Math and Music: Howard Gardner

Philosopher Howard Gardner, author of "Frames of Mind," wrote the following
answer to a question on musical intelligence and mathematical intelligence in
his subsequent book "Multiple Intelligences" (p. 42) --Interesting, No?
Johnny Reinhard

What about the often noted question between mathematical and musical
intelligences?

"People who are mathematically talented often show considerable interest in
music; perhaps this is because music presents itself as an extremely fertile
field for the mathematical mind, which is fascinated by patterns of any sort.
But musicians to whom I have spoken maintain that a mathematician's
interest in music does not necessarily amount to genuine musicality--for
example, knowing how to perform a piece of music to bring out its deeper
structures or its contrasting moods. One must be cautious, then, abut
confusing interest with expertise; it may just be an interest in music that
is correlated with mathematical intelligence. Note, too, that musicians are
not particularly associated with an interest in mathematics (any more than,
say, with dance or with foreign languages), rather, it is the mathematicians
(and other scientists) who seem to be attracted to music."

Howard Gardner

> From: <Afmmjr@aol.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 11:40 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Math and Music: Howard Gardner
>
>
> Philosopher Howard Gardner, author of "Frames of Mind,"
> ...
> ... Note, too, that musicians are not particularly associated
> with an interest in mathematics (any more than, say, with dance
> or with foreign languages), rather, it is the mathematicians
> (and other scientists) who seem to be attracted to music."

Well ... here's the evidence that it *does* work the other
way around, too! I certainly used to be much more interested
and involved in actual music-making than I am now, because I've
been seduced into the theory of it all, and find the math
fascinating (as I struggle to understand it).

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:

> One must be cautious, then, abut
> confusing interest with expertise; it may just be an interest in
>music that
> is correlated with mathematical intelligence.

Agreed 100%. Expertise in any area means not just interest but a
lifelong active occupation in said area, and a consistent challenging
of oneself to greater heights of acheivement. Both music and
mathematics are so variegated that no one on earth could be
considered an expert in all fields of music, or in all fields of math.

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

>Both music and
> mathematics are so variegated that no one on earth could be
> considered an expert in all fields of music, or in all fields of math.

I think Mozart has a pretty good claim to a sort of universal expertise in the music of his time. In 1900 David Hilbert gave the most famous mathematical speech on record to the International Congress of Mathematicians; he proposed problems for the future to solve. At that time probably *only* Hilbert had a good enough grasp of all of mathematics to have done this, and by the time he died no one could do it. When 2000 rolled around, no one was foolish enough to try.

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> >Both music and
> > mathematics are so variegated that no one on earth could be
> > considered an expert in all fields of music, or in all fields of
math.
>
> I think Mozart has a pretty good claim to a sort of universal
>expertise in the music of his time.

That's a rather Eurocentric claim.

>In 1900 David Hilbert gave the most famous mathematical speech on
>record to the International Congress of Mathematicians; he proposed
>problems for the future to solve. At that time probably *only*
>Hilbert had a good enough grasp of all of mathematics to have done
>this, and by the time he died no one could do it. When 2000 rolled
>around, no one was foolish enough to try.

Good!

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

> That's a rather Eurocentric claim.

It's the 18th century--it has to be somewhere-centric. Taking a purely Eurocentric point of view, what do you think of the claim?