[Hornlist] Re: NHR but Music Related - The Mathematical Percision

[John Jay Hilfiger]

One manifestation of mathematical precision in Bach's music is the 
tendency toward exact repetition of fugue and canon themes (or nearly 
exact, when a particular theme dictated a tonal rather than a real 
answer).  His contemporary, Handel, would often break the fugue if 
exact repetition made the voice range uncomfortable.  So, in this 
sense, one could anticipate (or duplicate) certain features of Bach's 
music.


Jay Hilfiger
http://users.penn.com/~jhilf/



message: 8
date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:36:28 -0500
from: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
subject: Re: [Hornlist] NHR but Music Related - The Mathematical
Percision   ofBach

The description 'mathematical' implies that if one knows, and applies
the rule, the outcome will always be duplicated. Thus, if you know
Bach, you can duplicate Bach, a feat yet to be accomplished.
Interesting how this compares to a commonly accepted definition of
insanity as doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a
different outcome. Just as the same people describing Bach as
'mathematical' do so over and over.

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: horn@music.memphis.edu
 Sent: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 1:03 PM
  Subject: RE: [Hornlist] NHR but Music Related - The Mathematical
Percision ofBach

  It sounds like a phrase tossed out by some nescient talking head 
type,

and I
 assume that even if its roots are substantiated in a demonstrated
 mathematical precision, most that use it would have no idea what 
they
 meant, anyway. I suppose for a specific type of precision to need to 
be

  characterized as mathematical, there would have to exist a type of
precision
  that is not mathematical, or be unable to be measured in such a way
that
 would require mathematics. Absent that type of precision, I suppose 
one

 could prove that the phrase is meaningless or superfluous.

  Perhaps what is meant is something more like mathematical
rigorousness,
 which could be described as the strict adherence to a set of rules 
upon

 which the music is built.

 John Baumgart

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf
 Of Bill Gross
 Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 2:22 PM
 To: 'The Horn List'
 Subject: [Hornlist] NHR but Music Related - The Mathematical Percision
 ofBach

  One of the phrases tossed about when discussing Bach is the
mathematical
 precision of his music. Just what exactly does that mean? Is it the
  rhythm or something else, or perhaps is it just a phrase that someone
used
 once and has become a toss off line with no real meaning?




___
post: horn@music.memphis.edu
unsubscribe or set options at 
http://music2.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org

Re: [Hornlist] Re: NHR but Music Related - The Mathematical Percision

[Richard V. West]

Personally, I reject the entire concept of mathematical as applied to 
the essence of music. Yes, you can count bars and add up movements: that 
part is mathematical. But the music that fills those bars and 
movements defies mathematics, whether it's Bach or Mahler. 2+2 in music 
never equals 4. Never.


And don't point to the scores. Scores are simply the conceptual 
skeletons of music stashed away, much like bones in the catacombs. No 
life until humans (and musicians are humans, some opinions to the 
contrary) put those bones into motion. That's the invisible part of the 
equation, if you want to take the math metaphor any further, that 
completely changes any possible predictable outcome.


Richard in Seattle
___
post: horn@music.memphis.edu
unsubscribe or set options at 
http://music2.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org