curtisdeltablues wrote: > Not necessarily. Not all subjects are suitable for the scientific > method. I think the phrase scientific method is more useful than the > word alone because that includes its virtues and limits. > I think that yoga and the various yogic techniques are very fit for scientific inquiry. And MMY certainly wasn't the first one to think so, it's been going on for centuries. But "whatever rocks your boat." :D > >> Ah, but there is "music theory" which is an analysis of how music works >> including yours. Really good music producers will look for that >> > element > >> when producing musical groups. The Beatles had little knowledge of >> music theory but George Martin with a classically trained background >> > was > >> able to take their musical sketches and strengthen them and turn them >> into hits. Much of what he did was the application of the musical >> sciences and psychology. >> > > I don't think these reach the levels necessary to be called products > of the scientific method. We could argue all day long about what > exactly George Martin contributed, but music theory is part of the > knowledge in the arts, not the sciences. Science can study waves and > physics can describe how a guitar string vibrates and why the notes > get higher as the string shortens when we fret it, but how it feels to > be tripping on acid and listen to the Sargent Pepper album is not > science or universal knowledge. It is personal opinion and taste. > You don't have to argue about what George Martin contributed, he wrote a book about it called "All You Need Is Ears." :D
Most professors of music would tell you that theory is a science and the application of it is an art. That's what I was pointing out. > > > I agree with this artistic process but it isn't a part of science just > because you are incorporating feedback or we would have to claim a > Brittany Spears branch of science and I don't think any of us want > that do we? > I'm sure musicologists and students have already dissected Brittany Spears productions as well as others for why they worked both psychologically and on a (sort of) musical level. > > >> And that's not to say that there's nothing wrong with going with >> > your > "gut feeling" or your "musical faith" either. :) > > I do my best to combine them. Your example of songwriting is > excellent because I am assisted by writing rules and especially the > process of re-writing brings into play a more analytical approach. So > many things that feel great in your gut do not translate to other > people in your songs, so I think that intellectual process can improve > your ability to convey what you mean better. But writing isn't a > science either, even though there are many known rules for having > better communication. > As I already pointed out.
