Comparative Complexity : Chemistry vs Music

[Superman]

Originally Posted by Steve Carlton

I see music as mathematical..... my understanding is Western music is divided into 12 notes to an octave. ...

Now I think we are getting somewhere. A part of music is mathematical. Totally objective. Western music is not accidentally divided into 12 notes. The math is what does that. Concert pitch is 440Hz at A above Middle C. This is arbitrary, and could be 431 or 456. But once you set this frequency, an octave is the doubling of the pitch. If A above Middle C is 440 Hz, then the frequencies of the other "A" notes on the piano are 55, 110, 220, ... 880, 1760, 3520 and 7040. This is not subjective, though we can hear it with our ears. Playing two A notes together achieves a harmony, both in our ears and in the calculations. Other notes in, for example, the major scale....also have both a mathematical and a subjectively pleasing. The frequency of E4 is, basically 330. This is the very pleasing fifth harmonic of A. 440 and 330 sound very good together.

Okay, so that's the math. Chemistry seems very objective and mathematical. I took Physical Chemistry in college (brutal class, by the way) and learned about bonds and valences. And I would propose that music has something that chemistry does not. Subjectivity.

Discuss.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by flatbutt

There's no denying the mathematical component of chemistry but I was considering the matrix of potential combinations of elements along with the number of ways notes may be combined.

For a short time in my career I was involved in the development of a "combinatorial chemistry" lab and the number of potential molecules that came out of there was over whelming.

There is also an aspect of music that is more arithmetic than mathematical. The intervals that CB mentioned is the "distance" between notes. For example the interval represented by the couplet C-E is a third, C - G is a fifth. C D E is three steps hence a "third". C D E F G is five steps hence a fifth. That is the "quantity" of the interval but there is another property known as the "quality". Those intervals may be Major, Minor, Diminished or Augmented.

So, you may now get an idea of the complexity that can develop within music. Once you get into various forms such as Sonata or Fugue it gets even deeper , think isomers.

As for Leaky's version of tablature...one need only assign a musical function to each type of bond or stoichiometric orientation etc in order to get a musical function out of it. Maybe a single bond could be a third, a double bond a fifth, a triple bond a seventh, cis / trans orientation a different quality and so on.

Nice exchange gang.

Pshaw! You talk like you've got a degree in it or something!

[flatbutt]

Originally Posted by Superman

Okay, so that's the math. Chemistry seems very objective and mathematical. I took Physical Chemistry in college (brutal class, by the way) and learned about bonds and valences. And I would propose that music has something that chemistry does not. Subjectivity.

Discuss.

YES and yes. PChem almost made me manic. Subjectivity is a neat concept. A great drum solo to one may be just banging on a can to another. The minimalist compositions of Philip Glass may be inspirational to one and boring to another.

In chemistry I found a beauty that made others roll their eyes. My undergrad mentor was an inorganic specialist. He had me making coordination complexes that were just beautiful to my eye once I had the precipitate. But there were rules and boundaries to be observed in creating them.

So, the complexity of either endeavor is present yet the perception of that intricacy is what gives either its flavor. Maybe?

[Superman]

Wait. Chemistry can be beautiful?

[Steve Carlton]

Originally Posted by Superman

And I would propose that music has something that chemistry does not. Subjectivity.

And I would propose that chemistry has objectivity, which is its own strength. As life evolves, many mutations are tested arbitrarily, resulting in more successful arrangements- Evolution. Form follows function. This wellspring of variety enables unexpected beauty, the hard way. In music, we seek out what sounds good. What sounds good in nature seems to be the result of needing communication. Or did birdsong develop to some extend from pleasure?

[flatbutt]

[QUOTE=Steve Carlton;11710057]And I would propose that chemistry has objectivity, which is its own strength. As life evolves, many mutations are tested arbitrarily, resulting in more successful arrangements- Evolution. Form follows function. This wellspring of variety enables unexpected beauty, the hard way. In music, we seek out what sounds good. What sounds good in nature seems to be the result of needing communication. Or did birdsong develop to some extend from pleasure?[/QUOTE]

Mating calls are made in the anticipation of pleasure so there is a connection.

[Superman]

How do you tell the difference between a chemist and a plumber?

Ask them to pronounce "unionized."

[mjohnson]

Originally Posted by Superman

Okay, so that's the math. Chemistry seems very objective and mathematical. I took Physical Chemistry in college (brutal class, by the way) and learned about bonds and valences. And I would propose that music has something that chemistry does not. Subjectivity.

Discuss.

Once we start playing P-chem, and given that the "normal person's" concept of an atom (BTW it's not a nice little solar system of electrons) and that bonds are moving all of the time, I'd say that while not necessarily subjective it is random and probabilistic. Our little static sketches of molecules on paper barely reflect reality - maybe an average representation but it gets complicated very quickly. Chemistry is amazing and never fails to surprise me given how "simple" it is presented in HS or undergrad university classes. It aint that simple...

Music? Derrr.... No comment here, no skills, no basic understanding. Me good at chemistry though!

(p-chem trigger? Consider a particle in a box, now derive the ideal gas law...)

[zakthor]

Music is limited by the meagre minds of the listener. Chemistry is a fact of the universe and has no such limits.

[flatbutt]

Originally Posted by zakthor

Music is limited by the meagre minds of the listener. Chemistry is a fact of the universe and has no such limits.

Oh I've known some meager and mediocre minds in both fields. However we have been discussing the complexity of each and at this point I think it is fair to say that there is a unique character to each. One is art and the other science but, I have personally experienced the artistic side of chemistry and the mathematical rigor of music. Vive' la difference et vive ce qui est pareil.

[island911]

Originally Posted by Steve Carlton

Look at a life form, especially a human being. An unbelievably complex symphony of molecular construction.

THIS ^

Music is acoustic vibrations arranged in a (hopefully) aesthetically pleasing series.

Chemistry can end you quickly.

[zakthor]

Originally Posted by flatbutt

Oh I've known some meager and mediocre minds in both fields. However we have been discussing the complexity of each and at this point I think it is fair to say that there is a unique character to each. One is art and the other science but, I have personally experienced the artistic side of chemistry and the mathematical rigor of music. Vive' la difference et vive ce qui est pareil.

Universe doesn't preclude interactions of molecules the size of the earth, or the solar system, and those interactions would be facts independent of humanity. Music is music because it can be appreciated, by definition it is limited by the fat deposits between our ears.

Maybe we mean something different by complexity. The complexity of chemistry is effectively infinite and music isn't - simply because music is fundamentally a property of people.

We might be able to engineer 'music' of arbitrary complexity but that complexity isn't part of the music because our chimp brains couldn't comprehend it. We would only hear the blurred edges of the complexity.

[Superman]

Originally Posted by flatbutt

Oh I've known some meager and mediocre minds in both fields. However we have been discussing the complexity of each and at this point I think it is fair to say that there is a unique character to each. One is art and the other science but, I have personally experienced the artistic side of chemistry and the mathematical rigor of music. Vive' la difference et vive ce qui est pareil.

Well-put. Also, diplomatic.

[Por_sha911]

I've always felt that music is directly correlated to mathematics.
Autistic savants are excellent with math and music.

[flatbutt]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

I've always felt that music is directly correlated to mathematics.
Autistic savants are excellent with math and music.

That nexus of math and music is something I'm searching for in terms of a practical application. I have a solid foundation in the traditional theory and constructs but I want to take that in a different direction.

I'm currently reading Heinrich Schenker's treatise on his method of analysis which looks at tonal music as a series of layers. I see the glimmer of a mathematical relationship in his theory and I think his method is a way to see through the complexity of a major work. We'll see. Then there's music Set Theory which is very much mathematical.