Mystical mathematics in Baroque music

[forte88]

I'm new to this board and I'm not sure if this is the right category to place this message but I reckoned perhaps the teachers would know enough about musical theory to help me on my way.

I recently started reading this book on Superlearning, that combines rythmic breathing and the slow movements of Baroque music(~60 bpm) to achieve semi photographic memory.
And when listening to music the body automatically synchronizes with the beat, so the heartbeat, brainwaves, breathing all fall in sync. Apparently 60 bpm is the tempo that stimulates memory, whereas 72 bpm makes ppl more suggestible(as studies had shown by marketing companies).

And not just the beat, there's something salubrious about the harmonies in Baroque as well and not just for humans also plants were effected. Numerous studies have shown that plants grew towards the Baroque music, grew much better than without. The same experiments were conducted with Rock(the plants shriveled up and died) and Country(no effect whatsoever).

They think it's because the composers of the Baroque age were influenced by mystics like Pythagorus and Hermes Trismegistus who claimed that the same mathematical harmonies that ruled the orbits of the planets, the tides etc, could be applied to music and architecture and that these harmonies and vibrations would effect man like playing the middel C in a room with painos will make the other pianos 's middle C vibrate  in harmonry with it.
Baroque composers were also affiliated with the church so they had ready access to ancient wisdom, the masters of subtle energy
I was wondering if someone here could enlighten me where I could learn more about the mathematics behind baroque music>

[phil821]

Bump, I'd like to know this too

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm new to this board and I'm not sure if this is the right category to place this message but I reckoned perhaps the teachers would know enough about musical theory to help me on my way.

I recently started reading this book on Superlearning, that combines rythmic breathing and the slow movements of Baroque music(~60 bpm) to achieve semi photographic memory.
And when listening to music the body automatically synchronizes with the beat, so the heartbeat, brainwaves, breathing all fall in sync. Apparently 60 bpm is the tempo that stimulates memory, whereas 72 bpm makes ppl more suggestible(as studies had shown by marketing companies).

As a skeptic (rather than a cynic) I wouldn't wish to rule these things out. However, I'd take them with a major pinch of salt. Recently, I believe the Mozart effect has been revealed as a complete load of nonsense. I'm not really surprised- considering that they claimed that Mozart has an effect that other composers of the period do not. It's hardly as if there's any reason why a Haydn and Mozart Minuet would have enough differences.

I'd be similarly skeptical with the idea of Baroque music having a specific effect. If it's different to the effect of rock music, that might make sense (although the idea of music killing a plant sounds extremely dubious to me). What happens if you take a Busoni transcription of Bach organ music? Does that still work? Or how about Jacques Loussier's jazz Bach?

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090721201129AAv9q2h

The above lists a study in which baroque music made plants grow worse, with silence doing better. It would make sense that louder rock music would have a stronger detrimental effect, if plants are attracted to sound. Just because mathematics features in certain patterns of music, it does not mean that these things will be translated across- any more than one would expect rubbing a maths textbook against a plant to improve its growth.

[keyboardclass]

You want to check out the golden section.  Also Brunelleschi's Dome and Dufay's "Nuper
Rosarum Flores" - music not meant for mortal ears.  In fact there's loads of structural stuff in Renaisance and earlier music that's not audible.

[forte88]

As a skeptic (rather than a cynic) I wouldn't wish to rule these things out. However, I'd take them with a major pinch of salt. Recently, I believe the Mozart effect has been revealed as a complete load of nonsense. I'm not really surprised- considering that they claimed that Mozart has an effect that other composers of the period do not. It's hardly as if there's any reason why a Haydn and Mozart Minuet would have enough differences.

Would you classify Mozart&Haydn as Baroque? Can I take your opinion with a grain of salt?, or are you a ham sandwich?

[forte88]

You want to check out the golden section.  Also Brunelleschi's Dome and Dufay's "Nuper
Rosarum Flores" - music not meant for mortal ears.  In fact there's loads of structural stuff in Renaisance and earlier music that's not audible.

Thanks for the tip, this link is quite interesting as well about this very ancient knowledge in the pyramids using a different type of energy than the combustive today.

[forte88]

As a skeptic (rather than a cynic) .

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090721201129AAv9q2h

The above lists a study in which baroque music made plants grow worse, with silence doing better. It would make sense that louder rock music would have a stronger detrimental effect, if plants are attracted to sound. Just because mathematics features in certain patterns of music, it does not mean that these things will be translated across- any more than one would expect rubbing a maths textbook against a plant to improve its growth.

How do I know?Coz when I practise Mantak Chia's('Awaken the Healing energy') microcosmic orbit baroque synchronizes everything perfectly, more receptive to the subtle energy. Of course there's a lot of sh*t baroque, however Vivaldi is underratedIMO, like haydn's string quartet's to Mozart and Field to Chopin, and sometimes I prefer the innocent to the perfected. They're easier to emulate and the whole point is Bach himself looked to Vivaldi to be inspired BWV 872 for example, the slow movement. Bach's deserves all the praise, but which 2nd movement do you prefer:

&feature=relmfu Bach from 2:04, or Vivaldi from 2:07

[keyboardclass]

How do I know?Coz when I practise Mantak Chia's('Awaken the Healing energy') microcosmic orbit baroque synchronizes everything perfectly, more receptive to the subtle energy.

Hey, that's cool.  I've got a couple of Mantak Chia's books!  Don't pay any attention to Bozo above, he don't know jack sh*t.

[forte88]

Imagine if children learnt to speak at 72 bpm they'd be able to make everyone hypersuggestive, which is a good state in itself but not in a consumerist world. Imagine like how children who learn an instrument from an early age develop perfect pitch, then the window of opportunity closes and it's lost for ever. Perhaps you could have like a built in metronome, able to modify your speech to the exact bpm so you could induce that effect with the speed of your speech

[keyboardclass]

There are people who have a natural ability to mesmorize - Mesmer being just the most famous one!  I've found when you get someone into a perfect standing posture (something I do) they take on a certain, unexplainable presence.  I see normal kids suddenly acquire the aura of a president!

[nyiregyhazi]

Would you classify Mozart&Haydn as Baroque? Can I take your opinion with a grain of salt?, or are you a ham sandwich?

If I felt that Mozart were a baroque composer, I'd have drawn parallels with one- not one from the classical period. I was using it as an example of how poorly tested science that draws from a small pool of data typically provides bogus results that are used as evidence for unsupportable conclusions. In the case of the Mozart effect, I'm not aware of any rigorous control testing that compared Mozart against stylistically comparable composers (or deliberate pastiches of his stlye). Yet for some reason they singled him out as supposedly having a unique effect- illustrating how quickly people make dubiously excessive conclusions from very limited surveys. Next thing you know, the press get hold of it and turn already dubious findings into the most ludicrous pseudo-science.

[forte88]

There are people who have a natural ability to mesmorize - Mesmer being just the most famous one!  I've found when you get someone into a perfect standing posture (something I do) they take on a certain, unexplainable presence.  I see normal kids suddenly acquire the aura of a president!

have these people been timed with a metronome? coz maybe time corresponds to a vibration like sound. Tune into a certain vibration(like tuning into a pitch)and you automatically go to say 60 bpm. Changing time by becoming sensitive to the vibration.
This is why I still think babies should be taught a language not only based on perfect pitch(for harmony)but also perfect rythm

[nyiregyhazi]

How do I know?Coz when I practise Mantak Chia's('Awaken the Healing energy') microcosmic orbit baroque synchronizes everything perfectly, more receptive to the subtle energy.

So, all baroque music does that? How about with different performance styles? Does it still work with the romanticised approach to Baroque  of the early 20th century? And how about arrangements? Stokowski's Bach? And does everyone else who is part of the same spiritual movement concur that baroque music works better that other periods or styles? I'm rather guessing that agreement is far from universal.

Pardon my skepticism, but my personal way of describing these issues is to say that I "like" a particular style- rather than speculate about whether there's a magical ratio or flow of theoretical energy that could be used to prove why. It saves on unnecessary words and gets straight to the point. I suppose I could come up with some phrase about how my personal energies vibrate in phase with the invisible rays that emanante from Wagnerian harmony, but I'd sooner just express having a taste for it.

[forte88]

So, all baroque music does that? How about with different performance styles? Does it still work with the romanticised approach to Baroque  of the early 20th century? And how about arrangements? Stokowski's Bach? And does everyone else who is part of the same spiritual movement concur that baroque music works better that other periods or styles? I'm rather guessing that agreement is far from universal.

Pardon my skepticism, but my personal way of describing these issues is to say that I "like" a particular style. It saves on unnecessary words and gets straight to the point.

If you read what I wrote it'll safe me an unnecessary discussion

[nyiregyhazi]

If you read what I wrote it'll safe me an unnecessary discussion

I read what you wrote. If it goes beyond the fact you like particular areas of  Baroque music, I think it would be rather interesting if you were to answer the questions. Otherwise, I cannot see how any of these theories can go anywhere. It doesn't seem to have much to do with a secret code behind Baroque music (as detected by plants) but rather that there's a particular style of sound within areas of baroque music that you happen to enjoy listening to more than other styles. Do those with different tastes to you not understand maths? Did no composers other than baroque composers employ mathematical relationships? Or is it just that different people like different styles- and that mathematical ratios underneath the surface have little immediate consequence?

What's wrong with just liking something? Would it greatly matter if plants really did grow better from the particular styles of music that you enjoy? Why not just enjoy the music for what it is- ie. sounds that you enjoy. Why the need for invisible energies or mathematical ratios?

[keyboardclass]

have these people been timed with a metronome? coz maybe time corresponds to a vibration like sound.

It could be but I don't know of any studies but there are people with 'magnetic' personalities.  On another note here's a book you may be interested in: "Music, Mysticism and Magic: A Sourcebook (Arkana)" Godwin, Joscelyn - used copies from a penny at Amazon.co.uk.

[nyiregyhazi]

It could be but I don't know of any studies but there are people with 'magnetic' personalities.  On another note here's a book you may be interested in: "Music, Mysticism and Magic: A Sourcebook (Arkana)" Godwin, Joscelyn - used copies from a penny at Amazon.co.uk.

Why do you need anything inexplicable to account for that? What's wrong with that which is conveyed by the traditional five senses? Humans pick up on such things as confidence and sincerity etc. though such things as vocal intonations and body language/posture etc. While I'm not opposed to the idea of referring to the sum of all these entirely explicable parts as being a kind of metaphorical "energy" or "magnetism", I don't see any obvious reason to suspect that it comes through anything but understood senses. I really don't follow why any kind of weird vibrations would be needed to explain either personality (particularly seeing as many of the things that convey it can be faked by any good actor) or the reason why people operate better at certain heart-rates. I don't know if there's any solid evidence for the idea or not, but if so, it wouldn't be hard to believe that there might be a simple explanation (possibly along the lines of certain heart rates perhaps tending to oxygenate the brain better).

[forte88]

It could be but I don't know of any studies but there are people with 'magnetic' personalities.  On another note here's a book you may be interested in: "Music, Mysticism and Magic: A Sourcebook (Arkana)" Godwin, Joscelyn - used copies from a penny at Amazon.co.uk.

Thanks for that, the related books on that page look very interesting as well. Hopefully I can find it somewhere else for free, but otherwise it's money well spent

[keypeg]

They think it's because the composers of the Baroque age were influenced by mystics like Pythagorus and Hermes Trismegistus who claimed that the same mathematical harmonies that ruled the orbits of the planets, the tides etc, could be applied to music and architecture and that these harmonies and vibrations would effect man like playing the middel C in a room with painos will make the other pianos 's middle C vibrate  in harmonry with it.

This looks like an oversimplification and distortion.  I suggest studying music history, Greek philosophy, and related things to get a real view of these things and then go back to what these people have written.  The things the are referring to are far from unknown, but they've been given quite a twist.

[bachbrahmsschubert]

I just played the Aria from the Goldberg Variations at approximately 56 bpm; the piano lid was at an approximate angle of 73.46 degrees. I sat approximately 26 inches from the floor while my back was slightly arched at an 86 degree angle perpendicular to the floor.

I'll be damned! The dishes cleaned themselves!

[forte88]

I just played the Aria from the Goldberg Variations at approximately 56 bpm; the piano lid was at an approximate angle of 73.46 degrees. I sat approximately 26 inches from the floor while my back was slightly arched at an 86 degree angle perpendicular to the floor.

I'll be damned! The dishes cleaned themselves!

Humorous but specious. Would someone with perfect pitch only pick up the concert A pitch at 440 hz or is a range possible? I'd say it's a range like a colorpalet.
Are the states for suggestibility and receptivity so different? Both are in a zone where the information bypasses the conscious/critical mind, the difference if the information gets processed as knowledge(harddisk)or as info that changes the 'ram' is only12 bpm...but with every bpm it increases, the more beta like characteristics will be encorporated. From delta to theta to alpha to beta the faster the bpm

[forte88]

I read what you wrote. If it goes beyond the fact you like particular areas of  Baroque music, I think it would be rather interesting if you were to answer the questions. Otherwise, I cannot see how any of these theories can go anywhere. It doesn't seem to have much to do with a secret code behind Baroque music (as detected by plants) but rather that there's a particular style of sound within areas of baroque music that you happen to enjoy listening to more than other styles. Do those with different tastes to you not understand maths? Did no composers other than baroque composers employ mathematical relationships? Or is it just that different people like different styles- and that mathematical ratios underneath the surface have little immediate consequence?

I like Baroque music, so it's a bonus, but sitar music is meant to do the same and that is a p.o.s to listen to.I don't like listening to Corelli as a composer I can still see how his music would be conducive to superlearning.
I think the difference as well is that the Baroque composers didn't have an ego, as soon as composers started seeing themselves as special the music suffered.I as a listener don't care about personality of the musician, only the music. And I detest composers who want to leave their mark ruin the music with dissonance coz music has taken second place to their grotesquely huge ego

[zolaxi]

Why do you need anything inexplicable to account for that? What's wrong with that which is conveyed by the traditional five senses? Humans pick up on such things as confidence and sincerity etc. though such things as vocal intonations and body language/posture etc. While I'm not opposed to the idea of referring to the sum of all these entirely explicable parts as being a kind of metaphorical "energy" or "magnetism", I don't see any obvious reason to suspect that it comes through anything but understood senses. I really don't follow why any kind of weird vibrations would be needed to explain either personality (particularly seeing as many of the things that convey it can be faked by any good actor) or the reason why people operate better at certain heart-rates. I don't know if there's any solid evidence for the idea or not, but if so, it wouldn't be hard to believe that there might be a simple explanation (possibly along the lines of certain heart rates perhaps tending to oxygenate the brain better).

nyiregyhazi, it's not possible to argue rationally with views that are clearly not rational.

Irrationality always wins. Unfair advantage to begin with.

[nyiregyhazi]

I like Baroque music, so it's a bonus, but sitar music is meant to do the same and that is a p.o.s to listen to.I don't like listening to Corelli as a composer I can still see how his music would be conducive to superlearning.
I think the difference as well is that the Baroque composers didn't have an ego, as soon as composers started seeing themselves as special the music suffered.I as a listener don't care about personality of the musician, only the music. And I detest composers who want to leave their mark ruin the music with dissonance coz music has taken second place to their grotesquely huge ego

I know people who write the most simplistic and cliched tonal compositions, under the bizarre delusion that they are musical geniuses. Just look at the pop world, for a wealth of such examples. Equally, there are composers who write extremely dissonant music merely for their own private collection, without wishing anyone to hear it. That's ego? The only ego I'm seeing here is your own- which is strong enough for you to attempt to rationalise dubious formulas and bring in pseudo-science to argue for your personal tastes. Why not be humble enough just to like what you like- without inventing pseudo-intellectual premises to dismiss things that you happen to have a distaste for?

Do you have any evidence that Baroque composers had little ego? I hear that Bach was an extremely unpleasant and rude man. Is your evidence the simplicity of their music, as I suspect? If so, that is circular logic. You cannot accurately use something to prove itself.

Your comments are extremely inconsistent. You would have us believe that this is about mathematics, yet you speak as if it's the most simplistic music of all that supposedly evidences how natural music based on mathematical formulas is. This is irrational and easily refuted. Look at the hyper-serialism of Boulez and a wealth of other modern composers. Or Debussy's use of the Golden ratio. Countless composers have gone way beyond the simplicity with which Corelli and Vivaldi composed.  But a little bit of dissonance spoils the qi, perhaps and renders such mathematics irrelevant, while the simpler mathematics of baroque music is significant?

The broad premises that you are dealing in are very dubiously evidenced and your personal extrapolations are even more so. You asked for further evidence and I gave it to you- revealing that the idea that plants like baroque music is poorly evidenced and has been totally refuted in other surveys- not proven in many. I'd be interested to hear some hard evidence on these issues, but as it stands I have a hard time believing anything other than the fact that music has an effect on people. Very few more specific issues beyond that can be regarded as objective fact.

[nyiregyhazi]

nyiregyhazi, it's not possible to argue rationally with views that are clearly not rational.

Irrationality always wins. Unfair advantage to begin with.

Yeah, fair point. If a contradiction arises, all you have to do is bring in the possibility of some special vibrations or phase-shifts of energy or whatever else (which has no grounding in anything that has ever been observed). Then everything adds up very nicely again.

[forte88]

Do you have any evidence that Baroque composers had little ego? I hear that Bach was an extremely unpleasant and rude man. Is your evidence the simplicity of their music, as I suspect? If so, that is circular logic. You cannot accurately use something to prove itself.

Baroque music was devotional music, they didnt write to show the world what great artists they were, they wrote for the glory of God.

Anyway for the rest of it, you might be trying to come over the skeptic, but your close-mindedness only makes you appear ignorant. Perhaps you should learn a little about chi/prana or whatever countless of other peoples around the world have called it before you dismiss it outright, dismissing something outright without knowing anything about a topic isn't scientific

[nyiregyhazi]

Baroque music was devotional music, they didnt write to show the world what great artists they were, they wrote for the glory of God.

Anyway for the rest of it, you might be trying to come over the skeptic, but your close-mindedness only makes you appear ignorant. Perhaps you should learn a little about chi/prana or whatever countless of other peoples around the world have called it before you dismiss it outright, dismissing something outright without knowing anything about a topic isn't scientific

I'm not closed-minded. I just don't believe things merely because another person wishes them to be true- particularly not when they have been randomly plucked out of thin air. If there is evidence for any of these premises, I should like to see it- so I can come to an informed opinion. As it is, we have seen nothing more than speculation- coupled with the fact that you are only curious about the mathematics of simplistic music that relates to maths very slightly. However, you are totally dismissive about music that has far greater mathematical relations, due to nothing more than your personal distaste for dissonance. You are only interested in drawing significance in mathematical patterns where you WANT them to be significant- despite the fact that Baroque music has vastly LESS grounding in the mathematics you claimed to be interested by, compared to a wealth of atonal music.

Finally, Bach wrote some spectacularly dissonant harmonies in the Art of Fugue- all in the name of God. So if religion= lack of ego= lack of dissonace, then there's no explanation for Bach (before we even get anywhere near Messiaen). In other words, your follow-up argument has now utterly negated the validity of the association you previously tried to make. Not really surprising, considering that it's evidently nothing more than a random piece of conjecture that is not grounded in anything other than wishful thinking. You are contradicting yourself over and over.

[nyiregyhazi]

What is the evidence for the 60 bpm thing, by the way? While I'm skeptical, it would be very interesting, if there are credible reasons to believe it.

[forte88]

I'm not closed-minded. I just don't believe things merely because another person wishes them to be true- particularly not when they have been randomly plucked out of thin air. Finally, Bach wrote some spectacularly dissonant harmonies in the Art of Fugue- all in the name of God. So if religion= lack of ego= lack of dissonace, then there's no explanation for Bach (before we even get anywhere near Messiaen). In other words, your follow-up argument has now utterly negated the validity of the association you previously tried to make. Not really surprising, considering that it's evidently nothing more than a random piece of conjecture that is not grounded in anything other than wishful thinking. You are contradicting yourself over and over.

I didn't write ego=disonance I gave it as an example of how some use it not for musical effect, but just for the sake of breaking the rules of harmony(where we are predisposed to react to)coz their big Ego feels they are more important than the music is(disonance is PART of music like harmony is, can you maybe think first next time?). The point I was making is that music should be a spiritual/transcedental experience and that to me is the antithesis of a huge ego.
When someone doesn't read what I was writing, asks questions already answered, whose whole line of questioning seems to be to ridicule, I classify that as trolling, in the past I've spent hours trying to get ppl to understand, but I've discovered that some people just don't want to understand, their stuck in their own little world and all they hope to accomplish is by spamming
the message with as much ridicule as possible they discredit the information they haven't even tried to understand.And then the feeble minded and the Me-too guys chime in referring to ideas of the troll and the message is lost. Anyway if you've paid attention my question's been answered, so as far as I'm concerned the discussion is closed. If you're really interested read the book Superlearning

[keyboardclass]

I shouldn't let N get to you.  He is technically what we in the posting world call a KNOW-IT-ALL (they usually know nothing). 

There is much music in the world, and especially in the old world, that was never meant to be listened to.  In fact it's the roots of music - the shaman is nearly always the musician of the village as well.  The idea that it's something you listen to I would say firmly takes root around the mid 1750s - it's the rise of the middleclasses thing (in other words they bought into something they didn't understand).

[forte88]

I shouldn't let N get to you.  He is technically what we in the posting world call a KNOW-IT-ALL (they usually know nothing). 

There is much music in the world, and especially in the old world, that was never meant to be listened to.  In fact it's the roots of music - the shaman is nearly always the musician of the village as well.  The idea that it's something you listen to I would say firmly takes root around the mid 1750s - it's the rise of the middleclasses thing (in other words they bought into something they didn't understand).

Although I wouldn't agree that music wasn't something to listen to before 1750,(how can you not listen to music?, I definitely agree it became ONLY about listening to and the ancient knowledge of music as a tool for much more became occult.In some parts of the non-Western World this knowledge is still widespread. The obvious examples are how music is used to induce trance;walking over hot coals, healings etc.There's a part in Superlearning on Tibetan monks& Maoris(on other 'primitive tribes)who taught the same techniques as discussed in Superlearning(using rythmic breathing and the tempo) to initiates, so the knowledge in case of an extreme calamity or holocaust wouldn't be lost.

[keyboardclass]

how can you not listen to music?,

Easy - there's a difference between listening to music and hearing it.  I observe it every day I teach.

[forte88]

Easy - there's a difference between listening to music and hearing it.  I observe it every day I teach.

I'd agree that music can influence the body and the mind and that as long as one hears it there will be a fysiological response to it,i.e the body will react.Listening is the activity where the mind gets involved and thus affects our idea of esthetics/emotions/intellectual side.But really it's just a different manifestation of the same thing and I'm sure the ancients were aware of that.. Anyway to stop splitting hairs, yes, it's a sad fact the Age of Enlightenment focussed exclusively on a materialist world view, when IMO both worlds aren't mutually exclusive and we'd be more complete as human beings if we realized that

[keyboardclass]

True, there's room for the irrational as well as the rational.

[forte88]

True, there's room for the irrational as well as the rational.

The materialist pov isn't any more or less rational than the spiritualist . Both are governed by laws that aren't in the least bit rational, only repeated observation has shown it to be the case. And even uber sceptic David Hume who was basically a materialist wondered what mechanism was behind how the mind could get for example a finger to move

[keyboardclass]

The materialist pov isn't any more or less rational than the spiritualist . Both are governed by laws that aren't in the least bit rational, only repeated observation has shown it to be the case. And even uber sceptic David Hume who was basically a materialist wondered what mechanism was behind how the mind could get for example a finger to move

That's certainly the bottom line.  Hume and the finger - rather apposite I think.  From my physiological research even the day to day mechanics of finger movment is not that well understood and I've read Raoul Tubiana!

[forte88]

From my physiological research even the day to day mechanics of finger movment is not that well understood and I've read Raoul Tubiana!

Hehe, that's hilarious

[nyiregyhazi]

I didn't write ego=disonance I gave it as an example of how some use it not for musical effect, but just for the sake of breaking the rules of harmony(where we are predisposed to react to)coz their big Ego feels they are more important than the music is(disonance is PART of music like harmony is, can you maybe think first next time?). The point I was making is that music should be a spiritual/transcedental experience and that to me is the antithesis of a huge ego.

That point is fine. However, you made claims that go far beyond that, which I find remarkably disrespectful to some very fine composers. Above all, you're trying to use extremely speculative concepts to prove something about Baroque music, that just doesn't add up. Have you never heard of Wagner's art-religion? You think only Baroque composers were spiritual? And look at Scriabin! Could there be any greater combination of spiritually AND extreme ego? It may be an antithesis to you, but history bears out the fact that it wasn't an antithesis to countless composers.

You're using speculative and assumptive justifications to try prove a uniqueness the Baroque period- for no other reason than to fit a preconceived theory that you hope to be true. When I point out that your reasoning implies something other than what your want it to suggest, you're not interested in less convenient implications. You only like the bits that seem to support what you wish to believe. So, if Baroque composers are spiritual that lead them to write purer music without dissonance. But the fact Messiaen composed atonally for God is left on the cutting-room floor, despite illustrating the former to be founded on weak ground. I am just illustrating that your reasoning does not add up, when you look at a wealth of counter-examples.

I as a listener don't care about personality of the musician, only the music. And I detest composers who want to leave their mark ruin the music with dissonance coz music has taken second place to their grotesquely huge ego

If we assume that there is no contradiction between the two sentences, obviously it's the dissonance you object to, not the ego? Not only did Bach involve some rather extreme dissonance, but so did Messiaen- to as great an extent as any composer. Messiaen regularly did atonal improvisations to God (breaking each and every rule of harmony ever put together), that nobody was around to listen it. Ego? If you dislike dissonance that's fine, but please do not try to portray your tastes as being founded upon objective reasoning. Your theories do not stand up.

but I've discovered that some people just don't want to understand, their stuck in their own little world and all they hope to accomplish is by spamming
the message with as much ridicule as possible they discredit the information they haven't even tried to understand.

A sense of discrimination is a positive and everyone has one. If I "want to understand" some magic beans that will supposedly give eternal life, I'm going to end up getting conned all over the place- unless I scrutinise what is being claimed. I look at things with an open mind. If they do not add up, I do not allow desire for them to do so to override common sense. If they add up, I have regularly changed my mind about things altogether.

[nyiregyhazi]

That's certainly the bottom line.  Hume and the finger - rather apposite I think.  From my physiological research even the day to day mechanics of finger movment is not that well understood and I've read Raoul Tubiana!

The difference is that good scientists KNOW when they have not fully understood something and reflect that in their language. Conversely, spiritualists routinely just make stuff up at will and portray it as fact- regardless of whether it is suggested by experimental evidence or whether it is even implied by logical reasoning. Even when scientists do not get the full picture, they are constantly striving to come as close as possible and they are willing to rethink when new evidence comes in. The fact that materialists may not necessarily understand every detail of how a finger moves is exactly what shows how rational the thinking is.

[nyiregyhazi]

The materialist pov isn't any more or less rational than the spiritualist . Both are governed by laws that aren't in the least bit rational, only repeated observation has shown it to be the case. And even uber sceptic David Hume who was basically a materialist wondered what mechanism was behind how the mind could get for example a finger to move

? What are you hoping to imply? The fact that a person wondered about how a finger moves supposedly puts irrational thought on a par with scientific thinking. The fact that he wondered is exactly how a scientist should be thinking! Scientists ask questions about things and do not claim to know things that they do not know. They try to find out!

Regardless, Hume was around in the 1700s. While scientists have yet to uncover every detail about life, it's now very widely known how the brain sends out electrical signals that move muscles and tendons, pulling on bones and moving the finger. What science has yet to explain in any real detail is things like meditation or the Feldenkrais method- where the power of the mind can evoke remarkable changes to the body. However, the fact that changes are readily observable in scientific testing means that there is no dichotomy with science. The dichotomy exists when frauds use very dubious statistics to "prove" something that proper testing shows no evidence of at all.

Scientists know very well that there is something very real behind countless things that they have not yet explained. If something can be proven to work, it does not conflict with rationalism. The only issue is whether a spiritualist explanation of something that works is accurate. It's the job of good scientists to explore these things further and reduce the gap between speculative explanations of something that happens to work and an understanding of what really goes on.

[keyboardclass]

? What are you hoping to imply? The fact that a person wondered about how a finger moves supposedly puts irrational thought on a par with scientific thinking.

David Hume, 'a person'?  Your ignorance is nauseating, please go way.

[nyiregyhazi]

David Hume, 'a person'?  Your ignorance is nauseating, please go way.

You are implying that Hume was not a person? I used the phrase because it would not make a jot of difference whether Hume or anybody else were being referenced. To be curious about how something works (and to realise that you do not know) is the hallmark of scientific thinking- whether it comes from a historical luminary or some guy down the pub. It's when people think that they do know something (without a shred of justification for their belief) that objectivity has been abandoned. Knowing that you don't know something is what makes for a good scientist.

[keyboardclass]

I used the phrase because it would not make a jot of difference whether Hume or anybody else were being referenced.

When Hume is the context there is a difference, but again as you know nothing, have read nothing, it means nothing - to you.

[nyiregyhazi]

When Hume is the context there is a difference, but again as you know nothing, have read nothing, it means nothing - to you.

No. There is no difference. That is precisely my point. Validity of logic is not judged by a person's fame or standing. It is judged as entity in itself. For a great pragmatist to realise he does not know something, it does not mean that rational and irrational though processes are on equal footing- as the poster had implied. On the contrary, it's an example of basic pragmatism in action.

Whether you are a master philosopher or a guy in a pub, realising that you do not know how something works (rather than pretending that you do) is the same thing. Ironically, it's often those who know the least that are sometimes the most inclined to pretend that they do know things (based on inadequate information). However, the fact that Hume was an intellectual neither makes it any better or worse that he knew his limits (and indeed the limits of what science of the time had uncovered). What was described was just an example of pragmatism in action. Contrary to what was implied, being a materialist does not mean pretending to know things that you have no current explanation for. Sure enough, materialist thinking has since explained the matter- without the conjecture that Hume would have been forced to resort to.

[keyboardclass]

Ironically, it's often those who know the least that are sometimes the most inclined to pretend that they do know things.

There's nothing ironic about it in your case - it's your usual pollution - always having to have the last word to say even on subjects you know nothing.  If you have nothing to add to the topic then GO AWAY!

[nyiregyhazi]

There's nothing ironic about it in your case - it's your usual pollution - always having to have the last word to say even on subjects you know nothing.  If you have nothing to add to the topic then GO AWAY!

This post neither makes a single point about the topic nor about the offshoots regarding rational and irrational thought. If you are unable to follow up on any of the points I made (rather than resort to lazy and generic ad hominems against me), I think we're done here.

[pianowolfi]

I was wondering if someone here could enlighten me where I could learn more about the mathematics behind baroque music>

I think there have been written tons of books about Bach's use of mathematical structures and number symbolisms. I often thought "Oh my, I need to read this or that book about it" but I never did.

Of course there are many mathematical relations and proportions in music, as well as there are many such proportions in nature. Of course there might have been written tons of similar books about Scriabin and others, too.

As a composer myself I can say that some of those proportions and "codes" make it into my awareness and some others don't. Some of those mathematical proportions in my own compositions reveal themselves after many years, some don't. It's a flow, after all

I see art/music as a sort of human-created "nature" as long as it is what we use to call inspired. Inspiration contains in itself every mystery/miracle/mysticism that you need for being able to express yourself as an artist or other sort of creator. Even including some of the most mysterious creative processes like "creatio ex nihilo", the creation out of nothing! That's how I understand Bach's work. I don't see Bach's (or any other Baroque composer's) music as a sort of "complicated esoteric secret code that has to be deciphered". It will reveal it's secrets to the mere open, repeatedly and inspiredly listening heart, and to the unbiased mind and thinking, step by step

[keyboardclass]

Bach's eldest son WF was a supreme composer as well as holding a degree in Maths from Leipzig Uni.  There would be plenty to look into there.  Also the first movement of Mozart's K533 (modeled after WF in my opinion (it's a long story)) seems to be built using the golden section - both the theme and the movement's structure.

[keypeg]

The book on "Superlearning" does not seem to be about music in particular, nor written by musicians for musicians.  It is sketching out snatches of things.  To really understand this side you should go into it much more deeply if you are a music student or musician.  Some of the ideas you have mentioned do not start with Baroque music but much earlier.  It is also not as simplistic.  It is wonderful and profound, but there is more to it.

[nyiregyhazi]

Bach's eldest son WF was a supreme composer as well as holding a degree in Maths from Leipzig Uni.  There would be plenty to look into there.  Also the first movement of Mozart's K533 (modeled after WF in my opinion (it's a long story)) seems to be built using the golden section - both the theme and the movement's structure.

What features correspond to the golden section?