Is composition an art or a science?

?

The combination of both is ruining the poll really :laugh:

You are providing the easy way out :D

Actually I know that talent and insipration is the 5% (the most important but still the 5%) of the effort for a finished composition. The rest is technics, persistance and hard work! ;)

Composition is the art of the black mages. It can be seen as an equivalent to fairy dust.

So yes, art.

The combination of both is ruining the poll really :laugh:

You are providing the easy way out :D

Actually I know that talent and insipration is the 5% (the most important but still the 5%) of the effort for a finished composition. The rest is technics, persistance and hard work! ;)

So you're effectively saying it is a combination of the two, as talent and inspiration are both qualities associated with an art wheras the 'technics', by which i presume you mean harmony counterpoint orchestration and so on, is more of a science, knowing what works and applying it. I'm probably talking utter bollocks but that's just my opinion.

Maek

yup :D

The hard work cannot be taken for "art" really... It is hard work, sleepless nights and other related sujects... :laugh:

Neither. Composition is the manifestation of human persona.

I have to tend to agree with this. Afterall - what is the difference between a work of Mozart, and one of Beethoven? Its easy to tell the difference just by how much their personalities influenced their compositions.

More like Intuitive thinking, and ingenuity?

There are artist who consider Art as a manifestation of the human persona. Thus, defining the manifestation of the human persona as artistic.

I had a similar discussion with a music historian not too long ago. In fact, he's looking at this question in different ways for a research project he's undertaking.

I don't think providing the answer "Combination of two" is an easy way out.

This kind of question will produce many fine arguments for either answer. And, there are many composers who believe that music is either artistic or scientific/mathmatical and not both.

I personally believe that its a combination of both. I have always thought so as a younger composer. After being exposed to the criticsms and philosophies of various composition teachers on many subjects, I have come to stand firm my in belief while adopting philosophies. Putting aside the counterpoint,harmony etc. One of the things that I really embraced was that composition many times forces the issue of porblem solving/finding solutions in a creative/ scientific frame or puzzle if you will. That's not to say that I don't believe the manifestation of the human persona doesn't play big a part.

I think that there will be times that a person feels that he/she has composed completely out of inspiration and label the experience artistic and not the least bit scientific. And sometimes I feel that if artistic inspriation is the cause of a composition going back to look at what was produced seems to have elements of a scientific approach that occured on the subconscious level.

This is just my philosopy. When I teach composition I do try to pass it along as well, unless a student comes to me with a different philosophy or musical objective.

It seems likely that an argument like this can go on forever because of the level of personal views and experience.

Composition is the art of the black mages. It can be seen as an equivalent to fairy dust.

So yes, art.

Are you currently in the nuthouse, Letehn?

I posted that because that's how people generally perceive my oppinion on the topic...:shifty:

Absolutely not science - because I don't see any testing of hypotheses going on. Don't confuse science vs. engineering.

I suppose engeneering might be a better word. But isn't methodological activity/thinking and experimentation part of the definition of science?

Controlled experimentation. Generally quantitative. That's what differentiates science from, say, alchemy.

Controlled experimentation. Generally quantitative. That's what differentiates science from, say, alchemy.

Can't agree...but I also take it you weren't out to insult alchemists. Their experiments were PERFECTLY well controlled within the scope of their mean, they observed, wrote copiously but in great danger from the xtian chruch - so they had to codify everything. Don't put them down because they didn't have shiny stainless steel, micropipettes and electron microsopes - they did their best.

When the Church murdered enough, the physical chemistry and metachemistry, or metaphysics to use a more popular term, were seperated, the chemistry/material science leading up to what you have today. (The metaphysics also went on but very under wraps obviously. It still is but don't mistake it with fields starting with psych. .Psychiatry is a sham - in the dark ages by comparison - tries to pretend it's a science).

Visita Interiora Terrae Rectificando Invennnies Occultum Lapidem

By controlled, I mean always having a control for comparison - I'm not referring to precision at all. The idea of the controlled experiment is only a few hundred years old.

And, ah, psychology/psychiatry. Getting better, though. It's finally starting to cast off Freud's shadow in favor of real clinical evidence...

Music. - Humans have the ability to hear sound in time and generalize about the experience: the generalization is what we label 'music'. This experience, like all others, brings emotions; and because of these emotions primitive minds come to the fallacy: that the experience is a thing in itself: something we can observe and judge as such. From this delusion the primitive mind concludes that there is value in these experiences, because it makes us feel, and that this value is what we observe to judge wether it is worthy of the label. The dividuum human decides the criteria for the choice of value: there is no objective criteria, although there is a natural one. The natural criteria is our feeling(s): and because of them the primitive mind gives the thing in itself a value of good or bad depending on the enjoyment of the feeling(s).

It is annoying that so many missunderstand the scientific method. For you who overuse scientific terms without understanding them I refer to: Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method. Music is not a science, although cognitive sound experience could be a science. Any other would be the study of accoustics. This doesn't mean that you cannot be poetic about music: only that your poetic explanations are nonsense! But if it's meaningful for you or someone: why not?

To this poll I say:

Why separate "science" and "art" (without nitpicking their definitions; I think we all get the general idea of what they mean) into distinct categories?

I am majoring in mathematics right now. And I can tell you that every great mathematician I've come across -- every mathematician who is respected in his/her field and making advances in various mathematical concepts -- is not only precise and methodical, but possesses a bold, creative drive to try new things.

Conversely, every great composer (in the present) I've come across is not merely a free-spirited "artist" -- they think logically, methodically, and clearly.

We draw distinctions between art and science, but in the end I think that greatness requires both -- and not in the sense of both "combined" -- just both, working together, never separate in the first place.