SOFTWARE REVOLUTION

[madtheory]

Actually I believe music is science...

Yup! There's a reason for everything. And that reason is physics.

[Sensory]

I am a bit jaded, but I spent about 8 years in qualitative AND quantitative market research.

There is also this forum called talkbass, where every single discussion;
ebony vs rosewood, tube vs solid state, fender vs gibson, 10" vs 12" (speaker you dirty sods).
All boil down to a 'blind test".
This is music, not science.
Whether you can prove "this" or disprove that matters little in terms of art, which deal in the ephemeral and ineffable.

But then a lot of bass players have engineers, not poets souls.

I ended up picking up a Musicman Stingray because of that forum lol. I agree with your points on art. Comparing performances can be difficult to quantify.
I find from an inspirational standpoint alone I play better on my hardware then on my controllers. Each instrument I have has a different personality and the way I play and react with each one makes all the difference.
But again this is a subjective and personal thing.

[Bitexion]

All synthesis methods are basically mathematics, and the audio we hear is physics, so yeah, music is definately science.

[commodorejohn]

Sound as a medium is science, sure. There's elements of science in the underpinnings of music theory as well. But there's also a whole shitload of aesthetic components in making music that is pleasing to the ears and evokes a response in the listener. That's art.

[ninja6485]

First of all, the word science connotates a method. The word also functions to denotate a concepeption containing the events, systems, and historicity of those who implement the method empirically. This is not music, but since some aspects of music are empirical events and measurable relations, those aspects are thus describable with scientific language & systems. This however can never be a comprehensive description of "music" since musical notes only have meaning for a subject.

[madtheory]

Especially interesting is perception, and cognitive bias- science is beginning to allow us to see very interesting things about aesthetics. See Kahnemann's "Thinking, Fast and Slow".

[CS_TBL]

According to the Science article at the English Wikipedia, the classic definition of science is: In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied.

In other words: if you can explain a thing or a process (concrete or abstract) and you can as such replicate the outcome, then it should fall under science. I think that composition can be studied and understood, and as such it can be explained and should be called science as well.

For the past ten years I tried to dissect Impressionism (most notably Debussy and Ravel), initially with little success. Why? I had a mindset firmly rooted in Romanticism (Tchaikovsky and the likes) and film music (which is for a great deal based on Romanticism). I kept listening to works such as La Mer, and just couldn't really understand what I was listening to and why it worked. You see, from a Romantic point of view you're always looking for leitmotivs, characters and clear themes. That's exactly what Impressionism isn't about, so my whole mindset was on the wrong track.

Then, some half a year ago, I did one more attempt at fully understanding Impressionism. In the years before I was typically captivated by the music, dreaming away.. *boing* gone was the attempt. So, I wrote down what I heard in La Mer (Debussy). Finally (and actually rather shortly after I started to pen down what I heard) I kind of nailed it. Now I think that it's actually simple enough for even software to replicate it.

All this is not some kinda X-Factor, art or mystery, it's plain study and workmanship. It's science. As science as science can be. We can call it art because the result can't be touched, or because it moves the listeners emotions, or because it's been labelled art over hundreds o' years, but the architecture *is* science.

[ninja6485]

Especially interesting is perception, and cognitive bias- science is beginning to allow us to see very interesting things about aesthetics.See Kahnemann's "Thinking, Fast and Slow".

Sounds interesting, I'll keep an eye out!

According to the Science article at the English Wikipedia, the classic definition of science is: In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied.

In other words: if you can explain a thing or a process (concrete or abstract) and you can as such replicate the outcome, then it should fall under science. I think that composition can be studied and understood, and as such it can be explained and should be called science as well.

For the past ten years I tried to dissect Impressionism (most notably Debussy and Ravel), initially with little success. Why? I had a mindset firmly rooted in Romanticism (Tchaikovsky and the likes) and film music (which is for a great deal based on Romanticism). I kept listening to works such as La Mer, and just couldn't really understand what I was listening to and why it worked. You see, from a Romantic point of view you're always looking for leitmotivs, characters and clear themes. That's exactly what Impressionism isn't about, so my whole mindset was on the wrong tr
Thesome half a year ago, I did one more attempt at fully understanding Impressionism. In the years before I was typically captivated by the music, dreaming away.. *boing* gone was the attempt. So, I wrote down what I heard in La Mer (Debussy). Finally (and actually rather shortly after I started to pen down what I heard) I kind of nailed it. Now I think that it's actually simple enough for even software to replicate it.

All this is not some kinda X-Factor, art or mystery, it's plain study and workmanship. It's science. As science as science can be. We can call it art because the result can't be touched, or because it moves the listeners emotions, or because it's been labelled art over hundreds o' years, but the architecture *is* science.

the lexicographer's definition is a point of departure, never the last word on the subject. The definition is clearly referencing what science denotes, which I mentioned in my previous post. One way to describe music and the effects of music is through scientific terms, but this is different than saying music is science. A scientific explanation is simply a picture -a way of representing what occurs with essential reference to its specific, standardized context. There's nothing wrong with describing music scientifically, unless you intend to confuse the representation for the thing it represents. Music is music and science is science. You can't build a rocket with notes, and your laptop will never enjoy Debussy. Further,
science is interested in the objective phenomenon. Without the subject, sounds are just vibrations of air, with no more or less meaning than random vibrations.

[Nistegmos]

Well my Windows 7 computer crashed and wouldnt boot and wierdly it wouldnt even load the recovery CD-ROM. This was totally wierd because Linux CD-ROMs run perfectly every time. So it's not the CD-ROM drive. It's something about the BIOS and the Corrupted Windows and the routines of the Windows CD-ROM still trying to boot the computer even though it's corrupted. All I can think is that Microsoft doesnt know what the heck they are doing and don't know how to make recovery discs. On Linux I can see all of my files and recovered them.

To make a long story short. I got really pissed off after no answers and no functioning windows so I just deleted Windows and threw away the CD-ROM since it's useless if it can't be run. i maybe shouldn't have done that. But I was steaming mad and pissed off and disappointed at all the time wasted in my life.

EDIT: Now I am running Ubuntu Studio v1404 with REAPER (via WASAPI) and FL Studio working in Wine v162. I use PulseAudio and even my USB MIDI gear is working now. I am really glad I saved my Windows files so I could ditch Windows (which kept corrupting itself). As it turns out, a lot of portable freeware works in Wine, including Foobar2000 and Music Cube One. Life is good again.