[gregorio]

'All musicians are mathematicians'. Would you agree with this?

In a single word, “No”. A more nuanced answer would be “sort of” but more in the sense of being inadvertently mathematicians.

Our earliest recorded history of music is actually mathematical, Pythagorean equations of harmonic ratios which led to the Pythagorean tuning system. This caused problems as music evolved and numerous solutions were proposed and competed for a couple of hundred years. TBH it did my head in, some of them were quite mathematically complex. Look up tuning systems and temperaments if you’re interested. Certainly musicians have to be able to count and certainly there is a lot of math underlying the relationship of chords and chord progressions and even the whole structures of pieces but it’s been a point of discussion since well before my time how much composers were actually consciously aware of this and applied actual mathematical equations/formulas. Bach was a good mathematician, took a very active roll in the tuning debate/argument and clearly had a formula/s to aid his composition, whether they were overtly mathematic formulas seems unlikely. Mozart seems to use the “golden ratio” (derived from the Fibonacci sequence) a great deal and his sister was a gifted mathematician, so maybe he did it deliberately. Certainly in the 2nd half of the C20th mathematics came more overtly into the picture. Movements like the “aleatoric” movement employed formulas and math to determine randomness, Philip Glass and others applied math to structure pieces, quite complex set and group theory was applied to analysis of 12 tone and other atonal music and composers like Xenakis went to extremes of applying complex math.

But in general, you can get by quite happily as a musician without knowing much more math than the absolute basics (simple addition and division for example).

G

 

[Ryokan]

Heck no. I’ve known people who can play or sing lights out but they know very little about math and know as little about music theory as they can get by with if they even think of it as music theory.

Wouldn't they be classed more as 'Karaoke singers' (recreational) I think the quote is aimed more at 'professional' musicians.

I think the lines between Asperger’s / high functioning autism and useful and healthy variations of how different people’s brains work is an ongoing sincere, useful and legitimate debate. Unfortunately where there is a diagnosis to be made there is often money to be made also, and therefore there may arise a self-interested cottage industry of professionals with a stake in treatment of, and therefor findings of and preservation of, that diagnosis.

In some country's assessment is free, always beware of anyone who charges for a diagnosis and get good recommendations first.

In a single word, “No”. A more nuanced answer would be “sort of” but more in the sense of being inadvertently mathematicians.

You're taking the quote literally, sometimes you need to understand who's saying the quote (Thelonious Monk) and who they're mainly referencing. It also means they think like mathematicians.

 

[Steve999]

Wouldn't they be classed more as 'Karaoke singers' (recreational) I think the quote is aimed more at 'professional' musicians.



In some country's assessment is free, always beware of anyone who charges for a diagnosis and get good recommendations first.



You're taking the quote literally, sometimes you need to understand who's saying the quote (Thelonious Monk) and who they're mainly referencing. It also means they think like mathematicians.

No, some decent amount of professional musicians don’t know much about math. Just as not all mathematicians are musicians, subconscious or otherwise, so it is that not all musicians are mathematicians, subconscious or otherwise. And then there’s some overlap, whether you are speaking figuratively or literally or metaphorically or whatever. A lucky subset of people are both. Maybe it’s not so surprising when you think of it that way?

Hyperbole, even when the source is so revered, or is so sincerely offered, can be a bit of a dead end, once you get past the poetic license aspect of it, imho & etc.

 

[71 dB]

I missed this before. I don’t know what YouTube vid you’re referring to...

This one:

...and therefore exactly what you mean but on the face of it, this appears fundamentally incorrect.

You don't know exactly what I mean, but you know what I say is fundamentally wrong? Maybe you should use more energy on trying to understand other people instead of judging them in 5 seconds? Just an idea...

...to be fair I haven't explained much what I mean by music theory being context-dependent in nature.

By way of analogy, the evolution of say a Pine Tree is obviously very different from say a zebra but the fundamental principles of evolution are the same for all living things and go far enough back in time and there is a common ancestor. Music Theory is the theory of the evolution of music, so fundamentally it is not context-dependent, it is applicable to all music.

By context-dependency I mean things such as the note C having different role in different situations and music is about creating the context. Without music the note means nothing. If I compose music in C Major or C Dorian for example, I have created context for the note C: It is the root note of the scale, but in B Major it is a chromatic "out of scale" note. Note B is the leading tone in C major and raises to C in V - I cadence, but in G Major it is the third note of the scale telling the listener we are in G Major and not in G minor. Every note has a specific "role/meaning" depending on what is the music context they live in. Before understanding this context dependency notes where just "frequencies" for me: A4 = 440 Hz (or close to that depending on the tuning) etc. There wasn't any meaning for me other than the frequency and it is the same regardless of the scale we are using.

 

[Ryokan]

No, some decent amount of professional musicians don’t know much about math. Just as not all mathematicians are musicians, subconscious or otherwise, so it is that not all musicians are mathematicians, subconscious or otherwise. And then there’s some overlap, whether you are speaking figuratively or literally or metaphorically or whatever. A lucky subset of people are both. Maybe it’s not so surprising when you think of it that way?

Hyperbole, even when the source is so revered, or is so sincerely offered, can be a bit of a dead end, once you get past the poetic license aspect of it, imho & etc.

So why would Thelonious Monk come to that conclusion?

Taken from Quora:

I have heard repeatedly there is a connection.

I lived in a dorm which had a music professor as the resident faculty. I played for him as an audition for a talent show he was putting together. He asked me to play for him since I wasn't a music major, and he probably thought my skills were suspect for the piece I had told him I'd play.

After I finished playing, he asked me how I learned to play like that, and why I hadn't majored in music. I told him that I wanted a job with a solid financial prospect. He nodded and told me that some of the best musicians out there are in the engineering and science majors.

BTW, I'm an electrical engineer.

 

[bigshot]

People can work to overcome all sorts of obstacles. That says something about the human spirit. But autism isn't something I'd wish on anyone. The people I know who are autistic suffer from it. Even in small amounts, it makes life difficult. It seems to be much more prevalent today than it was when I was a kid, although I knew some autistic kids back then too. I hope research discovers the cause and finds a way to prevent it and deal with it.

 

[gregorio]

You don't know exactly what I mean, but you know what I say is fundamentally wrong?

That’s very strange 71dB. You quoted what I said and then your very first sentence in response is to change it and miss quote me! I said “on the face of it” and “appears” to be fundamentally incorrect. What I actually stated means I don’t “know” and you might not be wrong.

By context-dependency I mean things such as the note C having different role in different situations and music is about creating the context.

You are confusing the role of note C with Music Theory. The role of note C is context dependant, Music Theory isn’t!

You’re not wrong to state that Music Theory provides the context that defines the role of note C but that doesn’t mean Music Theory is context dependent, just that the role of note C is. And incidentally, beside it’s differing role within a particular scale/key, say the tonic or submediant, the note C’s role could be part of a descant or “decoration” or in another context can mean “snare drum”.

G

 

[Steve999]

Fl

So why would Thelonious Monk come to that conclusion?

Taken from Quora:

Monk was a quirky dude and had bouts of serious mental illness. I don’t know why he said what he said when he said it. He said in one interview that musicians are subconsciously also mathematicians, or something like that. It’s an aesthetically interesting statement, but I personally wouldn’t accept it as definitive or authoritative as to anything.

Talents in music and math are a powerful combination for those fortunate enough to have both. But I have personally known people with great talent in math and no particular talent in music, and people with great talent in music with no particular talent in math. If one was so vital to the other I would expect a much higher association between the two. But again, the combination is quite powerful. My personal experience is that they don’t correlate that well but that when the same person has both it’s pretty powerful.

If you want to disagree, based on one arguably massively over-cited brief quote from a suffering Thelonious Monk, or some music professor’s stated observations, or for any other reason, I respect that, but based on my personal experience, which honestly is pretty pedestrian, I think I am giving you a generally accurate account.

 

[gregorio]

So why would Thelonious Monk come to that conclusion?

I thought I’d explained that in a round about way? In another more precise way: The part of music theory that deals with chords (Harmony) was moderately simple up until the impressionist period. Very briefly: In the key of C Major, chord I is C, E, G. Chord II is D, F, A. Chord III is E, G, B, etc. There are also “Inversions”, the 1st Inversion of chord I is E, C, G, the third of the chord is now at the bottom, which changes the flavour of the chord and means chords that maybe too dissonant to be used much or at all, might be appropriate. The most common example being the cadence IIb, V, I (“b” denotes the first inversion of chord 2, then chord 5 then chord 1). In addition we can have a “7th”, so chord I becomes C, E, G, B (and we can have a dominant or diminished 7th) and also chords can be “pivot chords”, for example chord V is G, B, D (in C Major), which is also chord I of G Major, so given a particular sequence of chords we could use chord V as a “pivot” to modulate to G Major. There are various rules/conventions that govern what chords are favoured (the “primary chords”) and how and when you can use and juxtapose them in a chord sequence.

This all sounds pretty complex/confusing to the uninitiated but it’s actually quite straightforward. But with the addition of the 7th we not only get another potential inversion (a 3rd inversion) but also a lot more ambiguity, it could act as a pivot to and imply more keys. In the impressionist period it got a lot worse because 9ths, 11ths and even 13ths started being used and also the older system of “Modes” re-introduced and integrated, then in the C20th it got worse again.

So why am I boring you with all this? Hopefully, this gives you an idea of the sort of mathematical style thinking/nature of harmony/composing and Thelonius Monk was one of the pioneers of bringing such complex harmonic thinking from the classical world to Jazz. For most pop musicians, the primary chords, a few modes and that’s pretty much the end of the harmonic story, although that still needs a bit of mathematical style thinking.

G

 

[bigshot]

The kinship artwork shares with mathematics is clear and has been discussed extensively in the past. It involves recognition of patterns and symmetry. If you're interested in this subject, I'd recommend the book, Godel, Escher and Bach by Douglas Hostadter. It talks about how seemingly meaningless elements can be given meaning by the context and patterns of how they are presented. The book won a Pulitzer Prize back in the 70s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel,_Escher,_Bach If this book is too thick and broad for you, he did a more concise version called "This Is A Strange Loop" that covers the same topic more succinctly.

 

[castleofargh]

Me reading all this:

 

[Ryokan]

'Scientists have long used mathematics to describe the physical properties of the universe. But what if the universe itself is math? That's what cosmologist Max Tegmark believes'.

"If my idea is wrong, physics is ultimately doomed," Tegmark said. But if the universe really is mathematics, he added, "There's nothing we can't, in principle, understand."
Live Science. T Lewis.

 

[gregorio]

Me reading all this:

I wasn’t trying to explain Harmonic Theory, so I’m not surprised you don’t get it. I was just explaining a bit about very basic harmony in an attempt to demonstrate the sort of mathematical style of thinking that’s required. It’s not really math but it is a very mathematical style.

I’m not sure I managed to get that idea across?

G

 

[Ryokan]

It also means they think like mathematicians.

It’s not really math but it is a very mathematical style.

 

[castleofargh]

'Scientists have long used mathematics to describe the physical properties of the universe. But what if the universe itself is math? That's what cosmologist Max Tegmark believes'.

"If my idea is wrong, physics is ultimately doomed," Tegmark said. But if the universe really is mathematics, he added, "There's nothing we can't, in principle, understand."
Live Science. T Lewis.

At the same time, he’s a mathematician. When you have a hammer...