It dosen't mean anything if you're a scientist or not.
I see that I did not read the original post carefully enough, and I must change my answer.
But first, mycrabface claims there is no correlation whatsoever, and offers no support beyond a couple of isolated examples. I dispute that, and will explain why.
I think there is a positive correlation in one direction, and none (or even negative) in the other.
I think the correlation is from science to music. People who are scientists would more likely have musical hobbies than the population as a whole. This is because they are people who chose to make their living by thinking about concepts; they have by nature an intellectual approach to life. This is not going to be true of a skilled craftsman or an athlete, for example. Scientists are going to tend to also pay attention to literature, art, and music, because those activities just go along with people who like to think, analyze, discuss, debate, etc. Of course not all of them will, and plenty of factory workers are into classical music and hate NASCAR, but I'm talking about general trends.
But the original poster asked the reverse question: are musicians more likely than average to be interested in science? I think this correlation may actually be negative: musicians as a group are less likely to have a science background or science interests. My opinion is based on quite a few debates on various musical forums. But I think there is actually a reason for it. Musicians are people primarily interested in the creative process. The creative process exists in science, but is greatly restricted by the nature of reality, so science only attracts people comfortable with that limit. In art, that restriction disappears, and in fact the act of doing critical thinking and problem solving probably interferes with success. This also suggests musicians as a whole may be more likely to have religious leanings and be uncritically accepting of fringe ideas such as crystal healing, herbal medicine, UFOs, conspiracy theories, etc. And I think the evidence is that is somewhat true. Of course we can all think of some counterexamples, but again I think the trend is there.
Scientists can be good musicians because they are smart competent people, but are rarely if ever great musicians because being good at thinking interferes with being really creative.
And musicans can be okay thinkers if they're intelligent enough, but are rarely going to be great thinkers for much the same reason.