Music and Mathematics - What's The Big Deal?

I've seen so many articles and books about composers equating their music with specific mathematical formulas, going on and on about the inherent mathematical nature of music. Studies have also taught that in general, if you are good at music, you are good at math.

If that is the case, then why do I stink at math?

Please don't say it's because I stink at music...

Anyway, I've never seen music in a mathematical sense. I've never understood musical and ratios and whatnot. Instead, when I look at music theory, I see it more in a linguistic sense, and instead of mathematical formulas, I see the rules more as rules of grammar. Which, unlike mathematic formulas, rules of grammar can be specially suited to the poet's purpose.

People speak of the mathematical exactitute of Bach, of Ligetti, etc etc. People speak of the mathematic logic of common-practice period chord progressions. But I, I see it more as proper sentence structure - subject, noun, verb, adjective, etc. I see no mathematical relationship whatsoever with music, no more than the mathematical relationship to anything else. Does that make much sense?

Yes, it does. Music, because it exists as waveforms, has a mathematical side, but it is also aesthetic. We perceive music through our ears and can enjoy it without understanding it... the same is true of visual art. We need not understand the exact nature of the light striking our retinas to appreciate it.

There are certainly reasons specific elements of music (chord progressions, intervals, melodic contours) are more pleasing than others, but even a composer need not know the reasons behind this. All we need to know is what we like in order to compose. Music theory and counterpoint are simply sets of observed patterns that have proved pleasing to many people in the past, which is why they're such good guidelines. However, as everyone has a different taste when it comes to sound, what you like to hear as a composer may be entirely separate from what I like, and even what the observed patterns say many people have liked. Thus, counterpoint and theory are merely guidelines and not laws.

Yes, it does. Music, because it exists as waveforms, has a mathematical side, but it is also aesthetic.

Music does not exist as waveforms. Sound can be represented as waves, but sound is not music. Music exists in the aether, or in other words within our minds. In the context of how we see the world.

Ahhhhh.... but there are people who would say that sound IS music!

They would be wrong.

Just like when I tell a story the sound of my voice is not the story. The story exists within the mind of each listener, based on their prior experiences and view of the world. Such is music. Of course, their take on the story is VERY much influenced by how I speak the words. Understaning of any kind happens in the mind.

To tie this in with a hot topic of late...

That is why to some people Cage's music (the infamous 4:33) is in fact music and to others not. It all depends on all individual conceptual constructs.

Indeed it does. And you're right, I should have said sound... but since music is sound, music does exist as waveforms in its rawest physical sense.

There is a relationship between math and music. The way a pitch is form and how the sound carries. Why certain concert halls sound better. Why a glass will break at a certain pitch. The notes that cause your car to vibrate while driving. Why the instrument is shaped the way it is.

Now, is math music? Of course not. There is just a relationship. I'm my father's son but i'm not my father.

Now we're getting off the topic at hand. Does anybody else see music more as a language than a mathematical theorem. And please don't say mathematics is a language too, for the sake of this argument.

Anyway, I've never seen music in a mathematical sense. I've never understood musical and ratios and whatnot. Instead, when I look at music theory, I see it more in a linguistic sense, and instead of mathematical formulas, I see the rules more as rules of grammar. [/b]

Anything that can be called "music" has some connection with math. Else it is noise. You expect that chord on the 3rd beat, because it was there last time. Or perhaps it wasn't that chord, but another, but there was not silence at the 3rd beat. And if there was silence, well it happened again on that beat somewhere else or on a beat relating to it (like 1 and 3 - strong beats in 4/4 time). Perhaps it was not the 3rd beat, but something in the music repeated as a pattern for it to be called music. That pattern may have been a rhythm or part of it, voice leading, harmony, choice of harmony, or any combination. But if there are patterns, they can be measured, and that means math.

Which, unlike mathematic formulas, rules of grammar can be specially suited to the poet's purpose.

[/b]

To,some.extent - they! Can.

People speak of the mathematical exactitute of Bach, of Ligetti, etc etc. People speak of the mathematic logic of common-practice period chord progressions. But I, I see it more as proper sentence structure - subject, noun, verb, adjective, etc. I see no mathematical relationship whatsoever with music, no more than the mathematical relationship to anything else. Does that make much sense?

There is mathmatical relationships in sentence structure, if you think about it. Adverbs come before verbs. Adjectives before nouns. Periods,exclamation points and question marks at the end of a sentence.

If I keep on typing like this without any commas or punctuation don't you think that something will be missing in the structure of my communication or do you think it perfectly fine for me to neglect basics in grammer and if you do not think it fine then you will be wanting to place commas and question marks and periods at certain places within this run on sentence which means that you will be thinking about phrase and length and proper placements which are measurements or markings of measurements which relate to math

Didn't Cage write another piece with a bunch of metronomes?