Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Proof that classical music is superior to every other genre

This is among the craziest things I've ever heard. And regardless of Mozarts supposed adherence to some mathematical formula, his music bores me.

I expect if you looked for many other patterns in music you could find them too.

His music can bore you all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that dozens of his works adhere to the number that makes the world go round. And you're right, listen to most rock songs and you'll see a pattern of the exact riff being used throughout the song, and with punk the same pattern exists in almost every song! They all say cops suck and booze rules.

Whatever... can anyone say "arrogance"?

I was once waiting for my Chinese take out and a customer walks in, sees my music books (I was on my way home from my lesson) and states, without provocation, "You know... jazz is most superior to classical music."

The guy was a jerk. I never once asked him for his opinion, and here he was pronouncing judgements!!!

No. no. no. Music does not need judgements. Whatever genre it is, it is legitimate.

It's like the coin saying "You know... heads is better than tails."

Yeeeaaaah. Like the coin would be anything without either of them!! Get real.

It's fine for heads to say "Heads are better than tails." and for tails to say "Tails are better than heads." But for the coin, heads and tails are the best!!

An interesting take. I agree with you that music doesn't need judgements. All genres of music has value to someone, somewhere. All I'm saying is that even if I believed Mozart is trash, I couldn't deny that it is beautiful due to its consistency with the Universe's definition of beauty. I'm not trying to invalidate every other genre, just demonstrate how it is the only one that literally has natural beauty running through its very notes.

The Universe's definition of beauty?

1. I don't have much to say on your first point.

2. Facts may be correct, but the conclusions that come from them are not necessarily correct. There may be many instances of that Golden Ratio in music, but as someone said earlier, with a large enough sample size you can find many patterns. Even if this isn't the case, to equate a ratio with beauty may not be correct. what makes something beautiful (or ugly) seems a bit too subjective to equate entirely on one criterion being the Golden Ratio.

3. Yes, you didn't not produce this proof, but after reading the article, i would argue that this isn't even proof in the first place. In the investigation described in the article it appears that only Mozart is investigated. What about the other classical composers? It also appears that only piano sonatas were looked at. What about piano concertos, or other types of pieces? The article also does not seem to equate the occurance of the golden ratio with superiority or beauty of the music as you did. Even the person who did the study, Putz, acknowledges the "considerable variation in tha data" so this seems far from an absolute proof. This may be considered evidence, but even so, a large variation in the data (from not a very good sample in my opinion) doesn't make this very good evidence. One might be able to draw a correlation to this and Mozart's music, but even so, only his piano sonatas as it seems that was all that was examined.

On another note, i want to disagree with your comment that the sky being blue is a fact. The sky is only sometimes blue. During a sunset for example it goes that beautiful combination of oranges and reds as well as some other colours. At night the sky is quite black.


Perhaps better evidence for Classical music being superior is the fact that it is still being played today and has been listened to longer than the musicans of todays rock, rap, techno, pop, etc music have been alive. I am sure people can agree that if something has been listened to for over 200 years, it at least can't be bad and must be good in some respects.

To look at one study that even then only looked at one composer and only one type of music and call that proof doesn't seem right. The article itself didn't even call it proof. I am not saying your hypothesis that classical music is superior to every other genre, but i wouldn't call this proof...perhaps support for the hypothesis, which can be used with other evidence to eventually form a proof.

Yep. The same ratio of genders that bees use in their hives to maintain balance, is the same EXACT ratio that human faces use to attain attractiveness. That ain't a coincidence. I suppose you could attribute this definition to God, Mother Nature, the Universe or whatever your religion dictates...but humankind sure as heck didn't come up with this number.

Derekrs:

I understand your perspective and appreciate the way you disagreed with me. I did however use the sky being blue as an example. I could have easily used the grass being green instead, but that only stands true while it is alive and well (and it hasn't been painted :p ). Also, I want you to know that I used that one article as an example. When I decided to post my findings with such a controversial subject headline, I knew I would face public outcry and dissent. I googled "divine proportion Mozart" right quick so I would have an article to back my bold statements with.

oops.

This coming from someone who lives in California...or at least claims to. And where do you suppose it is that I live? I assume you've probably checked my profile, and were commenting based on that. I'd also have to presume you've lived in Philadelphia for a number of years to make that sort of comment...or are you again speaking outside your experience?

You are equating a fact to a theory. The "golden number" is a number. This is a fact. In many cases, classical music closely correlates to it. This is also a fact. Beyond that, you are interpolating. Please, do try not to confuse that, won't you?

You passed along an opinion, not a proof.

Bernard- Thank you. Those were beautiful words.

Yet, you judge....

This is an opinion, not a fact.

Exactly....

You're done. Your disrespectful and clumsy ways of twisting my words and misinterpreting my statements have worn me out. I do not feel I need to prove my home state to someone who claims to have memorized the 3rd movement of the "Moonlight" sonata in four days without a piano.

On a sidenote for the moderators, is there an ignore feature or a way of blocking members from posting on threads I've started? I'd like to continue this discussion with coherent posters.

Does she ever just "walk" as you put it???
:p

Anyone who's taken a couple semesters of calculus knows that the most common number in nature is e. I say we make all our music based off that number since apparently, this is how one gets beauty. (silly me, I thought it had to do with good melodies, harmonies, clever use of form and motives etc. Boy do I feel dumb.)

No need to be sarcastic, I see where you're coming from. Those qualities you mention are definitely vital to a good piece of music. The problem is that those qualities can be found in pretty much every good piece of music for every genre. Classical's the only one that ups the ante by lacing the Golden Ratio into its DNA, hence its beauty. (The most common number may be e, but the most beautiful is Phi).

Classical music does not have DNA; the Golden Ratio does not crop up anywhere in it; the assumption that it does comes from only one crudely devised example using a gross approximation; the assumption that other music does not is stated without examination, let alone proof; the Golden Ratio is only part of one now-declined culture's "standard" of beauty, and only for visual beauty at that.

The most common number in nature is zero, followed by one. If you restrict yourself to the irrational numbers, after square and other roots comes ? (pi) as the most common.

Tell you what, we'll have a contest. I'll come up with as many books, magazine articles, and scientific journals citing the appearance of the Golden Ratio in classical music's DNA (that's a metaphor by the way) and you do the same for every other genre. We'll see who comes out on top.

I have a better idea. Come up with one article that explains how the exact Golden Ratio could appear in any way in any music. No approximations, it has to be the exact ratio. You can even write one yourself.

I outlined a great example in my first post. I suppose I could do some google work and fill up 10 pages worth of links backing me up, but I don't think Frank would appreciate that too much.

No, you didn't. I said "No approximations." It has to be exact. Not even to 10,000 decimal places. Exact.

Just explain it. One explanation, not a page of google search results. It's math. If it's there, it should be easy to explain.

Many years ago, someone around here wrote about a pile of crutches near a religious shrine, and said someone had written a sign and placed it nearby: "One artificial leg would be sufficient." The same principle goes here.

Why does it have to be exact? Jenny McCarthy's face doesn't fit the Golden Ratio exactly. That doesn't mean she isn't absolutely hot, it just means she isn't mathematically perfect looking. Same thing with music. Mozart's first sonata isn't PERFECT, it's just extremely beautiful. And I'm not sure what you mean about math being easy to explain...but there's a reason people spend years studying calculus.

I know how we can solve this. You can list the most beautiful pieces which are based off the Golden Ratio(which is a visual thing, not an aural idea.) The rest of us can then show you there are pieces just as beautiful without it.