21 comment  view:21   blogger:0 view

  1. MisterrLi

    Pythagoras was wrong. But that's not so surprising, we have had a lot of time for musical theory after him. Musical intervals (and indeed simple tones) are too complex to analyze with simple models. Why? Because a tone is made up of not only one frequency, but many, just count all the intervals and rhythms and patterns one can find by removing a certain pattern of the waves in the tone. If one do this with two simultaneous tones, there are just too many patterns to keep track on, and three simultaneous tones generate even more possible combinations.
    Another important effect is the effect of experience: something we have heard, for example a tune, will not be sounding the same the next time we hear it due to memory effects. There are many perceptual effects that filters what we hear as well, and a theory should be recognizing these effects to be useful as well, if we want to be able to predict what we will hear from a musical stimulus.

  2. Jon Merladet

    Amaizing, jaw-dropping.

  3. angry bullfrog

    I have been producing music for 10 years. But also in things like fractals. I don't understand math at all. But this is amazing stuff. Do re mi fa so, meets fibonacci meets sick techno beats on mdma with fractal visuals beaming out of the warehouse projector. It all makes sense now 😀

  4. Edijs Lohijs

    you would probably enjoy a chat with adam neely 🙂

  5. Thananan Suwanpan

    I'm ok with 35/43

  6. John H

    Good video. However, I wish you would have connected the math to more audible musical examples.

  7. Luiz Henrique

    I'm a mathematical catastrophe

  8. pqnet

    Should you also point out that the (intrinsic) uncertainty in which you can determine the frequency of a sound is proportional with the inverse of the measurement time?

  9. shiv barr


  10. Mohamed Salah Bchir

    are we still talking about music?

  11. magtovi

    This comment comes years later, but here it goes. The sound of the notes is TOO quiet. It can't be heard.

  12. R Patidar

    Thanks for right timing😃

  13. Scott Kim

    Being a mathematician/musician I naturally clicked on this. I expected an all too familiar explanation of roots of 2 approximating 3/2, but was pleasantly surprised you went into new (to me) territory). Really hit a nerve: I hated measure theory in college because it's weirdness seemed so disconnected from giving me insight into things I care about. But here it is, understanding this infinite series does help my intuition around what intervals sound good. Furthermore, it helps give me intuition around the fact that there are qualitatively fewer rationals than irrationals…the Cantor diagonalization proof is convincing for verifying the truth of that fact, but does nothing for my intuition, whereas your explanation does. And of course the countability of rationals plays a key role in the proof.

  14. Ghyiakenchi

    When and where did you think about it? It is very beautifull but it seems (it may sound weird to say) useless, of course i can prove something very "small" with "big guns"

  15. Skwisgaar Skwigelf

    I wasn't expecting to find POLYRHYTHMS in this video 1:55

  16. smart sl

    繁中的最後一段翻譯:fractal dimension應該譯為“分形维数”,譬如“謝爾賓斯基三角形”這樣的分形,豪斯多夫維是log(3)/log(2)≈1.585

  17. Arswy

    I actually enjoyed the sound of 1093/826 haha.

  18. dTHE THEd

    @3Blue1Bronw – just dropping you a line to let you know that we recently published an album which theory is based also on this video. thanks for this incredible inspiration! here is the link:

  19. Anthony Katona

    This is one of my favorite videos but the voice quality is pretty miserable. It would be sweet if you could do a re-upload redubbed with your new mic

  20. Bougie

    i especially appreciate that this is actually composed nicely and isnt just nasty cold sine harmonics

  21. Cyrusislikeawsome

    35:43 was actually fire 😅

leave me a message

Copyright@Springever inc. © China All rights reserved.  

User login ⁄ Register