There is pretty strong evidence that Bach, for example, was also very much into math and thought about music in a very mathematical way. Some other composers definitely did the same, but I agree with you that mathematical thinking was never a prerequisite for composers.
I would suspect that many of the ones from the early periods were far more "mathematical" than 20th and 21st century composers, but there is very little writing either way.
I don't think many early composers get as mathematical as someone like Xenakis or even Schoenberg. Or maybe its just the way in which the math manifests in composition, Xenakis was far more direct with it than Bach. I can't see how one could make a viable case for pre 20th century composers being more mathematical but the argument could be interesting and worthwhile.
I'm not sure how you're defining "mathematical." The definition really changes who is on the list. Schoenberg and the 12 tone crowd had some of the most obvious applications of math, but composers of the Baroque era treated music a lot more like a logic puzzle than anything the 20th century composers came close to. For example, I encourage you to do some research into canons and how they are written. That is what I meant by "mathematical," rather the idea of doing arithmetic on notes (which I happen to think is a crude excuse for creativity).
>rather the idea of doing arithmetic on notes (which I happen to think is a crude excuse for creativity).
That is a very crude view of the relation between math and music in 20th and 21st centuries. 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.
Schoenberg and his ilk are more music influenced by math, set theory in music is not set theory in math. 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. The thing with much computer music is that it is deeply tied into how music works on a computer right down to the way sound is generated which requires us to throw away traditional ideas of orchestration and form to understand it as something other than just a musical representation of math. I lack the math to get much of this stuff but I find it very interesting and it certainly provides me with a good number of ideas.
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).
I would suspect that many of the ones from the early periods were far more "mathematical" than 20th and 21st century composers, but there is very little writing either way.