>My advice for any engineer wanting to get into music is, get an instrument and learn to play it. Preferably a non-electronic one, so you won't be tempted to tu

>My advice for any engineer wanting to get into music is, get an instrument and learn to play it. Preferably a non-electronic one, so you won't be tempted to turn music into a numbers game. Not debating your advice but just saying that some brains work differently. I play both guitar and piano and also know the "math numbers" of music theory and after decades of learning, I've concluded that the mechanical aspect of hands playing an instrument often limited my understanding of music while the numbers aspect always enhanced it. I was about 11 years old when I first learned about mathematical relationships of note frequencies from an computer programming book. So to make the computer's sound chip play a C Major arpeggio would be coding something like this in the BASIC language: 10 CALL SOUND (1000, 262, 0) 20 CALL SOUND (1000, 330, 0) 30 CALL SOUND (1000, 392, 0) 40 CALL SOUND (1000, 523, 0) ... where 262 stands for 262Hz of C4, 330Hz is E4, etc. The programming reference book would have a numbers chart similar to these: https://www.google.com/search?q=note+frequencies+chart&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=note+frequencies+chart&tbm=i... I've always liked knowing that octaves are 1/2x or 2x multipliers frequency. And the guitar frets spacing is a visual representation of the 2^(1/12) formula. And because a B1 is 61.7Hz, that's why a 60Hz hum of electricity sounds like a slightly flat low B. And math group theory perspective of chord constructions helped me see how Chopin piano voicings transformed in a coherent way. For people like me, I'd slightly reword your advice as "My advice for any engineer wanting to get into music [enjoyment feedback loop] is, get an instrument and learn to play it." If you're engineering-minded like me, the "systems" approach of the numbers behind the music explains it in a way that the fingers will not.