I gather that you have defined math completely differently than me, or at least defined it in a way that gives computers primacy over every other form of math.

I gather that you have defined math completely differently than me, or at least defined it in a way that gives computers primacy over every other form of math. > The puzzles Bach was working out had more to do with the theory than the math and we can support this, the math aspect is more interesting conjecture than something we can demonstrate, at least from what I have read on the subject which tends to be filled with assumptions and generalizations. This sentence structure is very much beyond me, but from what I gathered, you do not consider propositional logic as created by harmony/counterpoint to be "math" and you believe that those rules are arbitrary and not based on math at all. That is sort of a fringe view that is facially false. Around the world, rules of harmony have a lot to do with the harmonic series, scales, tunings, and other building blocks that are hugely based on math. A lot of that was actually up to the composers and producers of music in the 19th century and earlier (around the world). > We don't really see math literal in music until the rise of computer music and they are often doing things more than just seeing what the math results in. I see that you have defined "math as math" in terms of the totality of the math involved in the process of composition. Most 21st century composers and producers I know do absolutely no math (defined in any way) when writing music. I will also say that the producers of computer music absolutely do not throw away "traditional ideas of orchestration and form" unless they are lazy or bad. Many of them very clearly understand that stuff and riff on it in ways that can only be done when you combine a deep artistic instinct (0 math) with a computer (that does all the math for you).