Bill1 said:
Playing music is about culture and enjoyment, not science.
I agree that the art of playing music is about culture and enjoyment. However, many things about it can be analysed and explained by science. In fact, why do some notes soind good together, whole others don't in music? There's a whole science behind that too.
When I play my ukulele, I am not doing science. I am doing an art (or at least an attempt to do so).
But my awareness of reality does not suddenly disappear. I know that sound is generated by the vibration of the strings at certain frequencies that resonate within the body of the instrument and project out. I know that luthiers have mastered their art through centuries of trial&error to develop tested methods of making good instruments. The fact that the luthiers are sticking to certain methods and order, rather than random chaos when making a good instrument shows that scientific concepts are at play.
The study of making music and making instruments is both art and science.
The example of a Cello being played in incorrectly by a beginner is an interesting thing to discuss. If you have no idea what is happening inside the cello, how can you have a logical or common sense approach to discussing what is happening inside the cello? How would you know what is logical or not? The science of the cello has not been fully explored yet, even though it has been around for so long, there is no equation to model its behaviour. Cello makers seem to use 100s of years of experience instead of a scientific design model to design, build and test Cellos. Sure the larger dimensions of size are determined relatively easily by the range of frequencies generated, but the fine tuning of the sound is still learned from experience, not science. There are only theories and you may have a belief, but at one stage people believed the earth was flat as well. Maybe you can get the front panel and excite it when its not fitted to the cello and test it a to single frequency, but logically when the cello is belting out Bach's Cello Suite you have around 70 shaped pieces of wood glued together, it is generating multiple frequencies and harmonics and logically the tension of the strings is changing with every beat, so logically its very hard to model. So logically most theories are not at a stage where they can be turned into engineered designs yet. Which is why a person who is a professional musician, trained to play and teach Cello, would base advice to students on things learned from experience, rather than a mathematical equation or unproven theory or belief system. In the example given, the professional cello player is probably giving excellent advice by advising a beginner not to buy a $25,000 instrument. If the beginner is stupid enough to ignore or question such good advice, they deserve to be ripped off.
The process of cello makers discovering what works and what doesn't work in instrument making is, while not a pure science, uses a scientific method.
Luthiers are seen as craftsmen, artists - but a lot of scientific theory also goes into the craft of instrument making. When an instrument sounds good, there is a reason why does that can be looked at scientifically to an extent. The cluster of knowledge luthiers gain with collective experience marry science and artform of making good instruments. It is possible to make a scientific analysis between a well made instrument and a badly made one.
Furthermore, one does not need to be a master luthier or cellist to understand that it's made of solid pieces of aged wood and that sound is produced when strings are vibrated across it.
It's basic science to understand that physical vibrations caused by playing does not align wood molecules into a better sounding instrument.
That's like saying only certified electrical engineers understand why a lightbulb switches on when you flip the switch.
Someone with basic understanding of electricity and physics can explain basic circuits and the conversion of electron movement into other forms of energy.
At the very least, I wouldn't be the one saying that it lights up due to "magic".
Likewise, while I'm not a luthier, I understand the physics behind the forces and materials at play. There's no scientific mechanism by which playing an instrument inherently improves the sound.
If you own a Cello you can work it out for yourself, you do not need to get involve in social media arguments about what "science" is. You can just borrow or buy a bluetooth speaker, find some CDs of fine player like Yo Yo Ma, and put your device on loop, turn it up loud and put the speaker on the Cello and leave it for a while and see what happens. The question to answer is whether your musical experience is improved, the scientific explanation is as important as learning the equations for equal temperament. If you have loved your music for 20 years without ever learning how to spell temperament, or the Equal Temperament equations, the science of how the vibrations change or don't change the sound sound of your cello is even less important compared to how much it improves your musical experience. Maybe if you do have a choice of cellos, don't do the experiment on the one thats worth $25K if you are not sure of the outcome yet.
So again I suggest, try it out for yourself. Find out if it works for you. Own your own musical experience and avoid allowing social media to tell you what to think all the time. Explore your musical world yourself.
Again, as per my previous post there are multiple plausible explanations why some people may perceive that their instrument has improved after playing/vibrating it with soundwaves.
-Placebo/psychological expectations
-Player familiarity with instrument
-Changes to the instrument over time (oxidation, wearing down of finish, changes in glue, wood drying, environmental conditions, state of the strings)