Author: kwloach

STEM is an acronym used in current education policy and curriculum – Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics – to address and stimulate a sector of education that is perceived to have been in decline for decades.

The exclusionary premise of STEM’s tech-only focus inspired the rise of the acronym STEAM – Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics – in an attempt to bring the study of the humanities (art, reading, writing, music, design, etc.) back into the educational spotlight. Websites such as STEM to STEAM (http://stemtosteam.org/) provide links to resources, press releases and case studies (for example, Sesame Street + STREAM and RSID Foundation Studies) in support of the movement.

The Arts & Science core curriculum has been the backbone of educational institutions and a well-rounded education requires study in both. It is not about choosing “arts or science” or “arts not science” or “science not art” and, although the STEM movement provided a much-needed rallying cry for an improvement in educational standards, perhaps a more inclusionary title might have been better received.

Studying the arts – literature, music, visual arts, etc. – introduces subjectivity (not just objectivity), abductive reasoning (not just deductive reasoning), and integrative thinking (not just linear thinking), and it is these qualities that provide the creative foundation for ‘engineers’ to succeed. The Integrative Thinking methodology inherent in artistic study provides an infrastructure that fosters the creative and analytical thought processes required in all aspects of life. Problem solving and critical thinking skills are developed and honed over time through the repeated application of creative thinking.

This is how study in the arts improves the potential success of study in the sciences.

The STEM versus STEAM argument may just be an exercise in semantics. However, we need both arts and science, and evidence shows that STEAM is best for improving the skills of creativity, problem solving and critical thinking.

Steve Wallace is awesome – string bass virtuoso, blogger extraordinaire, humble humanist, wit galore. Today we examine his left hand. It wanders, and in a good way.

It strays from the bass fingerboard the way Roberto Luongo strays from the net. Or the way Jacoby Ellsbury strays from first base. I have no idea who these people are, but Steve enjoys baseball and I thought that including a sports analogy here would be appropriate. Steve’s left hand likes to stray from the fingerboard to turn tuning pegs.

Depending on the piece, Steve will retune his strings 5 or 6 times per minute, deftly moving his hand from fingerboard to pegs in milliseconds. It is exciting to watch because his timing and taste are impeccable, and you almost want him to make a mistake, but he doesn’t. He never misses an entry – perfect notes, perfect rhythm, flawless performance.

So, why does he do it? My theory lies in physics. Not the conscious kind of physics requiring analysis and thought, but the kind of physics that thousands of hours and mountains of talent have transformed into something as natural as breathing.

Instruments tuned to equal temperament, such as the piano, can never be in tune with the natural harmonic series. By design, the intervals (5ths, 4ths, 3rds and 2nds) that lay between the tonics are arrived at mathematically to provide an equal distance between each semitone in the chromatic scale.

Wikipedia

The above staff illustrates a natural harmonic series from low C (1st harmonic) through high C (16th harmonic). The plus/minus figures above each harmonic represent the pitch deviation between equal temperament and the natural harmonic series. For example, harmonic number 5, representing the interval of a major 3rd above the tonic, resonates 14 cents below the equal temperament major 3rd. That is, if a piano is tuned to A=440 Hz, the major third above A in equal temperament would be C#=554 Hz. However, that same major 3rd in the natural harmonic series would be C#~550 Hz representing an almost ~1% deviation in pitch.

Why does this matter? Let’s say that Steve is playing a jazz standard in the key of Bb (such as One Note Samba or My Foolish Heart or 12 Bar Blues) and he chooses to play his open D string. If the piano is playing a root Bb chord, Steve’s D (the major 3rd) is 14 cents sharper than it should be. If the piano is playing a three chord (a D minor or D major), the note is exactly in tune. If the piano is playing a six chord (a G minor or a G major), the note is 2 cents flatter. When appropriate and more so in ballads than bebop, Steve will twist the tuning peg to make the open-string pitch work within the chord.

The open strings on an upright bass are the notes E, A, D and G. It is a monstrously cerebral exercise to calculate how the pitch of each open string can be represented in every chord in any given key signature. As a tune moves forward through its chord progression, finding a pitch compromise on the fly and making each note fit in the context of its root and inversion is almost impossible. Yet the best of the best do this for us, albeit sometimes unconsciously, and it is these micro-adjustments and attention to detail that elevate our appreciation of music.

Art isn’t easy.

I know that if I was to ask Steve to confirm this roaming, flying-fingerboard, pitch-theory he would say “What?” and with a confident smile shift the subject to the Toronto Blue Jays. Thank you, Steve Wallace, for doing what you do so very well.

http://wallacebass.com/