is it true that music and maths are connected? is everyone who is musical also mathmatical? is everyone who is mathmatical potentially musical?

share the knowledge and your opinions

From my experience, definitely yes. Right brain activities.

but your right brain deals with maths.. your left brain deals with music...

I think to say that everyone who is good at maths is also good at music and vice versa is overstating things, but in my experience (limited) there does seem to be a correlation.

Completely anecdotal evidence, but I have three sons. All three are good at maths, but only two of them are good at/interested in music as well. The one who is going to do maths at Uni is the one who is not paricularly musical.

The are a fair few threads on this topic already if you search. From personal experience, I have a certain aptitude for Maths and am a reasonably competent player of music, and the top guy at Maths in the year also reached a fairly high grade on an instrument, so I would say there is some connection.

Well I suppose working out a new piece of music can be mathematical. Theres also the physics behind the music (sound waves, acoustics, note fequencies). Also, its kinda interesting that the greek mathematician pythagoras, best known for his theorem concerning right-angled triangles, was the guy who discovered intervals.
Also, studies have shown that kids who learnt to play piano and read music improved their numeracy.
Ive always been terrible at maths though.....

I have a degree in maths and music. All my children are very good at maths about 2 years ahead and 2 out of my 3 boys are exceptional at music, they also learnt to read before they were 3 years old. The 3rd child is good at music and reading but not exceptional.

I often find that when a child starts music it helps them with their maths at school and improves their reading too. Does anyone find that?

I took to both without too much trouble as well.

I'm not exceptional at either, but I too had little difficulty with them when I started. I think there is a correlation, but not a definite x=y rule.

Yeah...most probably.
I am the top in maths in class and I am not bad at music Never realised they were connected

My wife's degree is in Psychology. She says that pure maths activates the same creative areas of the brain as music composition.

I was a maths thicko at school, but then I have never been able to compose either

Steve

I've heard that but don't know if it's always true. I agree that it's common though.
I just got 100% in my maths C1 module for AS! Yeeeey!

Son no.1 good at music, can do maths but doesn't always find it easy. Doesn't have a logical brain!

I find maths easy, especially logical things (if anyone has done the UK Maths Challenge, that kind of thing) and all the people in my year who have grade 7+ in an instrument are in the top maths group (there are 6 maths groups, and about 10 people who are grade 7+). But then, we're also all in the top English (except the ones who aren't English) and French/Spanish, but interestingly we all tend to find science more difficult. Maybe it's because we hang around with each other too much...

I think being musical helps you with foreign languages, because it's replacing an action/word with something different.
Maybe to be good at music, you need a certain ability with maths too, and that's why they're connected. It might not necessarily be a natural thing, but something required for music...

maybe you're just generally clever if you play an instrument... you guys all seem to be able to rule the world with your intellect!! im just lazy...

I know I might be a piano teacher but I know for definite I am not good at maths.. so for me I would say that they don't link too much! I know that you have to understand maths to do basic music theory, but I am no maths genius believe me!

I am reasonably good at music but pretty much the most dreadful mathematician ever! Foreign languages have always been my thing - I don't know whether this has anything to do with music though, but it does seem that those with a musical ear also tend to be able to pick up languages without too much difficulty.

Allan

i'm learning dipabrsm in piano.
and i find maths relatively easy.
i'm usually top 3 in class for maths.
and i dont practice THAT much like what my maths teacher always say,
"maths is a subject you need to practice. Keep doing sums, and your distinction will come your way".
i just do a question for each formula of each kind,
and i'm allright in maths.
i guess musical people are mathematical too???...
;-}

Acutally (and i haven't read all of this post but hey!) i believe that there is a strong link between music and science, not nesecceraly just maths. For instance, most of the science department at my school play musical instruments, and most of the music department studied some science for A level. I think i am in that group too, i can do music and science very well too... Just my two cents.

languages and music seem to go together really well. quite a lot of people i know are talented in both areas.

i agree up to a large extend.
my science grade is hovering between an A and a B.
not v good compared to some of my straight-A science classmates.
hey!!
maybe musical people can be mathemathical and scientific too!!??

In my case there's no link. Maths has always been my weakest and least favourite subject, whereas music is my natural talent and ability and I've always been good at it.

Matt

The link is definitely there for me - I've got a degree in Pure Maths (which I just did for fun - toyed with the idea of being an accountant for about 2 seconds - too much work involved!) but since then have worked full time as a musician. I also used to work a lot with a bass player who had a degree in music but worked as an accountant!

> have worked full time as a musician.

when was that then?

For the 7 years before I had a child!

I think the music, maths, science link has become a rather large urban myth - although there are two professional string players I know of who also have maths degrees from Cambridge. Yes, I too have a degree in physics (myself and musician friend did it as a challenge), but both of us were (and still are) absolutely rubbish at maths and struggled through the first two years which contained seperate maths courses in addiion to the physics modules. I still don't really understand maths and I certainly can't use any of the techniques that were covered. It's just a jumble of symbols to me.

However, neither of us are un-intelligent either. We are both members of Mensa with IQs in excess of 150.

Being clever or intelligent is measureable in many different ways. Someone who is exceptionally good at maths or science doesn't make them a genius. A genius is made of far sterner stuff than brains alone.

Most scientitsts or mathematiciains that are also amateur musicians, tend to be rather wooden in their playing. It's very methodical and precise, but lacks a real musical feel - and their intonation can be duff too An exception to this rule could be ascribed to the late Nobel Physicist, Richard Feynman, who was frequently found in nightclubs, playing the bongos

hmm... well the music - language thing, maybe it's because music is a language *nods* so we're ALL bi-lingual here! science and music, well science and maths go together, and maths and music supposedly do.... im just making false connections. woo! go me *waves flag*

That's very interesting! I always thought I had a linear mind as I am more comfortable with questions where there is a definite answer (ie. maths and science usually). So I could never understand why I enjoyed composing, because I viewed creativity as a non-linear activity. That all makes sense now!

No. Dropped French and was kicked out of German after just six months because I was so rubbish at it. Subsequently tried Russian in the last few years and found it easier to learn a new alphabet with new sounds, than it was to try and ascribe new sounds to letters I already knew in English (as we have to for French, German etc.)

I agree with that. I am picking up Arabic with not too many problems though I learnt German for years and never got passed a basic standard. I think once you get past the initial problem of learning the new alphabet (and learning to read from right to left! ) it is then good because you have no other conceptions of what the letters should sound like, like you say!

I think mathematicians would beg to differ here. In maths an answer is right or wrong. In science (especially physics) our answers are based on existing knowledge of the laws of physics - a very grey area in a lot of cases. We may be able to prove things theoretically on paper using numbers (ie. what is supposed to happen), but sometimes there is no hard evidence or experimental data that can back it up.

Am I allowed to object to that?

Still; interesting thoughts . As Voltaire said 'Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.'

According to my distinctly hazy understanding of things, this highlights the difference between 'pure' maths, which is creative - inventing new forulae, that sort of thing - and 'applied' maths which is applying existing solutions.

Any mathematicians out there reading this and thinking, "Yeesh. Another plonker pontificating about that which he little understands" - please be gentle

Steve

I understand that. My point is that with English for instance, there are no right or wrong answers, it is a matter of expressing how you feel about something, etc. Even if the answers can't always be proved in science, there is still generally only one answer they are looking for, which just involves a lot of memorising. This is why I class science as a linear subject.



I do feel that is a bit of a broad generalisation!

Well I always got the best marks in music, maths, and physics, and many people in the university orchestras and wind band study maths or science. Lots of people in the community wind band are doctors, accountants and the like. Whether this is a connection or just co-incidence is still to be proved.

If only my teachers at school would have agreed to that. Music is a language, though not a spoken one. Understanding the dots, symbols and interpreting them using another voice in most cases.

Just my own personal expriences that make me say this. Others may have different experiences from which to draw on for their own conclusions.

Perhaps we sould be saying that it is those who are intellectually stimulated who develop musical skills in addition to academic ones. For those who are musical first and foremost, purely academic subjects are often daunting. I excelled at music and art (and scraped through a physics A level because so many of the concepts fascinated me). Decided that art would probably offer even less in the way of a stable income than music.

music and art, eh? well theyre creative.... so the links we've got are languages, science (but only physics it seems).. and maths. and maybe art now.... any more?

Sorry but this is too much the stereotype to let it pass. Thinking and doing research in science is a highly NONLINEAR activity....e.g. Which theory and known facts fit the situation you have in front of you? You need to be incredibly creative to get anywhere. What new theory do you need? What predictions does such a theory make? The big difference from say, english literature study is that there is always a "reality check"....your conclusion has to match reality. Maths at the level I teach it is as creative as science. I teach the kind of maths where there is no unique correct answer......In comparison with science, fiction is incredibly boring, it's just made up...

If you find that science is just memorisation, get a different teacher! Do you learn music just by regurgitating lots and lots of correct notes? That's the equivalent.....



Gosh, the old stereotypes of scientists being aliens-in-disguise/not-actually-human-enough-to-play-musically/mad/. Well, there is a famous quote of famous violinist telling Einstein, when they tried to play a duet together, "The problem is you can't count." So HE at least was not methodical *enough*. Different people play differently, and not everyone knows how to express themselves, and not everyone can hear themselves play, how they come across.......moreoever, what is considered "expressive" in one era is seen as overblown sentimentality in another...anway, it's important not to let prejudice be passed as the truth.

One of my friends did his dissertation on maths and music.
And the RCM and Imperial offer a joint degree in Physics and Music.

However, both my parents are professional musicians (my dad is a freelance London violinist and my mum is a principal with a major London orchestra so they're pretty good) and they're both absolutely awful at maths!

That reminds me: I thought of you and your experiences the other day. At the RSNO's concert on Saturday, they celebrated the fact that the leader of the orchestra has now held that position for 30 years... .

But, back to the original topic. Talking to an ex-'cellist from the BBC SSO, he originally started doing a physics degree at KCL before, as he put it, they told him to go and practice his 'cello elsewhere . I also know a (science) lecturer who did BMus MMus in performance at the RAM before an MSc and a science PhD. I've not heard them play, but I doubt the RAM would award an MMus to someone whose performance was wooden....

I strongly suspect that your inability to learn some languages was linked to the teacher involved - so frequently, people think that if you can speak a language, you can teach it. Ha! (or worse, that if you can speak a language that automatically makes you a translator....erm, no.) Chances are that your Russian teacher was just better than the French and German one.

I think it's interesting that you found it easier to learn something new rather than change the symbols you already knew, though - it ties in with current research into language learning that says we should learn a language blind (no recogniseable visual support) because that's the natural way to do it. Tying it to something you already know (your own alphabet) just invites catastrophe from the beginning. Interesting stuff.

Allan

I believe there is a relationship, but it the correlations are not symmetrical: I believe mathematically able people are likely to have greater musical competencies than the other way round. Why that might be is an interesting question, of course.

Anyway, here's one well-known figure practising his scales:

who is he? am i really stupid for not knowing?

Here's a clue:

haha.. i AM stupid. that doesnt look like einstein..... i didnt know he was all music-like!!! well thats my learnt thing for the day

I can't agree with you that this is the only difference between the science subjects and the english subjects. Different sciences vary drastically, so perhaps I should have stated that memorisation of facts is most prevalent in Biology, understanding of concepts is more important in the other two.

But let's be honest, no matter what you are proving, it has (virtually always) been proved before, whatever you are learning, it has been learnt and taught a hundred times before. Unless you are at the very forefront of science and technology, creating new formulas and discovering new elements, you are not breaking any new ground. I class this as linear!

Whenever you write an essay, write a piece of music, paint a picture or choreograph a dance, you are breaking new ground, so to speak. What you have done has never been done before as you have done it, there is no 'truth' about what it should or shouldn't be. I class this as non-linear

To pass my biology A-level, I found I had to memorise, memorise, memorise! After the concepts had been understood, the job was to remember Rhizobium, Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin, etc.

I would be interested to know which aspects of science you were referring to and what sort of maths you teach.

I agree that having a different alphabet is actually helpful. The number of people over the years who've been because I learned Russian and "It uses a different alphabet!!!"

By FAR the easiest thing about Russian is the alphabet


Very good point - language learning often stands or falls on the teaching - because it can and should be a lot of fun, but it's possible to make it deadly.

However I definitely think learning a new alphabet can make things easier.


True.


Actually it's possible to write an essay about literature or similar and mostly compare and contrast others' opinions and make your comments about their opinions, and get reasonable marks. I could never do it, but there were a few people who got reasonable marks in Lit modules at Uni by doing it. If one cannot be creative and have opinions about the literature, one can at least have opinions about others' opinions...

I'm just noting which way round they studied the subjects. The music came first followed by the science - so would I be right in thinking they were perhaps aiming initially at a career in music? I'd be interested to know what science subject they studied.

At the top level, yes, but 100,000 exam A-level exam essays on e.g. Shakespeare's King Lear will be as similar as 100,000 A-level Biology exam essays on the Human Genome..... My point was that badly taught school science should not be confused with the real thing. It's obvious that badly taught school music is not the real thing, but the same doesn't seem to be allowed for maths and science.



A good teacher of anything makes the concepts, their discovery, application, context and motivation for discovery, so interesting and involving that you remember without obvious effort at memorisation. My father taught me science, and more importantly, his endless fascination. I teach problem solving as a detective game... you are given the clues...Also, I teach my students to learn only *how* to remember, by which I mean, the starting point and the process involved. This way they get it right when (and not if) they have a different problem to analyse. And when they solve a new problem on their own, their enjoyment is immense: absolutely nothing replaces that key experience. As much as I want to help them, I have to refrain. I teach maths at university to PhD level, and do research myself.

I have thought quite alot about creativity in maths, where do the new theorems I prove come from, and the answer is, I really don't know. They bubble up seemingly by themselves. I get really interested in a topic, do lots of mathematical experiments, draw pictures and "meditate" ie clear my mind. It's definitely non-verbal. Sometimes the solution of some puzzle I just "know" without being able to articulate it at all, I then have to work quite hard to write it up for someone else to see the solution.

I started to play the piano to balance the maths, as I'm mildly obsessive, and maths for 15 hours a day is exhausting. As far as I can tell, music uses a quite different part of my brain than maths does. I couldn't do painting and drawing (my earlier obsessions) becauses it uses the same part, it just wasn't a relaxation. But learning to play piano is much more than relaxation, it's like suddenly discovering France exists after only knowing Germany (I'm not expressing myself very well, but I hope you get the idea)

Cheers