At 11/30/09 12:20 PM, InGenius wrote:
Finding math in music is an easy task, the very system of Hz tones we base the diatonic system from is based on the math of doubling, overtones, and geometric progression. But that doesn't mean that because all notes are based on maths that all composers write based on math. I merely want Calamaistr to finally show evidence to back any of his claims in any of the myriad threads he's derailed with his pomposity.
These are the closest links I could find supporting even the mention of fractals next to Bach, and none makes the claim that he intentionally wrote pieces based on fractal form. In fact, the first claims that a large contingent of classical compositions is written in the Cantor fractal format with tied bar sections, which would mean that Bach was no more or less innovative, concerning fractal music composition, than his peers, predecessors, or followers.
This one opens with "Johann Sebastian Bach surely did not have fractals in mind when he composed six suites for solo cello several centuries ago. " How much clearer can the researchers of these papers be than to point out that it was not the reasoning behind his compositions?
Every other article I looked up referenced back to the paper this article was written about, so I still am left with no evidence and certainly no proof that Bach's compositions were written from the math of fractals or any other mathematical analysis. Frankly, in fact, I think it's a rude assumption to make thinking that Bach wrote music from lifeless equations and numbers rather than from his own ability. If you want talentless, using solely logic, numbers and mathematical premise to write music takes the soul from music, the life and verve, in my opinion. Stating that Bach wrote his pieces based on some formula would mean his music was formulaic, which in the music world is akin to a movie plotline being formulaic. Formula is what pop music is written on. A more nonsensical claim has never been made, again in my opinion.
Ive never glorified bach, i used him as an example, you said it yourself there were more.
I already explained it was no 'original idea'.
I dont have all the answers, i base my conviction on what ive read of bach and what ive heard from bach. Listen to his works while looking at his works to see the patterns he used, familiarise yourself with that, and for the love of god look up the rosslyn motet to understand why i am convinced of the hidden dimension behind music, and with it being convinced bach knew of this among others.
It is as much a presumption to state bach only made music to the glory of god, his comments show another context, thats what ive been trying to say.
-architecture is frozen music
-There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself
-Where there is devotional music, God is always at hand with His gracious presence.
-My masters are strange folk with very little care for music in them.
Now again when you change the context of 'god' to the divine measure it makes much more sense.
Dont forget some of his comments are logical for its time, if he had said anything else he wouldve been hung from a bridge.
I believe, that bach did not believe in god as an omnipotent idol, but as a hidden logic present within all the arts, i do in no way base this off bach alone, there are so many that made me dig into this theory.
What some of you are saying is: because this book stated that bach believed in god as an omnipotent idol, be as it may that he was very familiar with the math behind music he made his music soley to the glory of god.
That is as much a theory, and there are others who disagree with that, do i need to become some kind of foreman on this? No thanks.
You either change the context according to what is there or you keep the conventional one to what is there, eventually it depends on your level of perception (goes for everything) (oh and im sure someone is going to read that in a way i didnt mean it, again)