Science + Music

Two links to share.

The music's pretty boring, though. Read the articles to get more info on the composition.

Technology Review: A Musical Score for Disease

Technology Review: A Prelude in Protein

"Most people consider 'The Star-Spangled Banner' beyond the typical nonprofessional singer's voice, and that's only an octave and a half," says Miller. "So just imagine two and a half octaves. If you use this 20-note scale, you can have big jumps between notes, and it doesn't sound like music."

Doesn't sound like music, eh?

How unscientific.

The first article didn't say much about how the notes were mapped, but the second makes it pretty clear that they specifically tried to stuff everything into formulas in such a way that it met their personal definition of "nice sounding", which is kind of a pity. So I got to agree with SSC, doesn't seem like a very scientific approach (and makes it pretty uninteresting musically, at least to me.)

That's the innate difficulty of mapping between two distinct vector spaces. You need a transformation, and in the real world, it isn't so simple to find a good one. But the article did state that there is a program for this, right? Maybe you can get your hand on it and "play with it?" Come out with something better.

Dammit, now the Theme of Huntington's Disease is going to play through my nightmares. :angry:

It's really no fun when they all form simple triads.

They need to simplify their scores.

Science =/= Composition

Some intuitive process is always involved, even if that process is the attempt of making music sound random.

Obviously, the scientists used their own, non-musical intuition in mapping triads onto the template they were using and created... well (not that we're supposed to be making such objective statements of such a subjective manner, right SSC?) bad music.

I think it would have been better if they left the composition process to the composers and just provided the mapping framework for the composers to work with...

I tried using Mathematics to Music, inspired by Xenakis, and tried to make the music sound nice too, so I guess I may fall into this category of Applied Science / Applied Mathematics to Music. It helps when you run out of ideas but of course, I think there is an undefined limit where once you go beyond it, people would say, "Hey, you are trying too hard!"

I don't really think there's "trying too hard" in anything related to composition. With that said, this is all just process by which you can come to some sort of musical material/idea and you can therefore make your own systems and interpretations.

For example I'm thinking about writing something that has to do with a couple of theories from quantum mechanics that I love, like the uncertainty principle from Heisenberg. How do I translate that into music, well, that's my deal.

But the key is that I'm not just going to arbitrarily "oh it must sound like "music" and limit the output I can get from my inspiration source to whoever's definition. Some may do that, fine, but at the end if you're going to limit it anyways (otherwise it'd be the "every possibility ever" piece) at least it's better to be honest and say "yeah cuz I just like this better" than to use "sounds like music" or any other unnecessary or pseudo-intellectual reason.

In their defense, neither team is trying to make "music" per se. They're both trying for ways to sonically communicate something that's usually sight-driven.

In their defense, neither team is trying to make "music" per se. They're both trying for ways to sonically communicate something that's usually sight-driven.

Shouldn't that say, "...something that's usually aurally driven?"

Just curious where you're drawing the comparison... from scientific or musical principles?

As in, are they trying to communicate through a medium that is usually aurally driven? Or, are they trying to communicate through a medium something that's based in science?

I think you're saying the latter, but I figure the former is more appropriate in context.

This kind of stupid' date=' simple-minded approach makes me want to murder this guy's children and pets. I read this phrase and couldn't read any further . . .

The second article was a bit less stupid, but their approach is still really arbitrary. It's like they randomly shot holes into walls, and then drew targets around their holes to make sure they hit the bulls-eye. This stuff is peanuts compared to Xenakis' music.[/quote']

Well said. Leave the representation of science in music to those with more expertise in music. Then you really have something worthwhile to offer when trying to show that a scientific principle can be represented aurally.

But the key is that I'm not just going to arbitrarily "oh it must sound like "music" and limit the output I can get from my inspiration source to whoever's definition. Some may do that, fine, but at the end if you're going to limit it anyways (otherwise it'd be the "every possibility ever" piece) at least it's better to be honest and say "yeah cuz I just like this better" than to use "sounds like music" or any other unnecessary or pseudo-intellectual reason.

Also well said.

I tried using Mathematics to Music, inspired by Xenakis, and tried to make the music sound nice too, so I guess I may fall into this category of Applied Science / Applied Mathematics to Music. It helps when you run out of ideas but of course, I think there is an undefined limit where once you go beyond it, people would say, "Hey, you are trying too hard!"

Trying too hard is more a matter of where the intuitive process seems to take place in the work. If all the composer is doing is re-allocating sound to some scientific "template" without so much as a single compositional effort on the composer's part, then where is the effort at all?

Trying too hard? I say not trying hard enough. Maybe both apply in this sense, who knows?

In their defense, neither team is trying to make "music" per se. They're both trying for ways to sonically communicate something that's usually sight-driven.

I think the problem is actually that they actually didn't do quite what you said. If they had just decided on a mapping system without any "musical" considerations whatsoever, I suppose the result might have become a lot more interesting. But they tried to push it into a very narrow definition of music (equal temperament, diatonic notes, triads, etc.) with the -aim- to actually make it sound more "musical". So it ended up with something that is neither purely technical, nor random, nor musically thought through, but that desperately wants to be a little of everything at the same time.

Shouldn't that say, "...something that's usually aurally driven?"

Just curious where you're drawing the comparison... from scientific or musical principles?

As in, are they trying to communicate through a medium that is usually aurally driven? Or, are they trying to communicate through a medium something that's based in science?

I think you're saying the latter, but I figure the former is more appropriate in context.

The way I read the articles, I saw what they were doing as replacing things generally associated with sight - the DNA (or whatever it is, I can't remember) codes and all the equipment associated with medicine - with a sonic representation.

I agree though, both groups are a bit insufficient either as music or as monitors. I posted it because I ran across them and thought they were moderately interesting.

I agree though, both groups are a bit insufficient either as music or as monitors. I posted it because I ran across them and thought they were moderately interesting.

The concept is interesting in its own right. The music was lacking and could have been more. But hey, they're scientists. They don't exactly "get out much," right?

I posted it because I ran across them and thought they were moderately interesting.

Well, the good thing about all this is that we have a great example on hand on how NOT to do this sort of scraggy.

I think you all just focused to much on what they actually did and not on what matters. That it can be done. I don't imagine they were trying to create great works of art but rather just trying to generate interest from laymen.

i wouldn't be hard to simply signal process the sound into more "interesting" music, but I doubt it'll serve their purpose.