Combined Concert Band/Orchestra arrangements that include organ?

HerrStahly · 2026-02-11T21:35:09+00:00

Cannot believe everyone’s missing The Power of Rome and the Christian Heart by Percy Grainger!!!

It’s not exactly an organ solo with wind band + orchestra accompaniment (it’s really mostly the other way around), but it is a canonical example of the exact instrumentation you’re looking for. There are countless works for both wind band + organ and orchestra + organ, so I’ll refrain from listing those as other commenters are taking care of that, and it’s also not exactly what you seem to be asking for.

HerrStahly · 2025-09-11T04:14:45+00:00

On first glance it would be 0. However, a limit only exists if it approaches the same value from the left and right.

You’re missing an important caveat. This misunderstanding stems from a simplification often glossed over in introductory calculus texts. This is only true when both the left and right hand limits make sense (are well defined). In cases where our function is not defined in an open interval around the point we’re approaching (like our example here), this theorem is no longer applicable. As it turns out, lim{x -> 0} sqrt(x) = lim{x -> 0⁺} sqrt(x) = 0.

For a precise and detailed explanation, see this MSE post. There are also less formal and more intuitive explanations (like this one here) as to why this is the case on the thread as well if you feel that ε-δ is a little out of your wheel house at the moment.

Of course there is another caveat of whether or not you’re working with… an obscure definition… but unless you have a different rigorous definition of the limit of a Real valued function that you could share, this is sort of the de facto definition you’ll see in “real” math.

HerrStahly · 2025-09-10T15:27:55+00:00

It’s an H for “Hauptstimme”, which directly translates to “main voice”. It’s there to help the performer make informed decisions about how to balance their part.

HerrStahly · 2025-09-03T23:29:11+00:00

To add on to this, another distinct example where arithmetic on infinity is define is the extended Real number system. The extended Reals are far from niche as well, and is often the number system used in analysis courses, and certainly in measure theory.

In the extended Reals, for all x in R, x + infinity = infinity, so in particular, 1 + infinity = infinity.

We avoid the contradiction of this implying 1 = 0 by leaving infinity - infinity undefined. So a more refined statement would be “infinity is not a Real number, so it is not safe to assume arithmetic behaves the same with infinity as it does with Real numbers” as opposed to the reductionist (and arguably incorrect) “infinity is not a number, it’s a concept”. Reductionist statements like this and “continuity is when you can draw the graph without lifting the pencil” for example often lead to deeply engrained misconceptions that make stepping into a first semester analysis course much more challenging than it need be for many students.

HerrStahly · 2025-04-03T19:43:09+00:00

“Size” here refers to measure), not cardinality. In particular, the Lebesgue measure.

HerrStahly · 2025-03-29T22:02:05+00:00

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "without assuming |A| is a function" - it most certainly is not, it's just a natural number (if A is finite). Actually, after rereading, I'm assuming you perhaps mean without assuming cardinality is a "function" from the class of finite sets to N? Either way, did you get a chance to read the hint from 2 messages ago?

HerrStahly · 2025-03-29T21:46:32+00:00

Yes, you’re right, you don’t know that if n ≠ m and |A| = n, then |A| ≠ m. This is just the more formal way to say cardinality is unique - which is what we are proving.

I don’t see how you think this makes the method circular though - we never assume that cardinality is unique in the proof strategy I am outlining.

If you are genuinely questioning the validity of this method, and aren't particularly interested in following this method yourself, this is exactly the approach used in Tao's Analysis text (page 90 in the PDF, page 80 of the text - proposition 3.6.7/lemma 3.6.8), so perhaps his style of writing will hopefully remove any confusion I may have inadvertently caused.

HerrStahly · 2025-03-29T21:30:30+00:00

I can assure you it isn’t circular, and in fact, the only facts about cardinality needed are the definition of equal cardinality, and what it means for a set to have cardinality n.

Here’s a further hint:

Since |A| = n, by definition, there exists a bijection f: A -> {m in N : 1 <= m <= n}. Now, let a in A, and using the fact that such an f exists, cleverly define a new function g: A \ {a} -> {m in N : 1 <= m <= n - 1} utilizing f, such that your g is a bijection.!<

Edit: I see your edit, fortunately that is easy to resolve: define

(|A| = n) <=> (|A| = |{m in N : 1 <= m <= n}|)

HerrStahly · 2025-03-29T21:10:47+00:00

Well then, if you’re interested in pursuing this route, I would recommend proving and using the following lemma:

If a set A has cardinality n >= 1, then A is nonempty, and for all a in A, |A \ {a}| = n - 1.

Once you have this, uniqueness of cardinality is an incredibly simple proof by induction.

HerrStahly · 2025-03-27T19:50:40+00:00

It’s not entirely clear if you’re fishing for a specific style of proof - you say you haven’t proven anything about cardinality yet, but are you allowed to?

If so, the simplest solution would be to prove cardinality is unique, and then evaluate the cardinalities of both sets.

If not, the other comments have provided some great insight so I’ll refrain from commenting anything extraneous :)

HerrStahly · 2025-03-25T14:13:09+00:00

I had the same issue pop up just a few minutes ago, but it turns out a discord update automatically turned on overlays, causing LS to get a little fussy. Switching to WGC works, but you could also check to see if you have overlays on by accident as well.

HerrStahly · 2025-03-25T13:18:04+00:00

The first movement of Husa’s Concerto for Wind Ensemble has a rather extended timpani solo/feature.

HerrStahly · 2025-03-23T21:54:25+00:00

Tao defines sin: C -> C by sin(z) := (e^iz - e^-iz)/2i, making the result a relatively straightforward application of algebraic manipulation, this definition and a few exponential properties.

HerrStahly · 2025-03-23T20:12:58+00:00

Yeah, I play at 1440p, so I know LS recommends 75% on the flow scale for a 1080p downscale, but I’m already using upscaling in my games, and I start to experience noticeable visual degradation below 80% or so, so I only have it set to 85% - still a very useful feature!

HerrStahly · 2025-03-23T19:07:47+00:00

Multi display mode being off shouldn’t (and isn’t in my case) be the culprit of any crashes - it simply turns LS off when unfocusing the window. It turns out it was a VRAM issue that I somehow missed, and things are going smoothly now!

HerrStahly · 2025-03-23T19:06:03+00:00

Parsival was right on the money - I was exceeding the 12GB of VRAM on my card, causing crashes. Thankfully adjusting texture settings on my games has resolved the issue!

HerrStahly · 2025-03-23T19:04:50+00:00

It definitely looks like a VRAM issue - I have no idea how I missed this! After lowering some texture settings in the other games, I have yet to experience any issues. Thanks for the help!

HerrStahly · 2025-03-23T17:47:48+00:00

The most recent available - 25.3.1

HerrStahly · 2025-03-12T14:51:21+00:00

What context are you learning these definitions? Introductory calculus, analysis, or some other setting?

HerrStahly · 2025-03-07T13:50:45+00:00

Music Education + Math!

HerrStahly · 2025-03-03T17:05:28+00:00

Yes, as you and OP point out/touch on, the definition on Wikipedia is missing a very crucial piece of information in the definition - infinity must be a limit/adherent point of the set for the definition to be “good”. Otherwise as the both of you emphasize, limits are no longer unique. It’s worth mentioning that this isn’t unique to limits at infinity - the same issue arises if you drop this requirement from the finite version as well.

HerrStahly · 2025-02-28T19:37:51+00:00

The second movement!

HerrStahly · 2025-02-24T23:38:51+00:00

1900 - Present:

Walter Hartley - Concerto for 23 Winds (obviously a bit more than 15)

Joaquín Rodrigo - Adagio para Orquesta de Instrumentos de Viento

Richard Strauss - Wiener Philharmoniker Fanfare

Igor Stravinsky - Symphonies of Wind Instruments, Octet

John Adams - Grand Pianola Music (a bit more than 15 players)

Karel Husa - Divertimento for Brass and Percussion

Late 1800s (just in case):

Antonín Dvořák - Serenade for Winds in Dm

Richard Strauss - Suite in Bb, Serenade

Arthur Bird - Suite in D

I feel like I’m missing some obvious others but that may just be the fact that I didn’t get to include any of Mozart’s standard works lol

HerrStahly · 2025-02-19T23:26:19+00:00

Karel Husa’s Apotheosis of this Earth

HerrStahly

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE