Peter Varley replies to me:

>What I'm not in favour of is people using computers to do their thinking
>for them. ...
>
>How do you stop your program falling into the hands of the UNtalented?

Actually, I was directing the software to the UNtalented.  Its for people
who can't write music, like most people on Earth, but who can recognize
good music when they hear it (at least good to them).  That way, using
their judgment, they can develop CM.  I am attempting to expand CM
composition to the masses, at least the masses that are interested.
As I am sure you know, a great many people first heard the symphonies of
Beethoven, because Liszt played them on the piano in towns and villages
that had no symphony orchestra.  Now, the recording industry, and radio
makes CM available to everyone interested.  And now computer generated
music technology being developed in universities and elsewhere will make it
possible for ordinary people to experiment with music and learn something
about it.  Think of this technology as a "music lab", perhaps for children
as well as adults.  Now back to the original point, assuming that great
music could be written by a computer, guided by an UNtalented human -or
with what Dr.  Strangelove called "human meddling":-) - will it be accepted
on its face or will the CM community reject it out of hand - as my query
asked - "How much does the composer and historical significance matter?"
I think that its a valid question and it is sincerely asked.

Last week I saw a thing on the TV where someone has taught an elephant to
hold a artist's brush in its trunk and paint pictures.  They were quite
good and most people, even art critics, would not be able to distinguish
them from today's modern art, AND, they are being auctioned off at
Sotheby's (sp?) in New York!  Surely a person that would pay good money
for a painting by an elephant would accept a CM composition written by
a computer.

Not being combative, I remain, sincerely

Bill Pirkle