 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Cindy
Date: 2002-06-04 05:28
Many people say that if you're really good at music math should be easy for you. Is that true, or is it a myth?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John
Date: 2002-06-04 05:32
myth. it depends on what kind of math...5th grade division should come easier and quicker to you...but something like integrals with two or three variables...uhhh...no, i seriously doubt the truth of that saying in that situation
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2002-06-04 05:49
Being able to sing along with the latest Britney Spears CD (heaven help us), isn't going to do _____ in getting you to pass the calculus final exam...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2002-06-04 06:29
Cindy: Yes it is. You said, "if you're really good at music math should be easy for you." This is not exactly accurate. Fact is usually that if you're really easy at math, music should be good for you. This really says if you can appreciate the latest Britney Spears CD, you should be able to enjoy watching her do Calculus. I can never understand why so many people get this so thoroughly confused. I have even written to her label with the suggestion that they use a photo of her doing complex integrals on her navel for her next album cover, but they have not yet answered me.
By the way, it sounds to me as if GBK has once again leapt to an unwarranted conclusion.
Regards,
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2002-06-04 06:59
To John - :-)
Now that's the JMcAulay I know (and love reading)...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jas
Date: 2002-06-04 07:30
I can only answer the question by putting two and two together.
1) I am a musician.
2) I can read and understand and enjoy music.
+
1) I am no mathematician.
2) I couldn't understand math beyond counting in 6-8. Calculus sounds more like a disease to me (and I react to it like it was one) and "pi" is something you eat after a concert.
=
Living proof, that this theory is incorrect for I am the sum of the total "math" moron.
Jas :0 )
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Neil
Date: 2002-06-04 07:51
My own experience is that I'm pretty good at math and not much of a musician. Much of my appreciation for music came only after I understood some of the mathematical relationships involved, such as the fact that a clarinet doesn't produce even harmonics; the register shift triples the frequency of sound produced while an oboe doubles its frequency. I think I would have had a lot more interest in music as a child if I had learned about waves and acoustics early on.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: nzdonald
Date: 2002-06-04 09:36
as a pretty good musician (sorry, no modesty tonight) who is hopeless at Maths but who likes trying to understand it..... i disprove the myth. A Math teacher at a school i was at some years ago bugged the hell out of me by persisting in going on at me about this every time i saw him- he claimed that this theory/myth was true because when they had Math teacher conferences lots of people always got together and did chamber music.
i eventually told him that my theory was that they were just a bunch of nerds who were good at Maths, and that they were probably also ok at music because they had done their practise when mumy told them to.... this wasn't well recieved, and he never spoke to me again (yay).
bah humbug i say. Orchestras are full of people who aren't much good at Math- that doesn't mean that they couldn't be if they put some time into it, but then again i have a friend who digs drains for a living, he has two university degrees. He's also good at music- now i reckon that people who have university degrees are probably also good at digging drains.... now all i need to find out is whether he's any good at Math! He could prove two theories at once.
donald
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Stéphane
Date: 2002-06-04 09:41
It is obvious the relationship between math and music is false. Proof? Britney Spears is a math genius, if she were a musician, we would have noticed!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mitch A
Date: 2002-06-04 13:11
Stephane - Oooohhhh, GOOD ONE - You go girl!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Oberlin
Date: 2002-06-04 13:24
Most mathematicians I know would rather listen
to Marcellus's recording of the Mozart than
to anything of Britney's, but they prefer the
covers of her recordings to that of the Mozart.
The version of the myth that seems to me closer
to holding a kernel of truth is that music and
mathematical ability are often highly correlated
either postively or negatively. I don't know many
musicians who claim to be about average at mathematics nor many mathematicians whose interest
in music is only a passing one. For example,
of the five musicians in my (math) department
who are not adult beginners, all have either
played professionally or have a degree in music.
Concerning clarinetists with certifiable mathematical ability, I'm pretty sure that Jonathan Cohler was a physics major as
an undergrad and that Richard Stoltzman
and Tony Pay were math majors as undergraduates.
Dan Oberlin
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: javier garcia
Date: 2002-06-04 13:36
As Pitagoras established the first relationships between math and music, math can help you to understand some music theoretical features. But you don't need to know math to be a good musician.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Poulsen
Date: 2002-06-04 14:01
First, I would like to present evidence of Stephane's contention regarding Britney Spears. Follow this link to Britney's Guide to Semiconductor Physics: <a href="http://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm">http://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm</a> This is also the closest point available to seeing her do complex integrals on her navel.
Next, I would like to point out that I believe Cindy's original conjecture is misstated. It should be: If you are good at math, music should be easy for you, not vice-versa.
I cannot offer certain proof, as mathematicians are wont to do, but anecdotal evidence. I and a number of other persons who frequent this bulletin board are engineers, scientists or mathematicians by trade (which is why we can have meaningful discussions on the physics of the clarinet here). My cousin, who gave me my initial clarinet lessons, was first chair clarinet in her high school band and later became a math teacher. I have a degree in math as well as engineering and have been playing bass clarinet for more years than I care to relate. Q.E.D. (Well, almost.)
Now, I didn't say that mathematicians are <i>great</i> musicians, but they are usually decent ones.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Frank Mochol
Date: 2002-06-04 14:05
I cannot attempt an exact corelation here, but I can tell you after 20 years of teaching high school science ( which include lots of math) that almost invariably, my best students are also in the school band. When I was in college, many of the beter players in the orchestra and bands were science and math majors. Who knows!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw
Date: 2002-06-04 14:47
Many years ago, I was the best high school clarinetist in the state of Tennessee, but I barely got through algebra, let alone introduction to calculus.
Einstein played the violin. According to a comment by Isaac Stern, who played chamber music with him (once), Einstein was a truly dreadful player. He couldn't count to save his life.
About the only similarity between being good in math and being good in music is that both require that you pay close attention and do a lot of things right in sequence. I suspect that the habit of sequential and accurate thinking that Tony Pay learned in his math studies paid off with his clarinet studies, but I don't think the subject matter itself makes a difference.
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2002-06-04 15:29
After reviewing Milton Cross' chapter on Richard Strauss, I believe that "Also Sprach Zarathustra" should apply to the comments of Dr's. Oberlin and Poulsen [and others?] re: this "probable" [likely but not certain] correlation [back to Pascal, a musician, Dan ??]. Being [having been?], hopefully, a better engineer than cl player, my observation, of the best musicians I've known, is that all either did or could have distinguished themselves in our "pure science" of higher mathematics. Very few will disagree that math is the basis of music, tho many may not apply Fourier Analysis to the study of why our great inst. sounds like it does. WOW, our BBoard is much like having an open microphone, isn't it?? Its hard to predict what comes out! Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2002-06-04 15:31
After reviewing Milton Cross' chapter on Richard Strauss, I believe that "Also Sprach Zarathustra" should apply to the comments of Dr's. Oberlin and Poulsen [and others?] re: this "probable" [likely but not certain] correlation [back to Pascal, a musician, Dan ??]. Being [having been?], hopefully, a better engineer than cl player, my observation, of the best musicians I've known, is that all either did or could have distinguished themselves in our "pure science" of higher mathematics. Very few will disagree that math is the basis of music, tho many may not apply Fourier Analysis to the study of why our great inst. sounds like it does. WOW, our BBoard is much like having an open microphone, isn't it?? Its hard to predict what comes out! Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2002-06-04 15:38
Ken!!!!! For years, I have been the "second best" clarinetist in the world and, like you, in spite of my awsome talent, I couldn't even survive first semester calculus in college (my college TA passed me with a D only if I promised never to take another math course, ever!) Seriously, I am a "pretty good" clarinetist, but even after taking all the math courses I could in high school, college level calculations defeated my mind. My college TA knew that, as a music major, I didn't need calculus and would have to take that math course over if I received an "F." So, he did me a favor by "passing me" with the "D." Since then, and "over the years," it has always been my observation that math and other related analyitical skills do not insure musical ability or success. See my aboved posting to Javier. Good Clarineting!!!! (BTW, I always thought that Glenn Bowen was the best clarinetist Tennessee ever producted)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: RGA
Date: 2002-06-04 16:11
The similarity between the two is not at the "nuts and bolts" level of things like counting, technique, etc., it's at the creative level.
When a good musician looks at a score, he knows something about the ebb and flow of the music before he actually performs it; when a good mathematician looks at a set of coupled partial differential equations, he can see and understand a number of properties of the soltion before he actually works to it. The process of recognizing the patterns in the information and creatively interpreting those patterns is very much the same.
The good mathematician might not develop the technical capability to apply his creativity to music, and the good musician might not develop the ability to do the "nuts and bolts" of mathematics (e.g. calculus) and apply them to advanced mathematics, but each has the ability understand the creativity that is involved in both endeavors. That's the link.
RGA
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: E. Michael Blake
Date: 2002-06-04 17:39
I've lately read a book by a music educator (I think the title is "Raising Musical Kids," by Robert Cutietta) in which he tries to point out that the purported "Mozart connection" of the math brain and the music brain has been taken very far out of context, and was based on limited data in two different studies that never sought to prove, nor later asserted, that early-childhood training in music would lead to brilliance in math. This didn't stop the notion from gaining currency, and there emerged anecdotal reports of pregnant women playing recordings of Bach and Mozart all day. What seems to have been the verifiable result of the studies is that early exposure to any interesting or challenging stimuli is good, in the context of early childhood development in general.
All that said, I can certainly attribute my own status as one of the nineteen best clarinetists on my block to my status as one of the twenty-seven best mathematicians on my block, and vice versa.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: T.Banks
Date: 2002-06-04 20:18
That would explain why my EXTREMLEY talented flutist friend is failing math...........
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: anon
Date: 2002-06-04 21:03
Well, I don't know...that myth certainly seems to apply to my high school. the first chair clarinet took calculus as a junior, the second chair(a girl, by the way) took computer science, and most of the others are juniors in precalc honors. I am rather extreme... I took calculus freshman and AP Physics C mechanics and EM my sophomore years. I know that every last one of the people I mentioned are extradorinary for high schoolers, and our first chair is...well, he got 5th chair all district without practicing, and 5th chair all state.
So it seems to apply to my high school. But I also know that I and the first chair are extremely good at English, so maybe music just helps academics over all..
and, I am curious as to when the rest of you started clarinet. It might be that it only works if you start early...
Laura
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Micaela
Date: 2002-06-04 21:06
I'm not too great at math. My greatest strength, however, is seeing patterns in data and manipulating graphs. Luckily, my school's math curriculum is based largely on graphs- 20 years ago without my beloved graphing calculator and with tons more algebra, I would be sunk. I wonder if this has any correlation with my musical abilities- reading music, seeing chord patterns, etc. Maybe if I practice a lot this summer calculus won't be too hard in the fall. (But I doubt it.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Julie
Date: 2002-06-04 22:11
I a decent musician (not great, but I'm not terrible) and I spent all of this year struggling through Algebra 1...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Julie
Date: 2002-06-04 22:12
I must not be very good at writing though... I meant to say "I am a..." not "I a.."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Marina
Date: 2002-06-04 23:18
Perhaps the correlation between talented mathmeticians and musicians is socio-economic. The same caring parents who shell out for lessons, reeds, etc. are also likely to help develop the minds of their children at a young age. It has been proven time after time that the children in preschool with jigsaw puzzles, reading time, and building blocks are more successful than the children who sit in front of the television throughout their early elementary career. Has anyone ever studied a correlation between history, english, foreign languages, or other educational endeavors and music? I attend a very selective, grueling prep school. Students are selected only for verbal, mathematic, and abstract reasoning skills, and yet our band, orchestra, choir, dance, and visual arts programs are filled with amazing artists. This presents another question: is this a socio-economic standard or are people who are deemed "intelligent" by standardized tests recognized as such because studying the creative arts has created in them a sense of logical and abstract thinking that helps them in orher areas of life? Food for thought...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: nzdonald
Date: 2002-06-05 00:05
i'd say Marina has hit the nail on the head..... (this also links a little bit to my "nerd theory of musical mathmeticians" on an earlier posting)
donald
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2002-06-05 12:56
nzdonald wrote:
>
> i'd say Marina has hit the nail on the head.....
I think all of us could stand to do some research and see where things really stand (yes, there are studies that have compensated or at least think they've compensated for socio-economic factors).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2002-06-05 17:17
I discussed our subject with one of our oil co's better [Computing Dept.] mathematicians [fine symp. flutist] who like me, has had some 60 adult years to ponder the ?. His comment, "no question of the close relationship", citing his experience/observation , having degrees in both. Of course, he had not heard of the term "busking", but was intimately familiar with US practice!! Small world! Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2002-06-05 17:18
I discussed our subject with one of our oil co's better [Computing Dept.] mathematicians [fine symp. flutist] who like me, has had some 60 adult years to ponder the ?. His comment, "no question of the close relationship", citing his experience/observation , having degrees in both. Of course, he had not heard of the term "busking", but was intimately familiar with US practice!! Small world! Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2002-06-05 17:49
Did it again, didn't I, Mark. DERN it. Believe it was because the first took a long time to post, that I forgot !! if I had. Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kristen D.
Date: 2002-06-05 18:22
With regards to Don Poulsen's comment:
"Next, I would like to point out that I believe Cindy's original
conjecture is misstated. It should be: If you are good at math,
music should be easy for you, not vice-versa."
So, people who are good at math are generally good with money.
And if Britney Spears is good at music, then maybe the myth
should read:
If you are good with money, Britney Spears should be easy
for you.
Ha Ha Ha
Kristen D.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2002-06-05 19:55
Kristen D. wrote:
>
> With regards to Don Poulsen's comment:
>
> "Next, I would like to point out that I believe Cindy's
> original
> conjecture is misstated. It should be: If you are good at math,
> music should be easy for you, not vice-versa."
>
Whoops, you did it again ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Pegel
Date: 2002-06-06 02:49
This has "fallacy" written all over it.
So if you're good with money, you can buy that nice stereo and ask Britney how it works, whereupon she'll do complex calculus and laser physics on her navel.
That gives me the urge to save money.
Or maybe just practice...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
