Comparative Complexity : Chemistry vs Music
 

I received an intriguing question via PM from a Peli contributor.

"How would you compare chemistry with music? In terms of complexity. It seems to me that one can make any discipline endlessly complex, if you work at it. But I also think that music is, or can be, about as complex as any. I think the permutations of n=12 and r=12 is something like 4 billion. And some of those combinations are supposed to sound better than others, according to theory. Supposed to. LOL. Music looks like geometric patters superimposed on other geometric patterns. Just the most ferocious rabbit-hole you can fall into."

Given how eclectic a community this is and with the number of members who have scientific and artistic proclivities I'd enjoy reading your responses.

As for me : WRT complexity they are both of the same sort generally. Both have a finite set of building blocks ie elements and notes. Both may combine those basic blocks into a dizzying number of combinations.

Some combinations of elements make useful molecules and some combinations of notes make for good music. Where they tend to diverge is some combinations of elements can really ruin your day but poorly combined notes will just make your head hurt (individual taste not with standing).

It is my opinion that music is more the rabbit warren than is chemistry. Fascinating is one word I'd use. Where chemistry is still bound by our understanding of chemical physics, music is WFO with regard to composition.

Music may use it's finite set of building blocks in a traditional manner via instruments or, as I do electronically. Heck Frank Zappa and Peter Schikele used bicycle tire pumps and toilets in some pieces.

I agree that there can be a geometrical aspect to music just as there is in a crystal, but music has many more degrees of freedom. I have been toying with music based on fractal equations but I haven't gotten there yet.

What are your opinions?

I was a math, chem, physics major in college.
I often compared math to music, never thought of chem and music. Interesting approach.
As I got deeper into chemistry- it became more like art.
Yes their are "rules", but there are still a lot of rules we do not know.
I find music simpler, and more predictable than chemistry---- but I don't know much about music.
I listen, but don't play
gary

Interesting. I've also heard math and music compared, but this is a first for chemistry and music. But I can see how both could be similarly complex, especially if you not only include notes on a page, but the actual playing of those notes by someone that can bring the music alive with emotion vs someone that just plays the notes in a very mechanical manner.

Interesting. I've forgotten more chemistry and music than I care to admit, however, I was just listening to this song. My wife got me the cd the other day.

In it, the Bassist (Edgar Meyer) plays a measure, and then banjo player (Bela Fleck) repeats that measure as the bassist simultaneously adds a new measure.

At first, I thought this was this was happening on the spot, thinking "no freaking way" that the bassist could play something, with the banjo player simultaneously repeating the last phrase, as well as remembering the new phrase as he is playing the previous phrase. Obviously, they had to have both memorized the tune, playing it back, only one measure delayed. I mean... that's what I hope they did. Anything else would be otherworldly.

At any rate, this song does remind me of chemistry to a bit. The equations just fit, as the old segment fits perfectly under the new measure. It makes me wonder if you could play any song and delay it in the same way and get the same effect. probably not.

This makes me want to convert some balancing equations into music just to see what happens.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xDan-NSMFT4" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That's really nice, thanks for posting. To ensure that I understand what you're saying and what I'm hearing this is kind of like when 2 people sing "row your boat" but one starts when the first gets to "Merrily, merrily...." right?

I know a little about Chemistry (inorg Chem 1 and 2 in college, but that's it, just scratch the surface). And I probably know even less about music, other than being an avid listener.

Music can almost seem tangible at times.

And that's what I'm trying to figure out. Can you pull it off with anything (like row your boat) or is it certain formulas that work? I had a minor in chemistry, but never really dealt with fractal type stuff, but, what I need to do it study this song more to see if it's breaking itself into smaller or more complex segments as it repeats. As of one and a half glasses of wine, I am already in over my head.

It is fun to think about though!

Degrees in both Chemistry and Music tells me that FB is something of a thrillseeker. Any discipline can be complex if you work at it hard enough, but chemistry and music just ARE complex.

I am listening to John Coltrane right now. Saxophonist. His work is just mind-boggling. I think if you had asked him whether he had mastered the craft of music, he would have laughed out loud.

There are 12 notes. There are 479 million 12-note combinations. But there are many more chords than notes. I am reporting there are many billions of writeable songs. There are millions of ways to play any given song.

On top of that, there is music theory which is the 'science' of what notes and chords sound good together. These form patterns. So.....of the 122 notes, a musical 'key' might have 8 of them. Or 7 or 6 or whatever. A song is written in a key. In that song, there will be many many instances of notes being played which are not in that song's "key."

I happen to think that music is the ultimate rabbit hole and I think anyone studying music seriously for more than a couple of years will come to the conclusion that for the rest of your life, you will never run out of creative exploration territory. Not even close. We have some of those people in our group here, and I am interested in reading their offerings here.

Yes, music will break your head. And yes.....in a good way. Mental calisthenics of the highest order!

I'll start with the fact that the track posted by Leaky is entitled "Canon".

The "round" like "row your boat" or "frere Jacques" is a type of "canon" and is a composition in which the different voices play exactly the same melody but with each starting at a different time. The different parts of the melody will eventually overlap in the different voices but always make musical sense together.

There are indeed rules or a form for writing a round and these guys hold pretty close to the guidelines. It is not particularly complex when you look at it on the score but the aural interplay may sound like it is.

thanks... I've heard the song about 5 or six times, and want to spend more time in the middle/later sections figuring out what the heck is going on. Also, for me, the difference between the ranges and attacks of the instruments keeps me busy in my "I slept at a holiday inn last night " type music prowess. :)

The comments here about complexity sent me down a rabbit hole thinking of jazz chords, where one chord could be called several different things depending on context. It led me to this guy, and it makes me wonder, would chemistry be relegated to 'scales' type rules, or could it be elevated into phrasing? Or are certain areas of chemistry already phrasing? And just how would one do that?


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UST4NsW9pKU" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Also, this also makes me wonder if some musicians are more mathematicians or chemists? Robert Fripp? Where would he fall in the great scheme of things?

The whole album (do they still call them that?) appears to be on YT, and everything that I've listened to has been great!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qp1iXg_AQ4&list=PLGO5unViQQI9uZdeweQUdw9T uAQE90UVh&index=1

^ I wonder too about what albums are called these days. I think the album is ok, I asked for it after hearing the Blue Spruce song.



So after another glass of wine, I pulled out my guitar and started jamming to Sphingomyelin.

Here's the structure:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1654396347.png

Clearly, for those familiar with guitar tab, this is tablature.

My wife, upstairs in bed, was not impressed, promptly threw a shoe down the stairs, just told me to sftu..... etc...


YET I will, proudly, and legitimately claim I was probably the only person ON THIS PLANET EARTH at this moment jamming to a myelin sheath component.

She SO doesn't get me!!!!

I wouldn't compare it to chemistry. You're comparing music to the math in chemistry. Or the quantum chemistry ie compuational chemistry. Which is just the applied mathematics within the field.

I’ve long suspected there’s something mathematical about music. It has to do with intervals, I think and repetitions.

That’s as far as I’ve gotten with it.

Few guitarists, worldwide, are familiar with that tablature. Which means they certainly have some catching up to do.

FB mentions "the aural interplay" and that is the place where the magic resides. We can talk about how complex music is, mathematically or structurally, but when the dynamic of expression and emotion come into play, then music becomes a whole new ballgame.

Music does also seem to be a nonverbal language. A language that skips the mental part and goes straight to emotion.

This I discovered when I realized early Beatles music made me happy.

I see music as mathematical, not directly correlated with chemistry. Chemistry is 3-dimensional and functional in a mechanical way. Reactions can be endothermic or exothermic, and there are temperature-dependent states. I think the rabbit hole is much deeper, but I'm winging it here.

Music has scales that revolve around octaves, and my understanding is Western music is divided into 12 notes to an octave. Many of our instruments are built around these 12 notes, and it's an imperfect system. Stringed instruments without frets allow for other tones, and therefore, for example, string quartets can sound sweeter since they're not constrained by frets or keys.

I know that most Western music simplifies down to a smaller number of chords that sound good together and usually appear in common patterns. So, out of all the millions of combinations, relatively few sound good and are relative to each other.

This was interesting:

https://www.classicfm.com/discover-music/music-theory/why-are-there-only-12-notes-in-western-music/

In the above link is this video, which is fun:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aUeysGoPFTk" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


I'm in over my head here, but that's my contribution...

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.

This my friend is the ultimate for music. As Charles Munch once said music expresses that which is otherwise inexpressible.

Might chemistry explain some things that were previously inexplicable?

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

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.

Pshaw! You talk like you've got a degree in it or something! :rolleyes: ;) :D

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?

Wait. Chemistry can be beautiful? ;)

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=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.

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

Ask them to pronounce "unionized."

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...)

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.

THIS ^

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

Chemistry can end you quickly.

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.

Well-put. Also, diplomatic.

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.