Skip to main content

Music by the Numbers - Eli Maor ***

If you wanted to classify this book, you might guess ‘music’ or ‘mathematics’ from the title. Actually, ‘history of science’ is a better fit than either of those. Roughly half the book deals with various ways in which music influenced the development of science. These weren’t always to the good, either. For example, we’re told that Pythagoras – who tried to shoehorn musical and cosmic harmonies into an over-simplified geometric model – ‘impeded the progress of science for the next two millennia’.

There are some surprises, too. Fourier analysis, which might top many people’s list of musically-relevant mathematical techniques, was originally developed in the context of the propagation of heat in solids. On the other hand, the world’s first partial differential equation – courtesy of  d’Alembert in 1746 – really did come out of music theory. Personally I found these insights fascinating, but readers who aren’t sure what Fourier analysis and partial differential equations are might not share my enthusiasm.

On several occasions, Maor makes the point that the interaction between music and science was a strictly one-way affair. Science might be informed by music, but music – at least in the period he’s talking about – wasn’t informed by science. That wasn’t entirely for lack of trying, though – Stravinsky is quoted as saying ‘I once tried to read Rayleigh’s Theory of Sound but was unable mathematically to follow its simplest explanations’.

So what’s the other half of the book about? This is where the author gets much more subjective and idiosyncratic, drawing various parallels between the history of music and the history of science. Beethoven is likened to Newton, musical keys to coordinate systems, Stravinsky’s abrupt changes of rhythm to non-Euclidean geometry and Schoenberg’s 12-tone system to Einstein’s theory of relativity.

It’s this last analogy that gets the longest treatment, in the book’s final two chapters. It’s not quite as subjective as the others, in that it’s backed up by quotations from Schoenberg himself and the famous composer-conductor Pierre Boulez, but they don’t go as far as saying that Schoenberg’s music was directly influenced by relativity. On that issue, even Maor admits ‘there is no hard evidence to suggest such a connection’.

The irony is that just as the book ends, in the middle of the 20th century, composers and music theorists really did start to listen to what scientists and mathematicians had to say. In the preface, Maor makes a brief passing reference to Iannis Xenakis, who took inspiration from things like statistical mechanics, game theory, Markov chains and Brownian motion for his ‘stochastic’ musical compositions – but he never comes back to talk about them in more detail. In parallel, late-20th-century music analysts like Allan Forte drew on the language of set theory and mod-12 arithmetic as a more flexible and powerful alternative to traditional music theory.

Let’s stick with set theory for a moment. Picture a Venn diagram with two partially overlapping sets: readers who are interested in the history of science, and readers who are interested in music theory. Is the book going to appeal to the union of the two sets – which is bigger than either audience on its own – or to the intersection, which probably isn’t many people at all? Sadly I think the answer is the latter. Personally, I enjoyed the book – but I’m in that narrow overlap in the Venn diagram.


Paperback:  

Kindle:  


Review by Andrew May

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Demon in the Machine - Paul Davies *****

Physicists have a habit of dabbling in biology and, perhaps surprisingly, biologists tend to be quite tolerant of it. (I find it hard to believe the reverse would be true if biologists tried to do physics.) Perhaps one reason for that tolerance is Schrödinger’s lecture series and book What is Life?, which had a huge impact on molecular biology and with a reference to which, not surprisingly, Paul Davies begins his fascinating book. 

At the heart of the The Demon in the Machine (we'll come back to that demon in a moment) is the relationship between life and information. In essence, Davies points out that if we try to reduce life to its simple physical components it is like trying to work with a computer that has no software. The equivalent of software here is information, not just in the best publicised aspect of the information stored in the DNA, but on a far broader scale, operating in networks across the organism.
This information and its processing gives life its emergent compl…

The Cosmic Mystery Tour – Nicholas Mee ****

This is another book, like last year’s Enjoy Our Universe by Alvaro de Rújula, that sets out to provide a light-hearted introduction to physics and astrophysics for the general reader. It’s from the same publisher (OUP) and packaged in the same way: as a high quality small-format hardback with 200 glossy pages, the majority of them adorned with colour pictures. But that’s where the resemblance ends. Unlike its predecessor, this new book by Nicholas Mee delivers exactly what it promises.

It’s not that de Rújula’s book was a bad one, but he just wasn’t able to think his way into the reader’s mind. He kept saying ‘physics is fun’, but he was talking about the fun a professional physicist gets out of doing it – which is a very arcane, often highly mathematical, type of fun. The result, for a non-specialist reader, was actually quite alienating. Mee, on the other hand, understands exactly how his readers think, what they find interesting, and the details that – no matter how important they …

Professor Maxwell's Duplicitous Demon - Brian Clegg ****

‘It’s not uncommon when trying to give Maxwell his rightful place in the pantheon of physics to bracket him with Newton and Einstein’, Brian Clegg says towards the end of this book. In one sense that’s perfectly true. Dip into any physics textbook and you’ll see Maxwell’s name at least as often as the other two. His greatest achievement – Maxwell’s equations – did for electromagnetism what Newton had done for gravity, while laying the essential theoretical groundwork for everything Einstein was to do.

There’s a big difference, though. A few years ago, when I was offered the chance to write short biographies of Newton and Einstein, I jumped at it – because they addressed mysteries of the universe that anyone can relate to, and their lives outside physics were, if anything, even more fascinating. At the risk of sounding downright rude, you can’t say either of those things about James Clerk Maxwell. In spite of that, Brian Clegg has done a wonderful job here of recounting just what Maxwel…