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.

Scientific advance and musical advance are very

different, but the two are very closely linked. It can be seen from

looking at undeveloped civilisations that the advancement of art

relies on the advancement of science and technology. Developing

countries approach to art is usually very narrow, focusing mainly on

food and gods. Science represents the main opposition to religious

study and if developing countries were scientifically and

technologically advanced, it would be very unlikely that their music

would still focus on the same things.

Scientific and technological advances provide new materials, methods

etc. to artists, who may or may not incorporate them in their work.

Musical advances are due to advances in the public's tastes, views and

beliefs over the same period, and should be seen more as 'changes',

not 'advances'. Because of the inherent individualistic and

self-expressive nature of music, a change in any part of it cannot be

seen as an advance or an improvement, only as a new method of

expression, not better or worse than the one's before or after it. A

scientific advance, however, most often involves a discernible

improvement from one idea to another, the old being replaced by the

new. No such replacement occurs in music, with the old being

incorporated into the new. The deliberate and calculated form of

advancement that occurs in science (research, experiments etc.) is

another difference between the two, with changes in music coming about

because of changes in society (culture, morals etc.) and not

deliberate decisions about what to create.

Both music and science advance, but they do so in different ways.

Nonetheless, both the arts and science are closely linked, as is their

advancement, and a lack of progress in one will ensure similar results

in the other.