First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
Music: Is it a science or an art?
149563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Aboard the Hyperion
Offline
Posted 11/29/07
It is art for aesthetic reasons as well as an expression of the heart or the mind or a combination of both, the effect of inutition and creativity. It is also a science because of its applications to acoustics, oscillatory motion, wave mechanics, superpositions, music cognition, and music theraphy to name a few.
Posted 11/29/07

xxccaxx wrote:

they are music themself... they are in the music category... thats why they are call music


I agree, music is just purely music, just like science cannot be classified as art......
17471 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA atm
Offline
Posted 11/29/07

azrael910 wrote:

What an interesting topic.

Coming from someone who has studied audio electronics... I'd say there is certainly some science to it. I've studied music a little and I can certainly vouch for the mathematical aspects as well.

I wouldn't be so quick to label it as art just because it requires creativity. Science requires a tremendous amount of creativity. The execution of science requires discipline - which music does as well. That special attention to detail required to make everything result without error. That and I think it takes a certain amount of creativity to be inspired enough by an apple falling on one's head or a trip to the Galapagos islands to change the way we view the world itself.

While rhythm is certainly mathematic in nature, is melody? I think it can be at times. Repeating patterns, etc. Other times... not so much.

In the end though I would still call it an art due to the presence and elicitation of emotion. I can measure the force of gravity no matter what mood I'm in, or whether I enjoy the experiment or not. The results don't change. However, in a musical performance, the artist can have a radically different interpretation of the notes on the page than another. All the notes may be played as exactly as they're written - but there is clearly a difference. Also, the listener can feel something. Sure you can feel impressed or surpised by science, but to the point were it elicit joy, sadness, or a host of other emtions... arguablly not (at least not for the science alone - your personal investment in the subject is a different matter).

Basically, it's the difference between emotional attachment and detachment in my opinion. Good science is completely emotionally removed (as least to the point were ethics aren't compromised). Good music is completely emotionally involved.


Well said. I'd say is art because unlike in science the answers to a music note or and music is not accurate from one to the other. different things even same things bring different results. beethoven playing a musical composition n Mosart playing the same thing brings to different results, though it would be the same when it comes to aweing the audience. however, it is science in a way because beethoven himself made many of his great compositions even after he went deaf by feeling the vibrations when he played his instruments.
2963 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / Ft. Sill, Oklahoma
Offline
Posted 11/29/07
well the different aspects of it can be both cause being able to write music like the melodies and notes can be considered a science while the actual finished song can be considered art because of its beauty
Posted 11/29/07
I think it's both. cos science is like the father of music, when its exposed to loads of stuff, and mother of music, art, cos its like colors to a blind, but you can still feel the texture of it.
6212 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / US
Offline
Posted 11/29/07
Qweruiop, I don't think you understand what I mean. What I mean is that our notion of music itself is abstracted from particular cases. I'm not saying that music itself is abstract. I'm not really talking about music (nor art, science, etc) itself at all here like everyone else is doing, but the nature of concepts. I'm concerned first and foremost with how and why we talk about things the way we do.

Note what you have typed. It seems you believe there is no right or wrong answer to your question. And that has some support considering the equivocal nature of the answers given. They all think about this thing "music" and concepts surrounding it in various ways. You also typed "It all comes down to what one means by art and science." Yet you insisted on giving your belief on the matter. Why?

Does it all come down to what one defines as art and science? Well, what do you mean by "it all" . The only answers that might be had are ones which are relative to the definition given. I just don't bother with the way you and others attempt to understand this matter in the first place. Note how I went down to concrete examples and considered what most people would say about the matter. It is important to realize the point of generalizations such as "music" is convenience.

It is hardly an interesting question to me whether music is an art or a science. However, questions such as these are:
Why is it that music in the western tradition was largely considered a science until fairly modern times (~1650)?
Given all of these various answers, how might we decide which answers are better than others?

v Your points don't tell me much, but some response is worth something eh.
The main theme of my posts have been trying to pave a way out of this mess of what one might say are "only opinions."
3336 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Trudging on throu...
Offline
Posted 11/29/07

Eros wrote:

Qweruiop, I don't think you understand what I mean. What I mean is that our notion of music itself is abstracted from particular cases. I'm not saying that music itself is abstract. I'm not really talking about music (nor art, science, etc) itself at all here like everyone else is doing, but the nature of concepts. I'm concerned first and foremost with how and why we talk about things the way we do.


I will tell you why we talk about things the way we do. This is because our mind has a natural tendency to classify complex ideas, which are not capable of being classified by us, and transform them into things that we can understand. But I know that my mind is limited and I cannot measure infinity.


Note what you have typed. It seems you believe there is no right or wrong answer to your question. And that has some support considering the equivocal nature of the answers given. They all think about this thing "music" and concepts surrounding it in various ways. You also typed "It all comes down to what one means by art and science." Yet you insisted on giving your belief on the matter. Why?


Why not? I think it is only natural to give my opinion, since I asked for other people's opinon. It's as simple as that.



Given all of these various answers, how might we decide which answers are better than others?


That is dictated by your beliefs.

292 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / pluto (which shou...
Offline
Posted 11/29/07
i think music is an art b/c u have 2 have a particular passion for it. if it was science it'd be 2 mechanical
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/29/07
ugh! Enough with the one word posts. It's not a survey, it''s a discussion.

*cleans thread again
21995 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / boring, bland ohio
Offline
Posted 11/29/07
I'd say an art because it appeals to our feelings and emoitions. Counting is one part of it. It's the same way I consider poetry and dance an art.
Posted 11/29/07
Music is an art, un arte, because it uses creativity, inspiration, and it is writing, which is an art.
3937 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / PA
Offline
Posted 11/29/07
Why in the world anyone would wnat to try to put some sort of label on music more than it already it is i have no fucking clue.....leave it be...
21995 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / boring, bland ohio
Offline
Posted 11/29/07

Plurlove wrote:

Why in the world anyone would wnat to try to put some sort of label on music more than it already it is i have no fucking clue.....leave it be...


It's not that we are trying to label it but we are discussing the different qualities and which ones are present more.
Posted 11/29/07
i really cant think music as science
its definitly art! so much creativity and emotions!
883 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Singapore
Offline
Posted 11/30/07
I believe music is science. How each note is produce requires vibrations, in which is physics, which is science. How music affects and how one responds to music is due to the nature, the personality, the state of mind, which is the psychology of the person.

To me, art is anything that we don't understand :x
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.