Re: Re: Re: Tubas and Test-tubes


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Leland on January 19, 2004 at 23:04:08:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Tubas and Test-tubes posted by Philip Jensen on January 19, 2004 at 17:32:50:

By "reproducible results," I was thinking of experiments that you could relay to colleagues, and they would be able to reach the same conclusions. If they can't -- like with cold fusion, if I remember correctly -- then it wasn't good science.

An artistic expression, such as a painting, would, possibly, not be reproducible. I've got a painting from my mom that I believe is entirely unique, and I don't think she can do another one that would come close to being identical.

Good musicians achieve a good blend of these, I'd say. They're able to produce interesting, attractive sounds, and can do it for each performance. The science comes from putting together the fundamentals of playing well, and the art goes into making the noises sound more interesting than flapping lips, a bunch of tubing and black dots.

I can see where science is artistic, too. Thinking of new ways to do things is certainly where the fun stuff happens. Even the experiments used in college Science 101 classes had to be created by somebody.

Science and art are so deeply meshed in music that I had a hard time trying to think of characteristics unique to each.

Heck, maybe even good journalism blends art & science -- the quoted facts are true and can be corroborated, and the writing is interesting enough to keep a reader's attention (my dad's been one for longer than I've been alive).


Follow Ups: