Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
The Physics of Music
- Thread starter BassyBill
- Start date
I would say yes as the understanding of something will contribute to the decision you make about it. Whether that is good or bad would be in what you do with, or react with that information that will tell if it was the right thing.
I'm with they belief that when you play you can't really be thinking on anything other than what you are playing. Technique, sound , why this is so etc. are irelevent while playing, but not while learning. So would learning such stuff improve your playing?.... maybe, but would it improve your performance?
Thats the thing about music, playing it and performing it are two completely different disiplines, so maybe it would help in the performance of music to understand why something is so?
Why care about the history of temperament? Why care about the history of anything?
Is it a coincidence that the 3rd, 4th, and 5th overtones of the harmonic series form a triad?
Is it a coincidence that the 3rd, 4th, and 5th overtones of the harmonic series form a triad?
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Before you know it we'll all be forced to sing mean tempered Gregorian Chant.
4 pages, and not one mention of combination tones.
Hindemith made me aware of them.
They are relevant to note choice
and pitch choice
in a choir- a combination ( ghost tone ) tone, can be equally loud as the actually played tones- a slight change in pitch will dissolve the ghost.
muddiness is related to them as well
as you were
Hindemith made me aware of them.
They are relevant to note choice
and pitch choice
in a choir- a combination ( ghost tone ) tone, can be equally loud as the actually played tones- a slight change in pitch will dissolve the ghost.
muddiness is related to them as well
as you were
I'm going to play devil's advocate here: The reason two notes an octave apart have the same name as nothing to do with physics; rather, it has to do with a particular phenomenon of human perception. Yes, that phenomenon is indeed directly related to the (semi-coincidental) fact that doubled or halved frequencies map onto our perception of octaves, but that quality of "same note-ness" that we perceive when we hear octaves is not an inherent physical property of in-phase frequency multiples. iow, it's not physics, it's physiology. (And conciousness.)
Which brings us to the next subject...not the physics of music, but how about the physiology of music? I've been following Oliver Sacks' work, such as Musicophilia (both the book and the documentary). Does knowing how--and why--people respond to various musical events help you become a better player?
I honestly can't answer either the physics or physiology questions simply because I am inherently curious about everything I do. I know a lot more about cars, internal combustion (and alternatives), and the laws of motion than I need to to drive to gigs. I know a lot more about waves than I need to to play. But I do think knowing more about each helps me be better at it, though I don't know for sure.
I honestly can't answer either the physics or physiology questions simply because I am inherently curious about everything I do. I know a lot more about cars, internal combustion (and alternatives), and the laws of motion than I need to to drive to gigs. I know a lot more about waves than I need to to play. But I do think knowing more about each helps me be better at it, though I don't know for sure.
And FWIW, Sacks says that the Octave is the only universal musical concept, across all cultures and time. Everything else is learned.
So, just to respond to your thoughtfully put Devil's Advocacy...
How has our physiology evolved to hear simpler frequency multiples as more consonant, do you think? Genuine question.
Is the fact that we hear two frequencies that are related by a factor of two to be very closely related just coincidence? Why 2? Why not 1.547 or 2.219 or 15.614 et cetera et cetera ad infinitum? Are harmonic relationships really just physiological conventions, or do they really have a basis in physical relationships between frequencies?
Any argument that says the frequency ratios aren't part of it has some pretty improbable coincidences to explain - there are infinitely more complex ratios than simple ones, after all. Or am I missing your point? You're not claiming that octave up as double the frequency is pure coincidence, surely?
Good points.
I think it's likely that people who think understanding physics is irrelevant to this subject haven't tried it.
And notice that the perception of sameness of octave frequencies doesn't extend to Light. not that I know what "color" 440HZ electromagnetic radiation might be...
oh wait here's a [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]...it's kind of orange. (can't vouch for the accuracy of Air vs Light conversions)
oh wait here's a [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]...it's kind of orange. (can't vouch for the accuracy of Air vs Light conversions)
Now THAT is an interesting comment. Thanks. I'll see if I can find some reading up on that.
Sight/hearing comparisons can be very instructive. "Don't you wonder sometimes... about sound and vision?"
That's because visible light cover approximately one octave. We also see it in "Color" which does not exist. It is thought bats echo location is percieved in color. The electromagnetic spectrum of which ligtht is a small part, follows many of the same rules as sound, i.e low freqs are omnidirectional, high frequencies are line of sight. There are harmonics etc etc. We hear at very specific frequencies, we percieve only three colors, the frequency spectrum is wide for sight, like only being able to hear three notes with the other notes blurred.
Acoustics and physics is interesting stuff to be sure.
I took an acoustic physics course in college and it was interesting.
I worked in the Acoustic Eng Dep't at Boeing Commercial for the '57, '67 and it was interesting.
But I don't really use any of that info in playing music. Different realm.
Notes/scales and theory have more to do with music history than sonics.
I took an acoustic physics course in college and it was interesting.
I worked in the Acoustic Eng Dep't at Boeing Commercial for the '57, '67 and it was interesting.
But I don't really use any of that info in playing music. Different realm.
Notes/scales and theory have more to do with music history than sonics.
Good points.
I think it's likely that people who think understanding physics is irrelevant to this subject haven't tried it.
I have studied physics in college and it is irrelevant to music.
How will understanding the overtone series, simple harmonic motion and waves help me interpret a Mozart downbeat differently from a Brahms downbeat?
I agree with Hoover's earlier comment about physiology, and would like to add that a great deal of cultural influence is in there too.
That's your opinion and it may well be true for you. But not for everybody. In fact, the poll results suggest that a large majority of people don't see it as irrelevant.
Nobody is claiming that understanding simple physical concepts can somehow help with every single artistic aspect of music. But I know that in my case, understanding ideas about frequency, waveform and so on and then relating these to musical concepts such as pitch, harmony and timbre stimulated my curiosity and that had a positive impact on my motivation to learn. I'm a better musician now than I would have been had that not been the case. But as I said before, that wouldn't necessarily be true for everyone. See post # 1 and #52. And also the statement for the poll, which says "Understanding some aspects of physics can help people learn about music." I think that's quite simply and clearly worded, and it does NOT say "Understanding physics is the key to every aspect of being a truly accomplished musician and you cannot be one without this". That would very obviously be untrue (as you have pointed out).
Don't misunderstand me here. If you don't find something helpful, then it's surely not helpful to you. But to then assert that the same must therefore be true for everyone is simply wrong.
