Jump to content

is music science?


cambrian_exp

Recommended Posts

Smith's 1st Law of Syncopative Attraction: For all live songs featuring a consistent backbeat between 65 and 96 bpm, the number of panties thrown on stage will be directly proportional to the amount of leather worn by the performers at a rate of 1.344 panties per sq. meter of leather.

 

Seriously though, if it's a science, then what are the rules? If I test your rules, will I get the same result 100% of the time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Music is based on math and science. There is math behind all the rhythms, and it is a good math exercise for one's brain to learn how to sight read. For example 4/4 time means there are 4 notes in a measure and a quarter note is equal to 1 beat. 6/8 time means their are six beats to a measure and an 8th note gets a beat. One has to figure out the whole measure before one plays the first note, when sight reading, one usually reads 4 measures ahead. There is also math involved when figuring out chords and harmonics.

 

Science is involved with the sound waves. Bands and orchestras tune to A440hertz. ( http://www.uk-piano.org/history/pitch.html & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency)

 

However, unless one put one's heart into it while playing, music is just technical noise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Synthesis of waveforms could be regarded as science...if you understand about adding harmonics to a raw sine wave and know what you're going to get then science is applied before the creation of music.

 

Musical styles crossing over et.c isn't scientific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So physics is involved.

Like has been pointed out before though, there is a difference between science and being explained by science. Technically, everything can or (hopefully) will be explained through physics, but that doesn't qualify everything as science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Music is based on math and science. There is math behind all the rhythms' date=' and it is a good math exercise for one's brain to learn how to sight read. For example 4/4 time means there are 4 notes in a measure and a quarter note is equal to 1 beat. 6/8 time means their are six beats to a measure and an 8th note gets a beat. One has to figure out the whole measure before one plays the first note, when sight reading, one usually reads 4 measures ahead. There is also math involved when figuring out chords and harmonics.

 

Science is involved with the sound waves. Bands and orchestras tune to A440hertz. ( http://www.uk-piano.org/history/pitch.html & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency)

 

However, unless one put one's heart into it while playing, music is just technical noise.[/quote']

 

Much agreed.

Robert Jourdain also agrees, in his book Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy.

In it, Jourdain describes music as a combination of noises which somehow has a profound effect on human psychology. I'd definitely say that the study of music as a science belongs to the psychology department.

 

(BTW, I highly recommend purchasing this book.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The way I see it, creating music is not a science, but there is a fascinating science behind the structure of music. If you study traditional music theory you can learn about this. Some of the work done by the 17th and 18th century masters in laying the foundation of modern musical theory is (IMO) very much akin to modern scientific analysis.

 

One of the questions raised by music theory that I think is interesting is the following question: Are we simply so used to hearing the 12-tone polyphonic scale and accompanying chords that we view anything that adheres to that structure as "music", or is there something about that structure that causes it to be music regardless of our preferences or interests?

 

It's kind of a chicken-or-egg problem, and it can only be solved in a few ways, perhaps one of these:

- Ask aliens (if they ever show up)

- Stop using it and start using something else

 

Most experiments with the latter (and there have been many) have failed. But is that because there's something wrong with the creative process used, or because there's something fundamentally better about the well-tempered scale? Nobody really knows the answer to these questions.

 

But answering them is very much an application of science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following are the definitions of "science:"

 

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.

4. systematized knowledge in general.

5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

6. a particular branch of knowledge.

7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

 

Therefore, I'm going to amend my previous statements and say this instead: Whether something is a science or not is determined not by the particular area of study, but by the way in which it is approached. Science is merely a way of looking at something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
how about composition, surley that is completely unrelated to science?

 

I think that depends a lot on what kind of composer you're talking about. Webern championed a type of music called serialism which is literally composing by numbers (and the analysis of such pieces is great fun to boot!). Contrarily, many of the Romantic-era works seem to have absolutely no semblence of a structure to them at all. Bach's works could be said to be somewhere in the middle (although harmony and counterpoint are much more structured than most other types of music anyway) - almost composition by numbers, but still with the odd unpredicted surprise here and there.

 

When it comes to modern popular music, the progressions involved are often so dull that you wonder if many artists just have a machine that churns stuff out when you turn a handle.

 

As for the original question, I always had the idea that music was more closely related to maths than to anything involving the scientific method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neurology and psychology...

 

How about the study of what makes our minds enjoy music as opposed to just noise?

 

Harmonies in sound have an effect on our minds somehow and that is science, its neurology and psychology. Just what is it that makes the great music by Mozart and Brahms and countless others so great; how does it have such a profound effect on us and our emotions? How is sound as in music related to our emotions?

 

Science is everything, music and art included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.