# Bach, what my sister said about him...



## katdad

Late tonight, listening again to the amazing Wanda Landowska, on harpsichord, playing the immortal Chromatic Fantasia and Fugue (BWV 903), I was reminded what my sister said about the Great Master:

Imagine, in a bit of whimsy, that scientists had invented a microphone so small that it would fit into an atom. So they find a suitable atom, and lower the microphone down into the atom (using a specialized rod and reel of course). Then they switch the microphone on.

What they'd hear would be a Bach fugue.


----------



## Forte

That's an insult to the beauty of a Bach fugue.

No seriously, the inside of an atom is pretty empty - there are wee tiny electrons, and a nucleus which is like a fly in a football stadium. Pretty boring in there if you ask me.

But you know, that reminds me of something I once read that struck me as beautiful.

The entire universe is one gigantic symphony. Here on Earth, we find a small, insignificant movement, a fugue. Many voices have entered, and many voices have stopped singing their songs. When all the voices join, in all registers, in unison and in stretto, those are the times when the fugue reaches matchless sublimity. And one day, those voices can make the fugue become something more than anyone dreamed it could be.

There's also the more famous analogy Carl Sagan used to describe the Earth and its people: one voice in a cosmic fugue. That I also like. I think Bach's fugues describe the beauty of the universe pretty well.


----------



## Feathers

Although I don't know the original intention of katdad's sister's comment, I don't think it sounds like an insult. Maybe she's trying to say that Bach's fugues can be very interesting and complex, yet they are all put together in an incredible way that has its own kind of perfection.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Her comment reminds me of a quote from a commentator on BBC Radio 3: Beethoven touched the essence of the human soul, Mozart approached the divine, but Bach's art seems to be hewn from the very fabric of the cosmos. It is the universe itself.


----------



## Novelette

Manxfeeder said:


> Her comment reminds me of a quote from a commentator on BBC Radio 3: Beethoven touched the essence of the human soul, Mozart approached the divine, *but Bach's art seems to be hewn from the very fabric of the cosmos. It is the universe itself.*


Striking, and beautifully put!


----------



## Forte

^Someone had the Douglas Adams quote as their signature: "Beethoven tells you what it's like to be Beethoven and Mozart tells you what it's like to be human. Bach tells you what it's like to be the universe."

Hey Feathers, nuclei and electrons really aren't all that interesting and complex


----------



## tdc

Forte said:


> No seriously, the inside of an atom is pretty empty - there are wee tiny electrons, and a nucleus which is like a fly in a football stadium. Pretty boring in there if you ask me.





Forte said:


> Hey Feathers, nuclei and electrons really aren't all that interesting and complex


This is like saying the universe isn't that interesting or complex, because like the atom it is mostly empty space. "As above, so below'.

Some people feel this 'empty space' is the essence of being itself.

"_Thirty spokes converge upon a single hub;
It is on the hole in the center that the use of the cart hinges;

We make a vessel from a lump of clay;
It is the empty space within the vessel that makes it useful;

We make doors and windows for a room;
But it is the empty spaces that make the room livable;

Thus, while the tangible has advantages;
It is the intangible that makes it useful."_

― Tao Te Ching

So do you feel galaxies and solar systems are not very interesting or complex either? After all, they are mostly just 'empty space'.


----------



## Forte

tdc said:


> This is like saying the universe isn't that interesting or complex, because like the atom it is mostly empty space. "As above, so below'.
> 
> So do you feel galaxies and solar systems are not very interesting or complex either? After all, they are mostly just 'empty space'.


I will once again refer to Carl Sagan - "The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together."

No, your conclusion there doesn't make sense. The atom is a structure. That structure is mostly empty space, and isn't all that interesting (unless you begin to bring in electromagnetism, and nuclear and particle physics). An atom by itself, what the sister of the poster seems to be referring to, is not very remarkable by itself.

Those atoms, on the other hand, can be _arranged_ in so many different ways, giving birth to the beauty and complexity of nature itself. Those _arrangements_ allow for the possibility of something as interesting as what you see when you stare in the mirror, or planet, star, galaxy, etc. The parts are not extremely valuable. It's the picture they make that is beautiful. Funny enough, that seems to be exactly what Bach accomplished.

Now, keep in mind, I have no doubt what katdad's sister said about Bach is not intended to be in the least derogatory to his work.

(Of course, if you want to get into the philosophy of whether or not empty space is the "essence of being" or whatever, that's something completely different, but not relevant.)


----------



## katdad

Fun comments, thanks. She expanded her metaphor by saying that the universe consists of frequencies, vibrations, rhythms. She was predating string theory but was pretty accurate, actually.

She also said that some people's minds are attuned to this universal rhythm, this frequency, and for them the connection is like sticking your finger in a light socket. Instant revelation, immediate connection.


----------



## tdc

Forte said:


> I will once again refer to Carl Sagan - "The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together."
> 
> No, your conclusion there doesn't make sense. The atom is a structure. That structure is mostly empty space, and isn't all that interesting (unless you begin to bring in electromagnetism, and nuclear and particle physics). An atom by itself, what the sister of the poster seems to be referring to, is not very remarkable by itself.
> 
> Those atoms, on the other hand, can be _arranged_ in so many different ways, giving birth to the beauty and complexity of nature itself. Those _arrangements_ allow for the possibility of something as interesting as what you see when you stare in the mirror, or planet, star, galaxy, etc. The parts are not extremely valuable. It's the picture they make that is beautiful. Funny enough, that seems to be exactly what Bach accomplished.
> 
> Now, keep in mind, I have no doubt what katdad's sister said about Bach is not intended to be in the least derogatory to his work.
> 
> (Of course, if you want to get into the philosophy of whether or not empty space is the "essence of being" or whatever, that's something completely different,* but not relevant*.)


It is relevant. Bach's music, (like the universe) is vibration. It is not made up of solid matter. The comment in the OP suggests the vibrations of Bach's music are like the vibrations of the universe itself. (The idea of the universe being made up of vibrations is very very old and predates Carl Sagan, and modern string theory).


----------



## LordBlackudder

dont understand a word she said


----------



## Forte

tdc said:


> It is relevant. Bach's music, (like the universe) is vibration. It is not made up of solid matter. The comment in the OP suggests the vibrations of Bach's music are like the vibrations of the universe itself. (The idea of the universe being made up of vibrations is very very old and predates Carl Sagan, and modern string theory).


I'd have to have them confirm that they're referring to vibrations - to me it sounds like they're trying to make an analogy between Bach's music and the inner workings of matter when they talk about atoms.

And I'm sure some guy out there has long suggested that the universe is made of vibrations, but that's not modern mainstream cosmology. Unless you're talking about strings in string theory. In that case, simply stating "the inside of an atom" is a bit too arbitrary for someone to get the reference to something so much smaller than an atom.

In case people here don't understand what I'm referring to, string theory suggests that the smallest constituents of matter are not subatomic particles, or quarks, or atoms, but much much much much smaller vibrating strings, and that different frequencies of those strings create particles, like notes, which basically makes the universe cosmic music.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I don't understand the OP's sister's way of thinking nor that of most of the responses - in a perfect world I prefer to be enlightened rather than puzzled but perhaps my old brain just isn't good enough to figure out what's going on. I'm sure JSB would be laughing his old nuts off, though.


----------



## tdc

Forte said:


> I'd have to have them confirm that they're referring to vibrations - to me it sounds like they're trying to make an analogy between Bach's music and the inner workings of matter when they talk about atoms.


Read the OP again. They are not talking about the physical characteristics of an atom. They suggested if one could hypothetically create a tiny microphone and _listen_ to the _vibrations_ of an atom, they would _hear_ a Bach fugue.


----------



## Forte

tdc said:


> Read the OP again. They are not talking about the physical characteristics of an atom. They suggested if one could hypothetically create a tiny microphone and _listen_ to the _vibrations_ of an atom, they would _hear_ a Bach fugue.


The problem is, the inside of the atom doesn't contain vibrations that would carry sound. The atom itself can vibrate with motion but the inside of it contains no vibrations, as far as modern physics can tell. So everything has to be taken with a grain of salt - if you want to be completely technically correct, it is not possible to have a sound inside of an atom, and therefore you can't have music inside an atom. Her entire idea is symbolic, metaphoric, trying to describe how great Bach's fugues are.


----------



## elgar's ghost

tdc said:


> Read the OP again. They are not talking about the physical characteristics of an atom. They suggested if one could hypothetically create a tiny microphone and _listen_ to the _vibrations_ of an atom, they would _hear_ a Bach fugue.


What, because the energy waves would overlap and slightly diversify (or something?). Please tell me I'm right - I wouldn't want to go through the rest of my life knowing I was a total shagwit.


----------



## tdc

elgars ghost said:


> What, because the energy waves would overlap and slightly diversify (or something?). Please tell me I'm right - I wouldn't want to go through the rest of my life knowing I was a total shagwit.


Ok, this is a hypothetical situation, it is not real. You tell me!


----------



## tdc

Forte said:


> The problem is, the inside of the atom doesn't contain vibrations that would carry sound. The atom itself can vibrate with motion but the inside of it contains no vibrations, as far as modern physics can tell. So everything has to be taken with a grain of salt - if you want to be completely technically correct, it is not possible to have a sound inside of an atom, and therefore you can't have music inside an atom. Her entire idea is symbolic, metaphoric, trying to describe how great Bach's fugues are.


I think the point in the OP is pretty straight forward. As you say yourself the idea was symbolic, it is not something I take literally. All I can say is if you think an atom is boring because it is mostly made up of empty space, or if you think Bach's music is good because it is complex, well I just don't agree with your views on science or on music.


----------



## Forte

A fact, like an atom is mostly empty space, is not science. Science is a method of understanding the world, and a way of thinking. So you're not disagreeing with me on anything that pertains to science itself, just how interesting or uninteresting atoms are.

And I most certainly did not say anything of the latter vein.


----------



## Ondine

Wow... this was just the part of the atom 

Let's wait and see what happens with the part of the microphone


----------



## musicphotogAnimal

Forte said:


> In case people here don't understand what I'm referring to, string theory suggests that the smallest constituents of matter are not subatomic particles, or quarks, or atoms, but much much much much smaller vibrating strings, and that different frequencies of those strings create particles, like notes, which basically makes the universe cosmic music.


String...bow...make fire!!! Hmmm...Caveman no understand string theory...make head hurt.


----------



## katdad

Forte said:


> etc etc
> In case people here don't understand what I'm referring to, string theory suggests that the smallest constituents of matter are not subatomic particles, or quarks, or atoms, but much much much much smaller vibrating strings, and that different frequencies of those strings create particles, like notes, which basically makes the universe cosmic music.


Correct, but I'm sure you understand -- although I'm a but uncertain that some here get the point -- that my sister was merely making an ANALOGY, folks. A fantasy, "lowering a microphone down into an atom", a metaphor, not pure scientific fact, C'mon, gang. It's a pleasant figure of speech to indicate how primal Bach can be.

btw, my degree is in chemistry, strong background in physical chemistry and physics research (not however esoteric science such as quantum physics or string theory), and heavy-duty math. And I've read extensively in quantum physics and cosmology, too. So I know whereof the actual aspects of these theoretical matters go. Far beyond my 30 years of research in physics and chemistry, I've expanded my knowledge just because it interests me.

I know full well the "Bach vibration" is just a metaphor, and so did my sister. It's just a nice way to think about Bach, especially when listening to 903 courtesy of Ms. Landowska.


----------



## katdad

tdc said:


> Read the OP again. They are not talking about the physical characteristics of an atom. They suggested if one could hypothetically create a tiny microphone and _listen_ to the _vibrations_ of an atom, they would _hear_ a Bach fugue.


And hey, it's a METAPHOR, dude. I was gonna do it for real but the microphone cord busted and now I've gotta pay the music store next week, darn it, and no QED to submit to Physics Review, either. Sigh.


----------



## Forte

I was half-joking about the atom, but then this guy comes in and we end up having a conversation about physics. I was quite aware that it was an analogy and not trying to be anything more, but forgive me - I don't like to ignore discussions about physics!


----------



## Ondine

Forte said:


> I was half-joking about the atom, but then this guy comes in and we end up having a conversation about physics. I was quite aware that it was an analogy and not trying to be anything more, but forgive me - I don't like to ignore discussions about physics!


Forte, it was a very good discussion about physics. I like the issue and I enjoy such discussions. I was joking too.


----------



## PetrB

Collect them all, open in separate tabs, play all at once....

So much for any of the conceits about the music of earlier eras sounding anything like "The Music of the Spheres" or the workings of the Universe as directed by a deity.

Sweet conceits they are, triggered by a near universal reaction to Bach sounding _so highly ordered._ What we now know of physics, quarks, chaos, etc. has nothing to do with the Newtonian concept of the Universe, all neat, lovely and orderly. Stars explode, matter happens and collides at random, etc.

This is parsecs away from the idea of a neatly ticking 18th century timepiece, like a crossword puzzle, where everything fits neatly in place, exactly, I theorize, why some just love the ole Thuringian's works: the works give a feeling of a very neat and tidy order where everything does fall neatly into place.

Before you get to issues of space, the cosmos, etc. there is so much in life which does not ever fall neatly into place, it is no wonder many will gravitate to Bach for that sense of order even if it is all but an illusion and a false conceit.


----------



## KenOC

Forte said:


> In case people here don't understand what I'm referring to, string theory suggests that the smallest constituents of matter are not subatomic particles, or quarks, or atoms, but much much much much smaller vibrating strings, and that different frequencies of those strings create particles...


While I don't completely understand string theory, I've read that some physicists believe ('scuse me, "hypothesize") that if you accumulate a big enough ball of string, it will create an entrance to a cosmic wormhole, making travel to inaccessible places like Topeka more convenient. :tiphat:


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> While I don't completely understand string theory, I've read that some physicists believe ('scuse me, "hypothesize") that if you accumulate a big enough ball of string, it will create an entrance to a cosmic wormhole, making travel to inaccessible places like Topeka more convenient. :tiphat:


Will Topeka ever be considered "convenient" in any way or later time?


----------



## Forte

KenOC said:


> While I don't completely understand string theory, I've read that some physicists believe ('scuse me, "hypothesize") that if you accumulate a big enough ball of string, it will create an entrance to a cosmic wormhole, making travel to inaccessible places like Topeka more convenient. :tiphat:


In a way, that's true - but you can do that with anything


----------



## katdad

Ondine said:


> Forte, it was a very good discussion about physics. I like the issue and I enjoy such discussions. I was joking too.


Okay, cool, just checking. Although I've got an MS, it's in applied physics (that is, specializing in physics as used in commercial applications, such as the chemical or oil industry), not theoretical physics. Nevertheless I've got a solid general physics background plus lots of math, and I study, as I previously said, quantum theory and such as a hobby. In addition to, of course, classical music and opera.

Nowdays however I'm just a mystery writer. See, with all that college and late night study, turns out that I love writing more than being in the lab. Goes to show you. What, however, I don't know, ha ha.


----------



## trazom

Associating Bach's music with the secrets of the universe.:lol: These comments remind me of the youtube videos of Bach fugues where teenagers post about how enlightening or revealing it is to get stoned and listen to this music. It's like having your mind totally blown maaaaaaaaan.


----------



## Forte

I'm a teenager, but I've never been stoned, does that count?


----------



## PetrB

Forte said:


> I'm a teenager, but I've never been stoned, does that count?


Sure, biochemically, you've gone (temporarily) insane, so "stoned" it is -- you're on a natural high for several years, until you "come down" as an adult. BTW; being drunk counts as "stoned."


----------



## Forte

PetrB said:


> Sure, biochemically, you've gone (temporarily) insane, so "stoned" it is -- you're on a natural high for several years, until you "come down" as an adult. BTW; being drunk counts as "stoned."


-I've never been drunk
-I suppose teenagers are on natural lows just as often


----------



## PetrB

Forte said:


> -I've never been drunk
> -I suppose teenagers are on natural lows just as often


A wide spectrum of shifts from up to down is just one part of the deal of adolescence... it really does settle down after a while


----------

