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

Quantum Space: Jim Baggott *****

There's no doubt that Jim Baggott is one of the best popular science writers currently active. He specialises in taking really difficult topics and giving a more in-depth look at them than most of his peers. The majority of the time he achieves with a fluid writing style that remains easily readable, though inevitably there are some aspects that are difficult for the readers to get their heads around - and this is certainly true of his latest title Quantum Space, which takes on loop quantum gravity.

As Baggott points out, you could easily think that string theory was the only game in town when it comes to the ultimate challenge in physics, finding a way to unify the currently incompatible general theory of relativity and quantum theory. Between them, these two behemoths of twentieth century physics underlie the vast bulk of physics very well - but they simply can't be put together. String theory (and its big brother M-theory, which as Baggott points out, is not actually a the…

Beyond Weird - Philip Ball *****

It would be easy to think 'Surely we don't need another book on quantum physics.' There are loads of them. Anyone should be happy with The Quantum Age on applications and the basics, Cracking Quantum Physics for an illustrated introduction or In Search of Schrödinger's Cat for classic history of science coverage. Don't be fooled, though - because in Beyond Weird, Philip Ball has done something rare in my experience until Quantum Sense and Nonsense came along. It makes an attempt not to describe quantum physics, but to explain why it is the way it is.

Historically this has rarely happened. It's true that physicists have come up with various interpretations of quantum physics, but these are designed as technical mechanisms to bridge the gap between theory and the world as we see it, rather than explanations that would make sense to the ordinary reader.

Ball does not ignore the interpretations, though he clearly isn't happy with any of them. He seems to come clo…

Everything You Know About Planet Earth is Wrong - Matt Brown ****

This is the latest of a series of 'Everything You Know About... is Wrong' books from Matt Brown. Although I always feel slightly hard done by as a result of the assertion in the title, as there are certainly things here I know that aren't wrong (I mean, come on, the first corrected piece of 'knowledge' is that 'The Earth is only 6,000 years old' and I can't imagine many readers will 'know' that), it's a handy format to provide what are often surprisingly little snippets of information that are very handy for 'did you know' conversations down the pub (or showing up your parents if you're a younger reader).

Some of the incorrect statements that head each article are well-covered, if often still believed (for example, people thought that world was flat before Columbus), some are a little tricksy in the wording (such as seas have to wash up against land) and some are just pleasantly surprising (countering the idea that gold is a rar…