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.