You Are Living In

Almost everyone who books a reading with me asks some version of the same question within the first ten minutes.

Is it a good chart?

What they mean is: is there a lot of difficulty in there? Are there many squares? Is the damage extensive?

I understand the question. It usually comes from a very real place, often from a period in which life has already been hard enough that the person would like to hear that the harshness is nearly over.

But consider what the question assumes. It assumes that tension is a flaw in the design; that somewhere there exists a chart made entirely of soft angles, and that the person holding it must therefore be living a better life than you.

Nobody thinks this way about music.

Nobody asks a composer to write a piece without dissonance. Nobody wants ninety minutes of unbroken consonance; within a few minutes it becomes unbearable, because nothing in it needs to move. Every piece of music you have ever loved is built, in some way, from tension that has not yet resolved. The tension is precisely what gives the music somewhere to go.

This may be the most useful thing music has to say to astrology, and it is also why the two belong together far more literally than most people realise.

Relationship is what produces meaning

Start with the discovery on which the whole tradition rests.

A single string, stopped nowhere, has no interval. Nothing about it is consonant or dissonant; it is simply a sound. Halve it and you get the octave. Stop it at two-thirds, and you get the fifth; at three-quarters, the fourth. Musical quality emerges from the proportion between two lengths: from relationship rather than from either object in isolation.

The Pythagoreans took this as a revelation about reality rather than merely about strings, and the West has been arguing with that proposition ever since. But you do not need to accept their metaphysics to see where the idea leads, because astrology is built through a strikingly similar operation.

A planet on its own tells you relatively little. Much of its meaning emerges through relationship: the angle it forms with another planet, the pattern those angles create, the geometry of the whole.

And the basic divisions are familiar.

Divide the circle by two and you have the opposition, 180°. By three, the trine, 120°. By four, the square, 90°. By six, the sextile, 60°. The same logic of proportion that generates musical intervals is now being performed on a circle rather than a string. The resemblance is structural before it is poetic.

In 1976, the English astrologer John Addey made this principle the basis of an entire system, reading the chart through harmonics: the circle divided by five, by seven, by nine, each division producing a particular quality, much as different proportions generate different relationships within sound.

So when I say that I compose music from a birth chart, I am not simply translating between two unrelated languages. I am working with a shared grammar expressed through two different forms of notation.

And this is where the matter becomes relevant to a life rather than merely interesting as a theory. In music, some relationships feel stable, spacious, immediately intelligible. Others generate friction, instability, expectation. Yet the difficult ones are very often where the music begins to move.

Kepler, and the song of misery

There is one person who tried to take this correspondence much further, and he is worth meeting properly because his story is considerably stranger than the version usually told.

Johannes Kepler spent much of his life convinced that the solar system was built according to musical proportion. At first he looked for that order in geometry, arranging the five Platonic solids inside one another in an attempt to explain the distances between the planets. He published the model. It did not quite fit.

Decades later, working with Tycho Brahe's observations, he found a different answer in motion. Because planetary orbits are elliptical, each planet moves faster at perihelion and slower at aphelion. Kepler compared those extreme angular velocities as musical proportions and found that they could be expressed as intervals. Mars, for example, came out at roughly 2:3: a perfect fifth.

He published the work in 1619 as Harmonices Mundi. The laws of planetary motion that every schoolchild now learns were, to Kepler, part of a much larger search for the harmonic structure of the cosmos.

"The movements of the heavens," he wrote, "are nothing except a certain everlasting polyphony, perceived by the intellect, not by the ear."

And then there is the detail I cannot stop returning to.

Kepler calculated that the Earth's velocity varies by approximately a semitone: from mi to fa and back again. Mi–fa–mi. In the margin, he noted what those syllables suggested to him in Latin: miseria, fames. Misery and famine.

He was writing during the religious wars. He was persecuted by both sides. His mother was tried for witchcraft. He measured the movements of the sky, found his own planet singing a semitone, and heard in that interval something uncannily close to the world he himself was living through.

I want to be careful here about the status of this idea. Kepler's planetary harmonies cannot be definitively verified today, and harmonic thinking of every kind carries a permanent danger: we may project correspondence into a structure and then mistake our projection for something we have discovered. Anyone working in this territory who refuses to acknowledge that risk is selling something.

What survives that caution, for me, is less a proof than a discipline of listening. And Kepler's mi–fa–mi remains one of the most honest things a scientist has ever written down precisely because it occupies that unstable territory between measurement and meaning, between what can be demonstrated and what a human being cannot help but hear.

The intervals we call unbearable

Music history contains a lesson that no amount of psychological insight delivers as cleanly.

Take the tritone — three whole tones, the most unstable interval in the Western system. Medieval counterpoint avoided it. (The famous story that the Church banned it as diabolus in musica, the devil in music, is a myth; the phrase only appears in the eighteenth century, and you can hear tritones in Pérotin in the thirteenth. But the avoidance was real.) It was handled as something the rules did not know what to do with.

That same interval later became the engine of Western harmony. The dominant seventh chord — the chord that creates the expectation of resolution, the chord almost every piece of tonal music leans on to get home — contains a tritone at its centre. Jazz is largely built on it. The interval that could not be used became the mechanism by which music moves.

Nothing was added to the tritone in the intervening centuries. It did not become a better interval. What changed is that musicians stopped trying to eliminate it and learned what it was for.

I have watched exactly this happen inside people, and it is the whole of my work in one sentence.

Your chart is not a preference

Which brings me back to the squares.

A square is friction: obstruction, pressure, forced movement. In musical terms, it behaves something like syncopation. It displaces the expected accent, refuses the comfortable grid and generates movement through instability.

An opposition carries a different tension. Two functions face one another across the full diameter of the circle, each occupying a position from which it can see something the other cannot.

A trine, by contrast, speaks of fluency: a capacity or mode of being that tends to move with relatively little resistance and that, for precisely this reason, may remain strangely undervalued. What comes easily to us is often the last thing we learn to recognise as a gift.

Now consider where, in your own life, you actually became someone.

We rarely grow because everything is already flowing. Growth tends to gather around the friction points: the places where two parts of us want apparently incompatible things and neither is willing to disappear.

In a chart, those tensions are often described by the hard angles. In a life, they appear as recurring situations you have never quite managed to arrange your way out of. In music, they are the reason the piece has not ended yet.

And this is where music offers something more than a metaphor, because it also gives us a way of thinking about what tension requires.

You do not simply remove a dissonance. You allow it to move toward resolution.

And the force of that resolution depends on what preceded it. A suspension that resolves after two beats may be pleasant; the same suspension held for sixteen bars can undo an entire room. The resolution carries weight because the dissonance was allowed to sound fully first.

You cannot resolve a chord you refuse to play.

Much of the spiritual work I encounter seems to involve an attempt to resolve chords that were never actually sounded: to arrive at peace without having felt the rage; to reach forgiveness without having allowed the betrayal to be heard at full volume, in the body, without somebody immediately trying to manage it.

The result is a kind of premature consonance. Everyone in the room can feel that something is hollow in it, including, usually, the person performing it.

The tension in your chart is part of the material from which the piece is made. What it costs you may also contain information about what it is asking you to become.

Why sound gets in where explanation does not

There is one more reason I work with music rather than with words alone.

You have no earlids.

Sight can be shut off by a muscle. Hearing cannot. Sound arrives whether or not you agree to receive it, and much of its effect reaches the body before the mind has had time to name what is happening: pressure in the chest, a shift in breathing, the involuntary catch that comes when a harmony turns unexpectedly.

By the time you have understood what a chord did to you, it has already done it.

Perhaps this is part of why insight so often fails to change anything, while a piece of music can undo you in eleven seconds. Understanding enters through the part of us most practised at defending itself.

Resonance does not knock.

Tantric traditions approached sound with a seriousness that reaches far beyond metaphor. In their cosmologies, sound is not merely something the universe contains; vibration belongs to the texture of consciousness itself. At its deepest lies anāhata: the unstruck sound, sounding without anything having been struck.

You do not have to accept that metaphysics to recognise the practical consequence. The body responds to vibration before the mind has finished negotiating with it.

In this work, that matters.

A wound can be analysed for fifteen years and remain intact. Explanation can illuminate its architecture without necessarily reaching the place where it continues to live. Sometimes something else has to enter—a form of experience capable of reaching what words have already mapped but have not transformed.

This is the layer I call the Symphony of the Spheres. It is the last thing I offer someone rather than the first, it has its own page here, because it asks for a body already willing to feel.

What I would ask you instead

Which is why I would like to retire the question people ask me in those first ten minutes.

Is it a good chart?

A chart cannot be good or bad any more than a key signature can. What it can do is show you, with sometimes uncomfortable honesty, where the friction lies and what has been trying to move through it for most of your life.

So I would ask a different question.

Which tension have you been trying to delete—and what might it sound like if, instead, you finally let it be played all the way through?

Marco Kailash Nath

Follow me on Instagram

© 2026. All rights reserved TEA.

Letters from the cosmos

Occasional writings to inspire you

[Privacy Policy]

[Terms and Conditions]