madtheory wrote: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!
CS_TBL wrote: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.
This looks like a psychotropic reaction. No wonder it's so popular...