Does music 'advance', as science is said to?

Authors Avatar

Matthew Ashford

Does music ‘advance’, as science is said to?

Advances have taken place in both science and music, but are these advances comparable in meaning? Science is defined in the dictionary as: ‘the systematic study and knowledge of natural or physical phenomena’, and art is defined as: ‘Creation of works of beauty. Non-scientific branches of knowledge’. Between them, art and science are the two categories that all human knowledge can be put into. A ‘scientific advance’ and an ‘artistic advance’ are, however, two very different things. Scientific advance involves an improvement from one thing to another that is known to be better. Artistic advance incorporates old ideas to form new ones and an advance in any art form cannot ever be seen to be ‘better’ than before, usually only coming about because of a change in taste, ideas etc. For example, when a new form of treatment for a disease is discovered, the old methods for treating it will not be used any more and the newer, more effective treatment is seen to be better than the old one. Advancement in art cannot involve any idea being ‘better’ than the other, because the ideas have nothing to be better than! All forms of art express an emotion of some kind, and no emotion is ‘better’ than any other.

Music certainly changes a lot, but can these changes be seen as ‘advances’? From the baroque period right up to present day pop, music has advanced rhythmically, melodically, and technologically, but only the latter of these three in the same way science has. Advances in the ways music has been created over the years have been mainly due to advances in the public’s tastes, views and beliefs over the same period. The most ‘advanced’ art at any one time could, therefore, be seen as the means of expression deemed most popular or suitable at the time. Electronic music, or music that uses technology to produce its sounds, rhythm etc. is one area of music where advances (in the scientific sense of the word) take place. New inventions such as the synthesiser can produce sounds never heard before, and improvements in recording, editing and sound quality have led to new methods of music production being created. I would argue, however, that the application and creation of these aspects of music is scientific. True, to create melodies and rhythms using these new inventions is artistic, but then the melodies and rhythms created will not be more ‘advanced’ then any before them, just the way they sound will be. The same is true of all advancements (in the scientific sense of the word) in art. In a scientific sense of the word ‘advanced’, the most advanced music would be the music that incorporated the most up-to-date technology in its creation. But the scientific use of the word ‘advanced’ is not appropriate when describing advances in art. These advances are advances in the culture, morals and beliefs of the public.

Join now!

If advances in art are only changes in culture, ideas, etc. then the most ‘advanced’ art at any one time would be that which was most concurrent with these ideas, morals etc. This would make popular music the most ‘advanced’ music of any time, because it is the most elastic of all genres, bending and changing it’s image and sound in accordance with the public’s views, belief’s etc. Popular, or ‘pop’ music is created with the specific task to attract as many listeners as possible. The principal criticism launched against ‘mass’ or popular culture with increasing vigour after 1945 was ...

This is a preview of the whole essay