just had this random thought after i saw an instagram reel, in which a girl defined music as math, but the comments were disagreeing, saying maths was invented to rather understand music than the other way around, now im having mixed thoughts, so… is maths music, or is music maths?
Perhaps they mean math was applied to music in order to understand it. That is, the mathematical approach to music came after music rather than music being firstly built around math.
I don't think this is the correct way to think about it. But I suspect that's what they meant and just worded it badly.
Surely nobody is thinking math as a whole was created to understand music.
Yes, I think this is what they are saying. Obviously there was music, then there were people who used math to describe or define it in a more scientific manner. It was not articulated that well.
I choose to see music as art and don’t worry about getting all analytical about it. But this is what some folks like to do! Maybe because they’re no good at art haha.
Tell that to thelonious monk. Many of my peers, as well as myself, spent years learning music theory, and practicing endlessly, to better our craft. Analyzing everything to better understand how to make sophisticated beautiful music.
Many of my music professors also held degrees in physics, math, lit, etc. Especially the ones in the electronic production and sound design departments.
Do you need this knowledge to make good music? No. Will it allow you to become a more proficient musician by developing a better understanding of it? Absolutely.
Monk famously said "learn theory and then forget it. Play from the heart" just like learning a language, we learn the fundamentals first before we can have eloquent conversations. Once it becomes second nature, we never think about the "rules" we just speak.
So, yes you can make great art, and still have an understanding of the science behind it.
😭my thoughts when i read that too
So my understanding is that everything is just frequency slow down a tone and it becomes beats(those can be counted i.e. math) at some point conversely speed up any rythm and it becomes a tone or a chord . So math describes frequency.
Bow down to us musicians!
So they think math is created to understand music ? Ppl are losing the ability to understand things at an alarming pace.
I think it might be more cautious to suggest that musicians developed their own analytical systems that were allied with and associated with mathematics.
That said, one of the most influential early analyst/theorists of music was Pythagoras, you know, the father of trigonometry.
Without Pythagoras and trigonometric analysis, we would be at sea analyzing the transmission of sound through air, the formation of wave patterns -- in addition to his breakthrough, fundamental work with musical scales and pitch.
The mathematical and analytical concepts that led to our modern understanding of sound -- not to mention the sophisticated analytical tools that would allow us to move beyond physical analogs for the semblance recording of sound -- would have also been impossible without Pythagoras' groundbreaking mathematical work.
Alrighty then.
LOL
Here's my tl;dr: sorta.
Humans on average have only been getting smarter really.
There's more than one way to measure intelligence on some levels I agree with you, on other levels we're definitely regressing
Neither are true
Well, there's a lot of math in music (at least Western music), so it's not a crazy assertion to say that music is maths.
To start with, you have repeating patterns, and consistent interpretations of what sounds "good". If you move a note up or down a full octave, the frequency doubles (or halves).
Then there are chord maths:
A major chord consists of a root, a third, and a fifth.
The ratio of root:3rd is 4:5. The ratio of root:5th is 2:3.
In a minor chord, the 3rd is reduced a half-step. The ratio of root:minor 3rd is 5:6.
These consonances relate directly to the waveforms, and how long it takes for wavelengths to synch up.
Different combinations of notes will not resolve the waveforms easily, and we hear them as dissonances. Again, this is the human ear discerning divergent waveforms out of the air.
I find that ridiculously cool.
I was recently watching a Star Trek Voyager episode where the doctor introduced a species to music. They found it fascinating and hailed him as a hero. But they only cared about the technical aspects of it. To them it was the perfection of technicality and “math” in music that drew them to it.
This conversation reminded me of that episode.
In that sense math exists in everything.
it's worth pointing out in this case because a lot of people think art and math are antithetical when they're actually very closely related
But this is all not completely true. We round everything in reality to twelve tones (equal temperament) so these intervals are by no means exact. Everything is fudged. Pianos are stretch tuned as well so they are out of tune mathematically across the keyboard.
Even if all this wasn’t true music still isn’t math. Math describes things with numbers. You can describe my right foot with math but it doesn’t make my right foot math.
it's not the sound waves themselves that are math, but music as a theoretical construct is best understood mathematically. it's like when people say theoretical physics is math. it isn't, it's theoretical physics, but in practice you are calculating all day. your right foot isn't something that you do/make, music is.
But this is all not completely true. We round everything in reality to twelve tones (equal temperament) so these intervals are by no means exact.
We round some things to 12-TET, but by no means everything! Playing entirely in just intonation is rare, but it's not rare at all for, e.g., musicians in orchestras or choirs to tune intervals in chords to more closely match just intonation. But it's true that just intervals aren't the be-all and end-all of music. (and of course there's a lot of music that isn't fixed to 12 tones at all.)
But yeah, music is definitely not math regardless.
Yeah but neither was created solely for the other. There were CERTAIN equations created specifically to understand music and sound, but not the entirety of math.
The ratio of root:3rd is 4:5. The ratio of root:5th is 2:3.
In a minor chord, the 3rd is reduced a half-step. The ratio of root:minor 3rd is 5:6.
None of this is true except in very specific tunings, and only specific minor/major chords within those tunings. Some vocalists and wind instrumentalists can compensate (and probably end up with comma drift instead), but any time you involve a fretted or fixed-string instrument you're not getting those intervals.
And let's not forget the harmonic series!
you’d like Meshuggah a lot. even if you’re not a metal guy you could definitely appreciate their music.
User deleted comment
6mo
literally the same dilemma i was stuck in too, that’s why i ran to reddit
Well you don't count time signatures in the alphabet do you? Music is math
Math can describe music, but you’d be hard pressed to make music that speaks to many people if you’re starting purely from an algorithmic perspective. It’s like asking, “is language the written word?” Written word can describe language but good poetry is more than just applied syntax.
pretty much, no one can really put down a formula as to how to make a song that touches hundreds, it’s more the very obscure theory details that follow patterns and interpretations
at the end of the day, you can’t put rules to art, but you can to maths🙆🏻♀️
Max Martin might disagree with you... he's got a formula for pumping out hits.
Pretty much all pop music can be played with the same four chords so I disagree
Not entirely true. Certain chords and tunings have been discovered to evoke certain emotions. There are some formulas that can be applied, especially to pop music.
Note: please don't mistake me for saying there is a guaranteed formula to making a hit. That is not what I'm saying here. I'm simply saying there are certain formulas, genre dependent, that are adhered to in the music industry.
For a very simple example, almost every pop song is a 4/4 signature... We don't even think about this formula because it's so common.
Math isn't always algorithmic. Math is a language. You can have a piece of music that on the surface sounds absolutely chaotic and patternless (like jazz lol), but you can still use math to break it down, describe it, and then replicate it.
Also, there's tons of "math" bands and genres that are amazing. It's typically musicians who actually studied music who are able to REALLY make some complex shit that actually makes sense mathematically. Bands like Rush, Tool, Opeth, Meshuggah, etc. These bands are very "math" and the're fucking amazizng.
Meshuggah is fucking dope, just saw them actually. And I agree, just because something is strongly rooted in math doesn’t make it bad. But at the same time, tons of artists try to emulate meshuggah and fall short, so their is something else going on there (art/taste) that makes their music better than a lot of other djent bands
Yea, totally understand like, you know who I hate so much. Fucking Yngwie Malmsteen. Dude is a guitar prodigy but I fucking hate his soulless music lol
But yeah, good music is full expression. It's funny because I've been playing guitar for 20+ yrs and I still can't read music or know any music theory. I play purely by feel and memory which sounds so romantic right? Nope lol it's actually quite frustrating because I find it so hard to communicate my ideas to my band. I think I make some great fucking riffs but they're just sounds in my head, if I knew the "math" I'd be able to transpose it to whatever key my band needs, but I'm too stubborn and time starved to learn a new skill. Thankfully, one of my band mates is a music theory nerd and she acts as kind of my translator lol
It's quite the opposite, modern pop is almost all algorithms. That's why you can play most pop songs with four chords and one or two rhythms. You tried to sound smart but just made a word salad.
It’s easy to make formulaic music, it’s hard to make truly great music that has staying power if you’re just plugging into an algorithm. The vast majority of pop songs will fall out of rotation in a month or two and will never be remembered. Also, simple and formulaic aren’t the same thing.
Music is a language. People who think it’s math don’t sound musical when they play
preach.
When jazz musicians improvise, they’re using the language center of their brain. Music has its own system of notation, punctuation, and grammar.
When one is angry or frustrated, one is most likely to use improper grammar. The same thing applies to composition and improvisation. The most interesting pieces of music usually come from anger or frustration about something
Music theory (it’s not a theory, they’re facts) allows us to clearly and concisely articulate those ideas to the people we are playing with what those things are so that they can express themselves clearly along with us.
It gives us concrete ideas that can be labeled, so when we hear that sound we can recognize its label and get it onto our instrument without having to guess at what we’re hearing
But language is arbitrary and it's meanings on based on the broad usage of sounds that we all seem to agree on for an unfixed amount of time.
Music theory doesn't change. No matter what number of Hz you apply to an A note, the next octave will always double that number of hz.
math is a language too, and you can be extremely creative and expressive with it. most people who think of math as rigid and boring are the people that don't know it IME
Right but we’re talking about apples and oranges here. Latin and Mandarin. Sure, there are mathematical aspects to music and there is creativity in mathematics.
Cycle of 4ths does not mean music is math. Understanding rhythmic subdivisions so you can keep time is not math. Fingerboard patterns on the guitar isn’t math.
Miles said ‘I’ll play it now and tell you what it is later’. Bird said ‘practice and when you get on stage, forget all that shit and just play’. The grammar helps you understand the language better, so that when you play you’re not thinking about anything but the music
Who was the one that said ‘if you’re playing you’re not thinking, and if you’re thinking you’re not playing’?
We can use math to inform and quantify elements of music, sure.
Neither is true. Math is math, music is music.
well every interval is a ratio so theres that
I hate the idea that theres any maths in music. There isn’t. Unless you call counting intervals or transposing maths, which they aren’t.
Yeah, a lot of people in this thread seem to be conflating mathematics with basic arithmetic. If they think counting intervals is "math," I'd hate to see them try to learn topology...
The only place where math really comes into things is in the physics behind sound and our perception of sound, but if we count that, then literally everything is based on math at some level, which makes the discussion a bit silly.
i do differential geometry as a job and i think arithmetic is still math..
How many decibels & at what Hz should you decrease the mid-range on your kick drum in order for it not to interfere and fight with the frequency of your sub bass? What compression ratio should you use on your vocals in order to give it the most presence in a classical arrangement? Same question for a punk rock vocal session?
You got a four bar intro and 8 bar lead in 3 16 bar verses 2 eight bar hooks and 12 bars left for your fade out. How many bars long is your song? At what bar should you begin to fade out?
The bar consist of one whole note two quarter notes and one half note and the time signature is 3/4. What is wrong with this sentence?
You're asked to transpose your keyboard part two octaves lower. How many steps do you drop?
You have a 4 minute and 11 second song that has a tempo of 108bpm. You need a shortened radio edit of 3 minutes and 22 seconds. How many bars do you need to cut?
You've been commissioned to score a 30 second commercial. Tempo is 113bpm and your arrangement ends up being 37 seconds long. What tempo can you increase your arrangement to to make it fit?
I've mistakenly mastered at 48khz... I'm getting an error when I try to press a CD. What is the problem?
You need to sync SMTE for film. Should you use 30 FPS or 29.7 drop frame?
What numerical MIDI value do I use to control the pitch bend on my synthesizer?
I'm using a vintage Moog lead. What's the best value for my Glide setting to maintain just a minimal amount of note distinction?
I'm sure you were able to answer all of the above questions right? Right... Now did ANY of them require you to use math? 🤔
I think people just want to sound smart. Like yeah, you have to be able to count but we're not doing trig or calculus. I'm terrible at math and I understand music well enough.
Neither, music is art. The math music connection is wildly overstated, and has been in the "west" pretty much since Pythagoras
And he was just obsessed with anything involving triangles 😂.
And this is why the English language gets people wrapped around the axle as they try to define things one way and only one way as if they can ultimately encapsulate a physical phenomenon and make their assertion the only thing that is true and pat themselves on the back because they think their hot take means anything at all
hey i’m bored, and i wanna have fun. so is english language or language english🤘🏼
English is language, not all language is English
As far back as Plato, music had been treated as a type of math—not that I agree with it. It was one of the four core subjects taught to students known as the quadrivium.
The quadrivium was the upper division of medieval educational provision in the liberal arts, which comprised arithmetic (number in the abstract), geometry (number in space), music (number in time), and astronomy (number in space and time).
The first recorded case of humans using math was to keep track of beer rations. At a time when people were paid on beer.
Not sure what that person is talking about.
Math is just a convenient way to interpret music. I’ve heard it said that math is the language of music. I disagree. Music is a much more primal thing than math. You have to teach children math, but every three year old can sing a song.
Well you don't have to read music to play music but you sure have to know the formulas to work math.
MathS. British much?
I tend to view music as not mathematical but it depends on an individual’s perspective. I choose to see it more as art, poetry, a fluid realm of the imagination.
Music that sounds mathematical in nature tends to not interest me.
Anything in the universe can be described with mathematical formulae but again, it’s how we choose to perceive it that matters.
I wouldn’t want to scrutinize a Dylan Thomas poem using math equations.
I'd say that music is math. I've seen some argue that this removes the emotion, but it doesn't. Your RESPONSE to music isn't math, but all of the music itself can be described mathematically.
Almost anything could be described mathematically, that doesn't make everything math. It's like saying War and Peace is grammar.
Your metaphor doesn't really work because you aren't comparing like things. War and Peace is not literature, it's a piece of literature.
Here's a better way to put my point:
Music is math in action just as literature is grammar in action.
Edit to add: comparing math to language is a fools errand to begin with. Language and grammar are arbitrary and continually changing based on subjective used. Math is 2+2 = 4 and Music is A4 = 440hz, A5 = 880hz and A6=1760
Music has more in common with grammar than math. If you actually studied music in university you would realize that. It’s super messy and inconsistent and full of forms we just agree sound right for no other reason than we have become used to them. It can be very culturally specific and time period specific.
If we approached music as math everything would be diatonic and blues wouldn’t exist. Things like clave rhythms that have beats that fall outside of the beat division wouldn’t be a thing.
They salty you out here spitting truth.
My only niggle is that we often refer to math as a universal language, and I could go on at length about that. But your points stands when restricted to human language.
That's not true. 2+2=4 only in base 10. And there's nothing special about base 10 from a mathematical standpoint, you're just used to it.
fair enough, that’s pretty much my thoughts too
So can everything. That doesn’t make things math anymore that describing a sunset makes a sunset words.
The literally building blocks of music are based on mathematical formula. From the way octaves work, to how notes make the sounds that they make, it's literally all mathematical. The two are interlinked in a way that goes beyond the broad 'everything can be described by math.'
The ratio is 1:1 between music and math. You take music theory, you are learning quite a bit of math in that process. Music as we are talking about it is based on very rigid mathematical truths.
I want to reiterate that music being math doesn't subtract from it's beauty or meaning.
I have a degree in music. We didn’t focus on math at all. Music theory has absolutely nothing to do with math. It’s just a collection of often used conventions used to describe music.
There is nothing rigid or mathematically perfect about true temperament. You are literally playing things slightly out of tune on purpose so that you can play in more than one key.
Math can describe the wavelengths in colors too. So what? Nobody in art class Is talking about that much.
The way we notate music can be translated in the 'language' of mathematical formula with a single read if you know both languages.
When you are literally playing things slightly out of key, you are using the mathematical constant of the key as mooring post for your tuning.
How are scales constructed? Intervals. Intervals are mathematical and can be describe as such without any tomfoolery. How is rhythm constructed? Literal math on beats/minute or changes in bpm.
Math literally drenches every corner of music theory, even if the symbols it uses are different.
Again, same for absolutely everything. That is what math is for. It agnostically can describe things. Those things aren’t math. But whatever gets you excited man. As long as you are making good music.
The way we notate music can be translated in the 'language' of mathematical formula with a single read if you know both languages.
Could you expand on this? It's not really clear what you're saying.
When you are literally playing things slightly out of key, you are using the mathematical constant of the key as mooring post for your tuning.
No, you're not. You're using your perception of pitch. What does "the mathematical constant of the key" even mean?
How are scales constructed? Intervals. Intervals are mathematical and can be describe as such without any tomfoolery.
Intervals can be labeled with numbers, but using numbers for something doesn't make it math. At most, you're doing basic arithmetic.
How is rhythm constructed? Literal math on beats/minute or changes in bpm.
Again, at most you're doing basic arithmetic. Not really "math."
Besides, you can also play or perceive rhythms without doing any math. How does that work?
If all you're saying is that music exists in the world, and we can describe things that exist in the world using physics, which uses math, then that's trivially true. But you're really overblowing how much math there is in music theory. As if composers are crunching numbers with every note they write, or a violinist needs to calculate the acceleration of their bow with every stroke.
If we're going literal and objective, music is math. The way you hear and respond to music is all based on how vibrations in air are created and then received by your ears. Whatever subjectivity you want to apply doesn't change that fact, even differences in taste are simply how your brain chemistry reacts to and associates the stimuli from those vibrations. There's a reason psychoacoustics makes such a difference in making songs sound good, and why a deceptive cadence will make you crave resolution.
I don't see any way in which math is music, though, the logic doesn't work the other way around.
i completely agree, i sometimes pick up on different obscure patterns and feel cool about it, but i wouldn’t go as far as to say math is music, but music is math. (btw extremely eloquently worded ty)
Thanks dude! Yeah, there's a lot of cool patterns and symmetry in math that play out in really beautiful ways in nature, which is why describing music in mathematical terms works so well. Math doesn't have to be boring and lifeless, there's tons of ways in which it can excite people. It's the same deal for art, vibrant paintings are waves of light that make your eyes happy and aesthetically pleasing sculptures curve in a similarly pleasing way. I'm sure there's a mathematical rabbit hole all about aesthetics and the brain that you could go down, but nobody is gonna fund that research
The way you hear and respond to music is all based on how vibrations in air are created and then received by your ears. Whatever subjectivity you want to apply doesn't change that fact, even differences in taste are simply how your brain chemistry reacts to and associates the stimuli from those vibrations.
But what you're describing isn't music. Sound waves traveling through the air and hitting our ears is just...sound. Music is what we perceive. Music is fundamentally subjective. It exists in the mind.
Besides, what you're describing is physics, not math. There's math involved, obviously, but there's an added layer of abstraction on top of the math.
There's a reason psychoacoustics makes such a difference in making songs sound good, and why a deceptive cadence will make you crave resolution.
Deceptive cadences are...not the best support for your argument. The way we perceive them - and cadences in general - is several layers of abstraction above the basics of psychoacoustics, and our expectations around cadences are almost entirely conditioned. We're not born with an expectation that V will resolve to I - that's the result of listening to a lot of tonal music.
The concept of cadences - and more broadly, a focus on harmonic tension and resolution - is largely a Euro-classical construct. Those ideas are absent or much less prominent in most other musical traditions around the world. Even a lot of contemporary pop! For a quick example, the I V vi IV progression has been talked about ad nauseum, but one of its features is that either the I or vi chord can function as tonic. But if the progression ends on vi, most listeners aren't left "craving" resolution.
Or is music physics? Physics describes how those sound waves move. There are universities that have their audio technology programs in the physics department.
If you want to be needlessly semantic you can make that point, sure. Enjoy doing the physics without math, though, considering physics is literally what we call math that describes the world around us.
Numbers are a symbolic representation of reality. There are no numbers "out there", or in your body.
To quote Krishnamurti:
"The word is not the thing, and the description is not the described."
I get what you're saying, but people tend to conflate symbols with what they represent.
What you're saying makes sense if you replace math with physics. Music is physics, it is not math. Math is just equations and relationships it has no physical reality or intrinsic physical significance. Even something as simple as a circle: it is math because it doesn't exist in nature. There's no such thing as a perfect circle in nature.
Like I said elsewhere, physics is math that we use to describe the world around us, this is needlessly semantic but you can go ahead and feel smart about it I guess
Physics uses math extensively, but it doesn't consist entirely of math. It's one layer of abstraction higher. Physics makes claims, in ordinary language, about the world, and maps various parts of those claims to variables in equations, but those equations themselves aren't the entirety of physics.
It's true that this is a semantic argument, but literally this entire thread is based on a semantic argument. Semantics matter!
I find it weird that you are getting downvoted for saying things that are pretty objective.
You're absolutely wrong in saying that physics is math. It's not semantics. Have you studied much physics OR math??
As an engineer....yeah. You know what we did a lot of in physics??? MATH. You know what the physics majors I knew did a lot of? MATH (and coding, to do more math faster). So yeah, differentiating the two, especially in a field like sound and acoustics where you're literally just manipulating sine waves, is semantics.
So your argument is physics majors do a lot of math therefore physics = math? If you're an engineer then I would expect you to know how to reason precisely, in which it's clear that second statement does not follow from the first.
Natural science only concerns observations and predictions bssed on empirical data. Math is a tool, and it has no intrinsic value for science, it's only valuable to the extent that it can explain or predict EMPIRICAL data or behavior!
On the other hand pure math is only concerned with abstract relationships which are provable through pure logic. It has NO intrinsic empirical reality. And it was hammered into my head when one of my math profs yelled at a class full of engineers for asking the physical significance of en equation. Math has NO physical significance on its own, we just assign it a physical significance in specific situations if it's convenient to do so because it provides prediction or explanation in that context.
You guys could start by reading the definition of math and science on Wikipedia and try to understand what each one means before making ridiculous statements about music
Math was invented to further understand numbers, and numbers make up the entirety of existence, not just music. There's nothing "musical" about calculus.
Numbers are a symbolic representation of reality. There are no numbers "out there".
To quote Krishnamurti:
"The word is not the thing, and the description is not the described."
Touche
i wish calculus was musical bro.
3,4,5 right triangle. In music or "the harmonic series" the fifth harmonic is a major third. So how do you find the angle adjacent to 4, you find how to get from the 5th harmonic to the 3rd harmonic (a major3rd to a 5th) which is off by the interval of a minor 3rd. I can approximate the minor 3rd as the 19th harmonic. 19 times 2 is 38. So the angle is about 38 degrees. I can find any angle or sides with the harmonic series and think of math as musical intervals.
my man geeked out, and i am unironically super amused by this, woah cool shit. (i love reddit)
i can also show how "simple harmonic motion" on a pendulum is musical also weights and levers like Archimedes stuff its all musical lol
Definitely would've made it a lot easier to pass
Yes
love this response, so detailed yes :)
The op seems like hes caught in a feedback loop so i wont add to it.
he? 🤘🏼either way, you just added to it :)
It's both
You can’t guess math but you can guess music
If you're interested in this, you should read Hesse's The Glass Bead Game. It doesn't attempt to answer this, but it establishes a harmonic link between math, music, philosophy, and spiritualism required to master the titular game.
yo- that interests me a lot so i definitely will, you a real one, thank u sm
Music is art. But it’s made up of things that are quantifiable and can be described using mathematics.
If you want to get pedantic, you'd probably have to say that music is vibrations of air, which your brain translates into what we like to call 'music'.
slightly irrelevant, i’m just asking about how these ‘vibrations of air’ is related to a certain subject
It's not irrelevant, I think you're just not seeing where I come from. Your question seems to assume that there is such a thing as math in the physical world, but numbers are merely symbolic representations of reality.
Like I've said in other comments in this thread:
Numbers are a symbolic representation of reality. There are no numbers "out there", or in your body.
To quote Krishnamurti:
"The word is not the thing, and the description is not the described."
People tend to conflate symbols with what they represent.
What happens is a physical process, and math has nothing to do with it. Math is just an attempt to explain reality in terms of symbols.
Music is a thing. Math is a language created to quantify and measure things.
I would argue that music is not math. Music comes out of your liquid mass. You adhere it to a structure that makes harmonious sense with a human brain that needs to understand things. You apply music to math.
pretty much what i was thinking, yep makes sense
Math is just ways to describe and define patterns. Music is full of patterns. Math naturally becomes a pretty good way to describe music. They are not the same thing.
No
it wasn’t a yes or no question, but this is my favourite response by a long shot
Yes.
yes.
You can use math to explain aspects of music. Whole notes, half notes, quarter notes, eighth notes, for example. There are four beats per bar, and on and on. But music isn't simply math, and math definitely isn't music.
The fundamentals of music are all based on math. Intervals are ratios between two frequencies. Consonant intervals have simpler ratios, while dissonant intervals have more complicated ratios. Rhythm is the relationship and ratios between periods. I see no situation in which there isn't an inherent connection between (western) music and mathematics.
Music is definitely math. Math builds instruments, math creates tuning, math creates synthesis, math is used in sheet music, math helps with technique, math helps understand sound and vibration. Math wasn't MADE to understand music but I certainly think music came first and then math was APPLIED to understand it better. But you can still be a fantastic musician or composer and yet not understand much of the math that's going on in music, because music is interactive and not rigid in the same way that math is presented as.
Ask Boards of Canada. They seem to know…
music comes from the birds
hell yeah it does
The harmonic series is the basis of pleasing sounds. Whole number ratios define a great deal of most musical relationships.
Here is Jacob Collier showing that a major chord is essentially a polyrhythm played really fast.
i love him. he’s a god.
My two cents. Music started when we as humans started hearing sounds that pleased us and we extended that to patterns, rhythms and melodies that pleased us. Mathematics is just a way of trying to understand why we find these sounds and patterns pleasing. Can you use mathematics to produce music? Yes. To an extent. Does all music fit into these mathematical models? No. It’s subjective. Math helps to explain why some things work in music but it is really all down to a matter of taste. The two are related and connected in the way that math can be used to explain a lot of observations in this world.
i agree heavily. love the way you phrased it, basically read my mind :)
They're loosely connected but it's mostly just that you can use math to help illustrate and understand why things like chords and harmonies work. Neither one is really necessary to understand the other though. I've known people who were excellent singers/musicians and needed to do basic addition on their fingers.
Both! Hear me out:
The production of sound waves is physics - physics can be described with numbers. They're numbers show ratios between intervalic relationships, and certain intervals represent very simple math.
For instance: root note is one half of the octave above it. The number of vibrations per second - hertz - has been doubled when you play the same now one octave up.
If you took a string and played 0.666666667 up it, you would sound a perfect fifth. That's a perfect 2/3 ratio.
There is a mathematical regularity in the circle of fifths.
Look up the difference between a well tempered clavier and a keyboard in just intonation. One of them is following the perfect math of these intervalic relationships and the other had been tweaked to be able to modulate through all twelve keys / modes in western music.
you’re right to an extent, we have aspects of mathematics in music itself, but you physically can’t apply maths to every thing in music without sounding like a robot
True. Math is one way to describe the physics inherent in music. In total, the effect music has on us is subjective.
Neither really.
You could argue that music is applied maths, but it's pretty much meaningless because you could argue that anything else is also applied maths. Maths is fundamental - it's our attempt at a language to describe all of reality.
Music is art. Math can help make sense of it, but music is not math.
All of existence (and therefore non-existence too) is math. Some of the parts we don’t have the math figured out yet (I.e. consciousness) but it’s math all the way down….
The math can be used to describe and understad, analyse and synthesize music. But essentially I think music is that what you hear.
What sounds are or are not music, that's in the ear the beholder.
Math can be used to analyze aspects of music, mostly the sound wave aspects. Math is kind of measuring nature.
Music is also a perception event within human consciousness and that would require more than just math to quantify.
Saying "math is music" could be a way to poetically describe how a high end mathematician thinks about math, perhaps.
Saying "music is math" is kind of a crappy way to haphazardly mention a relationship between music and numbers, of which there are several.
the chord scale logic is pure maths, no way to deny that one.
so many people on instagram dont understand music theory, they have ok chops so decide they can teach.
one guy doesn't understand dominant harmony so he interprets a B7 flat 9 chord as some crazy major chord. this guy is teaching music but doesn't grasp the very basic maths at its heart
Neither are really true but they are both complex systems with rules and patterns. I think that learning the two is kinda similar. But math doesn't directly translate over to music very well, and music doesn't really translate to math directly either.
You can use math to partially describe what music is.
Music is fundamentally a pattern. Sound is a wave, pitch is frequency, turn the wave into notes and rhythm using patterns, and you get music
Some people claim music is energy vibrating at various frequencies alternating with relative silence
Some people claim the entire universe is simply energy vibrating & therefore everything is sound from atoms through to cosmic expansion & collapse with infinite frequencies interacting
Maths is a useful tool that can help us understand sound & energy & the world around us
Music is very much limited in helping understand maths beyond ratio, proportion, patterns , sequence, time & division - no one is building a 1km bridge based solely on musical knowledge or skill
There are maths elements in music & perhaps some musical elements in maths but they are not the same thing & not entirely interchangeable, they simply overlap
Maths is a series of reference points & concepts that provide thought based tools that can be applied to many practical fields with varying levels of precision required
Music is limited by source & observer
Maths delves into the infinite & abstract & is a seperate language for understanding various aspects of the universe
Maths is a symbolic language that aims to describe aspects of reality & this can include music & sound from source to perception
Music is energy that reaches out & permeates a listener's being
Sound can be heard & everyone can feel music or vibrations in their own way
Maths is merely a representation of energy in different forms & a tool to describe music
Boards of Canada reference
They're obviously distinct, but math can be applied to music.
Math is a language that helps explain/ formulate scientific phenomenons. It can also be used to formulate music
Is an Orange Medicine or is Medicine an Orange?
Math can describe music. But only as a model which is incomplete. Music is way more than just math. I speak as a computer scientist
Math is just a language humans use to describe elements of the natural world. Music isn't math and math isn't music. Music can and is described by math. Math is used as a framework to quantify and describe things in music. They aren't each other though.
Neither. Music is music. Maths is maths. Maths can be helpful to understand some principles of music. But music is an art form, and there are many exceptions to almost every rule, which makes it impossible to describe using something as rigid as mathematics.
Music is self expression through sound.
I tell my music students: This is not like a math problem that only has one correct answer. You can do whatever you feel. There are infinite ways to play this song.
What a weird take. Are all squares rectangles? Are all rectangles squares? Did we invent one to understand the the other? Or did we observe both and realize their commonality?
Music certainly falls under the maths umbrella, but saying math was "invented" for anything is wrong at the first word, let alone that it was "invented to understand music." We discovered math because it's an unavoidable metaphysical language, and we discovered music because we were bored primates banging shit together and finding ways to make it fun.
I tend to think of them as, perhaps, intertwined. Math is one of the most useful tools we have for analyzing and understanding music (and maybe even more so for analyzing and understanding sound). And it's not just rhythm where we can apply a mathematical approach, by any means -- harmonic interrelationships would be all but incomprehensible if musicians had not developed analytical approaches allied with mathematics to inform their understanding and explain the rules and relationships used in creating polytonal music.
Music is maths. Intervals/scales are essentially notes in correlating ratios to one another and meters are just subdivisions of time. maths wasn't invented, more discovered and perhaps translated to the written word we see today.
Some maths is music, but not all. I guess like fingers and thumbs
OP: who are you? Music: whoever you want me to be baby 😎
Art > Music > Sound > Energy > Physics > Math > Art
Art > Painting/Sculpture > Color > Light/Matter > Energy > Physics > Math > Art
Art > Photography > Color > Light/Chemistry > Energy > Physics > Math > Art
Well I suck at math but I've always been good at music so I hope it isn't math or I'll just have to give up.
I can’t do derivatives with a guitar so I’d say no. Certain mathematical expressions can be conveyed via music, but it’s very limited compared to calculus.
Music theory is 100% math. Enjoyment and feelings caused by music is the realm of intuition & aesthetics.
Math is more primordial/fundamental than music: As I mentioned, music theory is derived from math. Math is not derived from music or music theory.
That’s like deciding whether the chicken or the egg was first
Music isn't math and math isn't music.
Math is the fundamental language of the universe and you can essentially describe everything in a mathematical concept, including music of course. Neither was explicitly created for the other though.
Technically everything in existence can be boiled down to a mathematic explanation of some sort.
But ya there's a lot of math and pattern recognition that goes into making good music.
Also math isn't real. It's just a language that we have developed to describe some of the most base realities that we are aware of.
As a mathematics major (senior) who also plays jazz. Math is just the language of the inner-workings of the world around us. Math doesn't create music. Music, however, can be better understood using math. Math's goal is to model and help understand how stuff works: color, sound, chord progressions, geometry, etc. To discover math behind music would be to understand why music exists. To discover music using math, would be taking advantage of our understanding of the mathematical mechanics of music to create more music. Math is the why.
Neither. Mathematics is a language. Musical notation is a language.
Music itself is an the application of harmonic theory using sound, with an attention to aesthetics. Harmonic theory is really about physics, which can be described using math.
But math is not physics and physics is not math. Physics just is, and our system of mathematics is one way to communicate it. Music is physics. Musical notation and mathematics are two expressive systems that can be used to describe music. But music is not math and math is not really music.
Its just another language that can be used to describe the relations that exist in music.
Both involve pattern description and recognition but neither are each other.
Math can be used to describe almost anything, including music. Music theory uses a lot of math to do just that. But there's a lot of things about music that we can't currently explain using math. So music is not just math but you can use math to describe it to an extent
Music is time
Music is cheese. Everything is cheese
It's a perspective, one of many, not totally true or false, just one way of looking at it.
There are interesting things you can do expressing maths as music, and expressing music as maths.
Wondering how true is it, or which one is right...is less interesting IMHO than using the idea as a springboard to make something cool.
Both existed independently 5,000 years ago (and then some). I don't think the connection between the two was recognized back then, but hey, it's not like I was there.
There's no such thing.
Music cannot be boiled down to a math formula.
Music is heart, emotion and expression.
What matters is what you are able to express/convey emotionally through music.
It's your interpretation that matters.
It's not the words you write on a page that matters, what really matters is your interpretation of these words and what emotional meaning you can give to such words (same thing is true for music as well, what really matters is the emotional depth you can give to it).
You're not a robot, so play music like a human being (flawed emotional music will always be better than technically perfect music).
That's it.
Well if your counting bars and beats like 4, 4 beats then yes an element of maths is involved, but when Im writing a song I don't think about math, after a while the 4,4 becomes so engrained into you that you don't need to think about it, put it this way the math is the canvas and the music is the art laid upon it, does it have be aligned perfectly with the canvas/math, well the choice as an artist is yours, be creative
Music is music and math is math. I hope this helps
Boards of Canada has the answer
Music is Math https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lhPWJHrwgR4
Music is more like a language than like math
Everything is math. Everything is science.
Maths was invented for the sole purpose of maths. Very long before music was even really a thing… maths and music are not connected almost at all, maths can be used to make music but maths was not invented to understand music that’s just stupid
I think music was a thing as soon as there were rocks to bang together, animal hides to turn into drums, etc.
Animal hide drums was WELL after maths invention
Rocks banging together, we really have no way to know there’s no real known human history back then
I mean cave men supposedly wore animal hides so I imagine they created drums with them too and beat on them with their clubs
To say math was invented to understand music is just a wild claim to make. I think if you break music down into its core components it could easily be explained as a series of frequencies, and even the tempo of the song comes out as a number. Not sure if im doing a good jib at explaining this, but i dont think music IS math, but math can be used to very easily explain music.
I think both perspective are true, real and are together one. Music and math cannot exist independently of the other.
Idk but the plural of math is math.
OP might be from Europe where I'm pretty sure it's common to call it maths instead of mathematics.
Let's let William Patrick Corgan answer that
Sorry, I don’t see the explicit connection between math as a whole and music as a whole.
Math rock reference??
Literally everything is math
Math is for building models of lots of phenomena in the universe; including music.
Yes
Neither, Squisgaard.
Neither, imo.
I think both are intrinsic properties of the universe that people have just discovered. Neither was “invented” to explain the other.
Music is just vibrations. And vibrations have always existed. Math is a system to explain relationships between objects, waves, and points in space time. But those relationships existed before anyone ever defined them. Prime numbers are prime numbers. Just because we gave them a name doesn’t mean we “invented” them.
Vibrations can absolutely be explained and quantified using mathematics. But again, math is a system to explain things (like vibrations).
So neither was invented to explain the other. Both have always existed and will exist long after the last human dies.
Everything is math. Even your supposed free will is explained with math. Musical expression is defined by how you arrange notes under a set of rules that most easily explained by using numbers instead of letters(western music theory). Semi tones in eastern music is maybe more complex but is still able to be defined using numbers. Human consciousness is math. The universe is math. It’s all math!!
ok this is officially the coolest discussion i've seen in this sub for a long time.
thanks! yay! love reading it all!
Depends on how you view it. Look at theory Music is mathematical. Looking at art mathematically you can derive music after its made.
Music is built around and dependent upon many elements of math. That being said it is not Math.
Similarly cooking is dependent on math (measurements, temperatures, etc), but it is not math in itself.
Music is the highest form of math, when math becomes a temporal art form (in time).
My personal take on this is that music needs to involve a human, at least for now. You can program a Bach cello suite into a sequencer and then listen to Pablo Casals playing the same piece. There will be a difference, and what that difference is, is what's 'music'.
I remember learning a Bach piece and played it for my teacher and he said 'well you've got all the notes, but I can't tell anything about you when you play it'.
Anyway, just my perspective.
So they think math is created to understand music ? Ppl are losing the ability to understand things at an alarming pace.