Stirling writes ...

>Common practice refers the harmonic language founded on the musical period
>refered to as the "classical" in the narrow sense.  It corresponds with
>the "neo-classical" movement in painting and architecture, the word
>"neo-classical" refering to a later period in music.

That is probably true but if "common practice" has not yet been
stretched so as to be nebulous, it surely will be, taking its place
along side "avant-garde" and "classical music".  This is less the
"information age" and more an age where the ideas of "do your own thing"
and "go for it" include having your own definitions of words.  We have
achieved true Democracy and personal freedom at last.  Everybody can be
right.  Fortunately, President Clinton, a man of the people, is helping
this movement by challenging the meaning of the word IS.  Right on,
Bill:-)

It may be that music by its very nature is describable but indefinable,
but that would imply that the words used to describe have a distinct
meaning, therefore, it must be indescribable and indefinable, leading to
the interesting question "How is it then the subject of so much academic
activity".  The only thing that we can discuss is its history, the lives
of those who make it and where to get the best CD of it.  Perhaps that is
the greatest thing about music in the end.  Thus, there is no good music
or bad music and by extension, no good composers and bad composers.  Just
music and composers.  This would, then, have to include my (and other's)
composing software:-).  My software depends heavily on "common practice" -
whatever that is.

The challenge, then, for the status quo is to either define music so as to
eliminate the computer junk, or accept computers as composers.

A light post.  (No, that was heavy, man.  No it was light.  What do you
mean by light? Well what do you mean by heavy?  ...)

Bill Pirkle, "The greater the idea, the more people it will threaten"
Personal Artist page http://www.pirkle-websites.com/