Is it mathematically possible to run out of music?

[Lestat]

I'd have to say the answer is no, but I'm not a mathematician. When you really think about it....

There are only 8 notes in a scale with varying 1/2 tones of sharps and flats. Of course, there are many octaves, but only so many notes within. You certainly have a finite number of chords within each scale. But then there is timing...

There must be a gajillion ways ways that notes or chords can be strung together from a percussionary standpoint. Just using two notes and varying the staccato, timing, and sustaining, you could create two completely different (albeit simple), songs.

Then you have crescendo or how loud and soft all the different notes can be played. Not to mention a variety of different instruments, each which can create it's own unique sound for each note.

The bottom line is, I don't think we'll ever run out of new music. But something about that strikes me as strange. From a pure mathematical standpoint, it seems we should eventually.

Extra credit:

What role does music play in our evolutionary development? How did our minds come to discover, understand, create, and eventually come to appreciate such a seemingly useless endeavor (from a practical standpoint), such as music? What if any, survival benefit did our ancestors gain from music? If the answer is none, then why did we devolop a musical sense? Does music play a role in any other species?

[theblackkeys]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd have to say the answer is no, but I'm not a mathematician. When you really think about it....

There are only 8 notes in a scale with varying 1/2 tones of sharps and flats. Of course, there are many octaves, but only so many notes within. You certainly have a finite number of chords within each scale. But then there is timing...

[/ QUOTE ]
The western 12-note scale is not the only scale used throughout the world. There are an infinite amount of possible frequencies to choose from as well.


[ QUOTE ]

What role does music play in our evolutionary development? How did our minds come to discover, understand, create, and eventually come to appreciate such a seemingly useless endeavor (from a practical standpoint), such as music? What if any, survival benefit did our ancestors gain from music? If the answer is none, then why did we devolop a musical sense? Does music play a role in any other species?

[/ QUOTE ]
It probably has a lot to do with language development/communication. Also, hands.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> The western 12-note scale is not the only scale used throughout the world. There are an infinite amount of possible frequencies to choose from as well. </font>

Not to quibble, but it's surely not infinite as the human ear is quite limited among a small frequency range.

[peritonlogon]

It is not mathematically possible to run out of music, but less because of the tones and more because of the rhythm. You can divide any lenght of time in an infinite number of ways, you could even use the same note.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> The western 12-note scale is not the only scale used throughout the world. There are an infinite amount of possible frequencies to choose from as well. </font>

Not to quibble, but it's surely not infinite as the human ear is quite limited among a small frequency range.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wouldn't really matter how small the frequency range was if it was continuous...but I don't think it is, so your point is valid. There is some limit to the revolving power of our hearing, so there is definitely a finite, restricted set of frequencies to choose from.

[CityFan]

Mathematically speaking?

Well, suppose we limit ourselves to a set length of time, like five minutes. The human ear can only distinguish frequencies within a certain range, and only discern differences in (relative) volume beyond a certain threshhold. If you know anything about Fourier analysis, you'll see that those two facts imply there are only a finite number of soundwaves of a given length that the human ear can distinguish between.

Another way of looking at it: Suppose any two pieces of music that would be distinguishable to the human ear would be recorded differently on a CD, i.e. CDs record at a higher fidelity than the ear can detect. If not, then imagine increasing the quality of CD recording to a point where that were true.

Then, since there are only a finite number of patterns of ones and zeros of a given length, the number of possible recordings is finite.


Still, the number is so large we needn't worry about it...

[fnord_too]

Lestat,

The concept you are looking for is called countably infinite. Take the natural numbers (strictly positive integers, i.e. 1, 2, 3...) for instance. They are countably infinite. They are discrete, but you never run out of them. Contrast this to the real numbers, they are uncoutably infinite. (This is a hard concept to convey in a paragraph or two.) At any rate, music is discrete, but also infinite.

Or, since time is supposedly continuous, you could argue that music is uncountably infinite. For example, you can hold middle C for an arbitray amount of time. If holding it for 1 second is a different song than holding it for 2 seconds or pi seconds, you have an uncountably infinite number of songs, though physics may prevent playing precisely or being able to dicern the differences between any given two.

[CityFan]

Yeah but if music is discrete in the way you argue, then we are relying on infinitely long songs for music to be infinite.

That'd be like playing Mozart's Requiem, then something else on the end, and calling it a new piece.

[jogsxyz]

Not to worry, will run out of titles before running out of music.

[FortunaMaximus]

Thought about this one. Interesting from my POV.

Would seem it is possible to construct an infinite, non-repeating song. As for whether it would be real music to human ears, and whether every moment could be perceived, even...

Not everything is music. So it's possible to have an infinite set. The end result would be a lot of disharmonious stretches, perceptually. A 10,000 year span of nails on a chalkboard, pails dragged across asphalt, etc. would be painful to sit through, I'd imagine.

[Skoob]

[ QUOTE ]
Extra credit:

What role does music play in our evolutionary development? How did our minds come to discover, understand, create, and eventually come to appreciate such a seemingly useless endeavor (from a practical standpoint), such as music? What if any, survival benefit did our ancestors gain from music? If the answer is none, then why did we devolop a musical sense? Does music play a role in any other species?

[/ QUOTE ]

Music has practical value. It relieves stress, bonds relationships, and helps establish culture. Humans require "downtime" to survive. It's common knowledge that stress can lead to a variety of terminal illnesses.

Music was the first form of entertainment. It doesn't seem all that "necessary" any more because there's a bazillion forms of entertainment now. Take music away (but please don't) and humans still have other ways to relieve stress and relax.

Most other species don't use music because they don't posses the cognitive and/or physicial capacity to create music. Though much isn't known about whale and dolphin song. It is understood that they communicate with each other but it's not known to what degree. It's possible they could be singing to each other to soothe and/or console themselves.

Consequently, I heard a story just yesterday that some dolphins were taught to "sing" the theme to Batman.

[valenzuela]

Of course its mathematically possible to run out of music.
Just like its mathematically possible to run out of books.

[mudbuddha]

u can run out of books?

[Bill Haywood]

Even if there's a finite number of 5 minutes songs, we can only hear a tiny fraction in our lifetime, I would bet. So don't worry about running out. But then if you allow Weird Al to do cover versions, it would have to be infinite.

Evolution and music: one thing I've been thinking about lately is that musical phrasing is reminiscent of verbal sentences. A sentence is of comparable length to a musical passage. Syllables come at a rate roughly comparable to musical notes (they are within same ball park). In order for sound to carry information, it must be modulated, that is, interrupted with patterns of pauses, pitch changes, etc.

So if music and language had different origins and purposes, they would be more different. Songs might be as fast as a buzz saw, or slower than an hour glass. The length of a musical passage might be a full page or paragraph, rather than on a one-sentence scale. A pleasant sound might be a continuous tone, rather than one modulated into syllables and words.

So this supports the idea that our capacity for music is a side benefit of the language organ.

[CPFB]

additional things to think about here...

Individual Performances
Are different performances of a work "distinct" or are they the same. For example, is tonight's Chicago Symphony performance of the Gershwin Piano Concerto the same music as tomorrow night's performance of the same work? They are certainly distinct as maestro Jarvi will not conduct things exactly the same both nights, but the music is essentially the same during both performances.

Performance Practice
Today's modern instruments perform the music of the 17th and 18th centuries much differently than the instruments of the time. Does this mean that a performance of a Mozart symphony in the 1780s is a different piece of music than the same work performed by a modern orchestra? Certainly it's the same "mathematical equation" (i.e. score), but the performances would be very, very different.

I guess the question is "How do we define music?"



[ QUOTE ]


The concept you are looking for is called countably infinite. Take the natural numbers (strictly positive integers, i.e. 1, 2, 3...) for instance. They are countably infinite. They are discrete, but you never run out of them. Contrast this to the real numbers, they are uncoutably infinite. (This is a hard concept to convey in a paragraph or two.) At any rate, music is discrete, but also infinite.

Or, since time is supposedly continuous, you could argue that music is uncountably infinite. For example, you can hold middle C for an arbitray amount of time. If holding it for 1 second is a different song than holding it for 2 seconds or pi seconds, you have an uncountably infinite number of songs, though physics may prevent playing precisely or being able to dicern the differences between any given two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can we have it both ways? It sounds like you're saying that it's possible for music to be both countably infinite and uncountably infinite. I would argue that since you can't put a time limit on the length of music theoretically (not true in actual practice. The audience won't sit through it.) that music would be uncountably infinite.

[ QUOTE ]
Thought about this one. Interesting from my POV.

Would seem it is possible to construct an infinite, non-repeating song. As for whether it would be real music to human ears, and whether every moment could be perceived, even...

Not everything is music. So it's possible to have an infinite set. The end result would be a lot of disharmonious stretches, perceptually. A 10,000 year span of nails on a chalkboard, pails dragged across asphalt, etc. would be painful to sit through, I'd imagine.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. Not every sound ever heard by man, ever can be considered music. There is a difference between noise and music. However if extraneous sounds from the world are organized in a logical progression, one can argue that they can be considered under the genre of music.

Sorry to babble on. I hope that this contributes to the current discussion. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[andyfox]

No. One more note can always be added.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
No. One more note can always be added.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. I know what pi feels and looks like. And it continually grows. So even a two-dimensional circle has depth.

I'm not sure if that makes logical sense, but very little does for me when it comes to mathematics.

[madnak]

You can't run out of music in theory. But perhaps there's only so much music a human being can possibly appreciate, if we take into account life span, discrete nature of sound processing, etc...

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No. One more note can always be added.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. I know what pi feels and looks like. And it continually grows. So even a two-dimensional circle has depth.

I'm not sure if that makes logical sense, but very little does for me when it comes to mathematics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sort of. You're talking about number theory. Which gets crazy.

For each rational number or irrational number that we can symbolically represent, in fact, for each element in the set of all numbers humans can express or understand, there are an infinite number of irrationals that can't be expressed in any way.

[FortunaMaximus]

Except irrationally. Yeah, I'm aware.

And it creates some serious perceptual issues sometimes, but you know what, it's easier to deal with after awhile. Still a pisser though.

[theblackkeys]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> The western 12-note scale is not the only scale used throughout the world. There are an infinite amount of possible frequencies to choose from as well. </font>

Not to quibble, but it's surely not infinite as the human ear is quite limited among a small frequency range.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe I don't understand sound waves well, but I believe they are continuous, not discrete.

Just like there are an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, there are an infinite amount of frequencies in our range of hearing.

EDIT: vhawk, can you please link me to some information regarding the discreteness of sound waves?

Anyways, I left out rhythm in my argument, because I thought my argument was sufficient. Rhythm can be varied infinitely as well.

[FortunaMaximus]

Because it's slightly flawed.

Um, I think so anyway, they'd be repeating double-helix finites in a seemingly infinite set. It wouldn't take an infinite amount of time to repeat a rhythm.

However, the sequencing of the rhythms would be effectively infinite...

Such an subtle difference, and I have to allow for a margin of error here. Discordonant rhythms. They may cancel each other out, making infinite permutations.

[theblackkeys]

[ QUOTE ]
Because it's slightly flawed.

Um, I think so anyway, they'd be repeating double-helix finites in a seemingly infinite set. It wouldn't take an infinite amount of time to repeat a rhythm.

However, the sequencing of the rhythms would be effectively infinite...

Such an subtle difference, and I have to allow for a margin of error here. Discordonant rhythms. They may cancel each other out, making infinite permutations.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea what this means?? /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[FortunaMaximus]

A rhythm is effectively a closed sequence. A single one anyway.

[oneeye13]

no more than it is possible to run out of silly hypotheticals

[madnak]

I think sound waves are continuous, sort of. But at the same time, they move through matter - they pretty much are movement of discrete units of matter. More importantly, the human ear is limited, or specifically the human brain. The human brain can't measure a frequency to an arbitrary degree of precision.

[halt i am reptar]

[ QUOTE ]
What role does music play in our evolutionary development? How did our minds come to discover, understand, create, and eventually come to appreciate such a seemingly useless endeavor (from a practical standpoint), such as music? What if any, survival benefit did our ancestors gain from music?

[/ QUOTE ]

We actually just learned about this in my Music and Language class...
There are, very generally speaking, two theories-

1. Darwin believed that music preceded language. A main point of his was that, as evidenced in other species, song was probably first used for sexual selection. He asserted music as the most primal form of expression.

2. Herbert Spencer, Darwin's contemporary, argued that language came first and that music is actually the most highly evolved art form. Spencer said that musical vocal sounds occured as a result of intense feelings causing muscle contractions. A more modern guy named Bernstein also aruges this point, saying that music is just a form of speech, heightened by emotion. Without language, vocal music would not have a medium to be expressed.

I tend to believe music came first, but I don't think it really matters. Also, a new guy named Mithon believes music and language spawned from a common ancestor. I guess a sort of cooing language. Does anyone else get insecure when they actually go out on a limb and post?

[Lestat]

Interesting. But I also wouldn't be surprised if musical instruments preceded both language and singing. Some type of percussion certainly had to have developed before spoken language. Not sure if came before some type of vocalized chant, but I wouldn't be too suprised to learn that it did.

[Misfire]

I suppose if you consider the limits of human hearing, you could conclude that there is a finite number of combinations you could form in 5 minutes segments of music. However, this is like concluding that there is a finite number of images that can be displayed on your computer screen. The number is large enough that there's no practical purpose for considering it limited.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
What if any, survival benefit did our ancestors gain from music? If the answer is none, then why did we devolop a musical sense? Does music play a role in any other species?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ayn Rand wrote about the necessity of art (including music) in The Romantic Manifesto. I'm too tired (and stupid) to sum up her points, but it's an interesting read.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">However, this is like concluding that there is a finite number of images that can be displayed on your computer screen. The number is large enough that there's no practical purpose for considering it limited </font>

I agree, but I think there is a difference between "can be displayed" and "can be created". How many different "unique" pictures do you think the entire human race from all of time can draw (create), without any two being considered a bit too similar to be truly original?

The thread got a little lost in notes lasting infinite amounts of time, etc. Technically, that's correct and my fault for not being more specific. I didn't mean music, I meant songs... Songs must be somewhat enjoyable for a specified taste and obviously can't go on forever without becoming unreasonable to listen to.

[theblackkeys]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. But I also wouldn't be surprised if musical instruments preceded both language and singing. Some type of percussion certainly had to have developed before spoken language. Not sure if came before some type of vocalized chant, but I wouldn't be too suprised to learn that it did.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you think this? Curious. My opinion is that rhythm is the most important aspect of music. The evidence for this is the enormous popularity of dance music, starting with boogie woogie, rhythm and blues (not r&amp;b), rock and roll, funk, disco, hip hop. Moving and shaking is fun, and I think it creates a response in the listener unlike some classical music that is less focused on rhythm.

I have no idea if music or language came first. I don't know HOW one would make an argument for this. Is there evidence for it? Someone enlighten me.

[Lestat]

I can envision where our ancestors would make noise by pounding sticks, bones, and rocks together. Perhaps as an attention getting device at first (both friendly and threatening). And later developing specific recognizable beats that would let those out of sight know who was calling them, looking for them, or warning them, etc.

Perhaps while practicing, developing, and sychronizing these beats at day's end around a fire, they came up with more intricate rhythms, which eventually led to dances and rituals, etc. This all could've occured before the development of language.

Of course, I'm talking out of my you-know-what here. I just think it's fun to speculate about early man.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">However, this is like concluding that there is a finite number of images that can be displayed on your computer screen. The number is large enough that there's no practical purpose for considering it limited </font>

I agree, but I think there is a difference between "can be displayed" and "can be created". How many different "unique" pictures do you think the entire human race from all of time can draw (create), without any two being considered a bit too similar to be truly original?

The thread got a little lost in notes lasting infinite amounts of time, etc. Technically, that's correct and my fault for not being more specific. I didn't mean music, I meant songs... Songs must be somewhat enjoyable for a specified taste and obviously can't go on forever without becoming unreasonable to listen to.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case it's definitely finite.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah but if music is discrete in the way you argue, then we are relying on infinitely long songs for music to be infinite.

That'd be like playing Mozart's Requiem, then something else on the end, and calling it a new piece.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you can just make the note lengths rational amounts of time and have countably infinite songs in any song length. (The rationals are countably infinite, how many rational numbers are there between 0 and 1?)

[madnak]

You could do more than that.

Take an irrational, convert it into octal, and use the digits as notes.

[ctj]

[ QUOTE ]
...
What role does music play in our evolutionary development? How did our minds come to discover, understand, create, and eventually come to appreciate such a seemingly useless endeavor (from a practical standpoint), such as music? What if any, survival benefit did our ancestors gain from music? If the answer is none, then why did we devolop a musical sense? Does music play a role in any other species?

[/ QUOTE ]

See "Music, The Brain, and Ecstasy" by Robert Jordain. (no, it has nothing to do with drugs).

From the book's blurb: [ QUOTE ]
How can music make sense to an ear and brain evolved for detecting the approaching lion or tracking the unsuspecting gazelle? Lyrically interweaving discoveries from science, psychology, music theory, paleontology, and philosophy, Robert Jordain brilliantly examines why music speaks to us in a way that words cannot, and why we form such powerful connections to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regards,

C.T. Jackson

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
Songs must be somewhat enjoyable for a specified taste and obviously can't go on forever without becoming unreasonable to listen to.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the song that doesn't end...yes it goes on and on my friend....

[Girchuck]

In other words, is the number of songs that can be copyrighted limited by some large number? And how large could this number be?

[FortunaMaximus]

Pretty big. Always one more than the market saturation figure would be.

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]

1. Darwin believed that music preceded language. A main point of his was that, as evidenced in other species, song was probably first used for sexual selection. He asserted music as the most primal form of expression.

2. Herbert Spencer, Darwin's contemporary, argued that language came first and that music is actually the most highly evolved art form. Spencer said that musical vocal sounds occured as a result of intense feelings causing muscle contractions. A more modern guy named Bernstein also aruges this point, saying that music is just a form of speech, heightened by emotion. Without language, vocal music would not have a medium to be expressed.

I tend to believe music came first, but I don't think it really matters. Also, a new guy named Mithon believes music and language spawned from a common ancestor. I guess a sort of cooing language. Does anyone else get insecure when they actually go out on a limb and post?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems to make sense. Many species communicate thru sounds or music. Only man uses language.

[HighOctane]

only of a given length

[theblackkeys]

[ QUOTE ]
only of a given length

[/ QUOTE ]
Even still, you can divide any length of time into an infinite number of bits, right? I'm not really sure if we even know whether time is discrete or continuous, but it is nearly so.

[FortunaMaximus]

It may be both.

Time is a measurement property of light, after all. There may be a duality to it too.

In that sense, if what you say is true of sound, it must be of other speed-derived measurements, with an internal limit. Hm. Decibels, planck intervals.

So time itself is an orchestra.

[Dane S]

From a physics perspective, since music is a type of sound, and sound is simply vibrations in matter (it is, right?), wouldn't it follow from a theory that says the universe is finite (which is the generally held theory these days, right?) that there must also be a limited number of possible sounds which our universe can make and thus a limited amount of music? Wow, wouldn't this also make time finite, since there's a limited number of configurations all the atoms of the universe can take?

Also, to those who talk about a limit on the number of books, you should read Jorge Luis Borges' The Library of Babel if you haven't (it's only a few pages long).

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
From a physics perspective, since music is a type of sound, and sound is simply vibrations in matter (it is, right?), wouldn't it follow from a theory that says the universe is finite (which is the generally held theory these days, right?) that there must also be a limited number of possible sounds which our universe can make and thus a limited amount of music?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Even if a universe is composed of a finite number of elements, those elements might be oriented in an infinite number of ways. The universe appears finite, but it also appears continuous. As an example, imagine a line pointing in one direction, and then imagine a line pointing in another direction.

[ua1176]

i dont think you can ever run out of music.

do keep in mind that pitch and rhythm are not the only compositional parameters in play here. timbre has become more a tool of composition than of orchestration over the past 60 years. dynamics, too (to a lesser extent). it's only because of centuries of conditioning that we listen for melody and rhythm first.

then you have all the microtonal possibilities and polyrhythmic explorations. you can divide an octave into as many steps as you please. you can divide a beat into as many subdivisions as you please.

[FortunaMaximus]

Yes, but the more you do that, the bigger the song gets. There has to be a collapse somewhere, and then there will be repetition.

Basically, an aural fractal. Not infinite infinite.

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to worry, will run out of titles before running out of music.

[/ QUOTE ]

now if we could only run out of emo bands.

rb

[Skoob]

[ QUOTE ]

Why do you think this? Curious. My opinion is that rhythm is the most important aspect of music. The evidence for this is the enormous popularity of dance music, starting with boogie woogie, rhythm and blues (not r&amp;b), rock and roll, funk, disco, hip hop. Moving and shaking is fun, and I think it creates a response in the listener unlike some classical music that is less focused on rhythm.

I have no idea if music or language came first. I don't know HOW one would make an argument for this. Is there evidence for it? Someone enlighten me.

[/ QUOTE ]
It goes back much further than the "boogie woogie."

Tribes in Africa (western Africa, Ghana to be specific) had/have three leaders. To sum up in simple terms, they were the Chief, the Medicine Man, and the Master Drummer. Each was/is equally important to the tribe. Those peoples were/are in practically a perpetual state of motion. They've been living this way for thousands of years.

Everyone in the US has heard of "Ring Around the Rosie." There's a similar chant that kids use in West Africa. I forget what it's called, but it took some music teachers/professional western musicians about 2 weeks to learn the complex rhythm of this little song African kids as young as two can master in about 5 minutes. And then, once we had the steps and the clapping down, we tried to sing the song on top of it. It was a train-wreck. I felt like a monkey [censored] a football. We never did get it quite right.

[jogsxyz]

Rap. I don't understand rap. It seems to mostly just have beat and very little music. Yet the rap artists are churning out what seems like an infinite number of works.

[theblackkeys]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why do you think this? Curious. My opinion is that rhythm is the most important aspect of music. The evidence for this is the enormous popularity of dance music, starting with boogie woogie, rhythm and blues (not r&amp;b), rock and roll, funk, disco, hip hop. Moving and shaking is fun, and I think it creates a response in the listener unlike some classical music that is less focused on rhythm.

I have no idea if music or language came first. I don't know HOW one would make an argument for this. Is there evidence for it? Someone enlighten me.

[/ QUOTE ]
It goes back much further than the "boogie woogie."

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I didn't mean to insinuate it was the first rhythmically charged music. It certainly exploded like nothing before it though.

[theblackkeys]

[ QUOTE ]
Rap. I don't understand rap. It seems to mostly just have beat and very little music. Yet the rap artists are churning out what seems like an infinite number of works.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is my opinion that rapping sucks but the beats can be pretty cool. There's only so many rhymes you can make before you start rhyming words with "geico".

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd have to say the answer is no, but I'm not a mathematician. When you really think about it....

There are only 8 notes in a scale with varying 1/2 tones of sharps and flats. Of course, there are many octaves, but only so many notes within. You certainly have a finite number of chords within each scale. But then there is timing...

There must be a gajillion ways ways that notes or chords can be strung together from a percussionary standpoint. Just using two notes and varying the staccato, timing, and sustaining, you could create two completely different (albeit simple), songs.

Then you have crescendo or how loud and soft all the different notes can be played. Not to mention a variety of different instruments, each which can create it's own unique sound for each note.

The bottom line is, I don't think we'll ever run out of new music. But something about that strikes me as strange. From a pure mathematical standpoint, it seems we should eventually.

Extra credit:

What role does music play in our evolutionary development? How did our minds come to discover, understand, create, and eventually come to appreciate such a seemingly useless endeavor (from a practical standpoint), such as music? What if any, survival benefit did our ancestors gain from music? If the answer is none, then why did we devolop a musical sense? Does music play a role in any other species?

[/ QUOTE ]

i am a decent musician. not great, but not bad. yet this does not in any way qualify me to answer your question! practically, we will never 'run out', b/c the sheer number of billions and billions times billions squared of possible 'music' will never be achieved by humans on our planet (or any other planet). theoretically, i guess, one could argue that there are only so many possible musical combinations that exist. but i don't really see any 'real world' relevance to such a question!

[josh_x]

Well you can play a 1/4 note or a 1/8 note or a 1/16 note etc, so i dont't see how you can ever run out, even with a time limit. Without a time limit obv you can never run out. Also if you are allowed to play notes inbetween the 12 we use the obv you can't run out. If dynamics are allowed then you can't run out. If different vocals are allowed then you can't run out. Lots of things with infinte possibilites.

So unless you put some serious restrictions on then i can't see how you could run out.