Bill Pirkle wrote:

>Music has many definitions.  Its an art form.  Its symbols on a piece of
>paper.  Its grooves on a vinyl disc.  Its magnetized spots on a tape.  Its
>light reflections on a CD. Its electronic pulses in an electronic device.
>Its vibrations of a speaker cone.  For me music is what makes my piano
>bench so heavy.  I say this so as to assure the list that I am not narrow
>minded about it.  I was proposing a def.  that would allow understanding
>about how and why it is produced, allowing us to compare the great master's
>work from the same common base.  Mozart's sound effects vs.  Chopin's, the
>emotions in 20th music century vs.19th century music.

Definitions do not "allow understanding." Years of careful study produce
understanding.  As listeners, we do not need to know "how and why" a work
was composed.  We need to know where to find it.  Often the composers
themselves do not know "how and why" they have produced great works.  It
is a non-verbal procedure.  They listen, they judge, they scribble.  Some
of them noodle on pianos or other instruments.

Do you want every centipede to look at each foot midair and analyze it for
us? Will that make it possible for us to grow extra feet and walk like a
centipede too?

Definitions do not allow us to compare the "great master's work" ...
LISTENING CAREFULLY TO THE GREAT MASTERS allows us to compare them.  We
do need a common language in order to communicate with each other about
what points we are comparing.  I think we have done quite well on MCML in
creating some common ground.  Don't forget that we come from all different
backgrounds, and most of the music lovers in this group are not musically
trained.

The use of the words "sound effects" annoys the hell out of me.  It puts
great compositions like the B Minor Mass on the same level with a buzz saw.
I will not ever accept any definition of classical music that tries to
reduce it to a sound effect.  I don't care HOW convenient it is.

>We could discuss CM from the point of view of how much my piano bench
>filled with music weighs compared to others, perhaps an interesting thread.

I hope not.

>Image if the non-CM world discovered that a CM discussion list with
>over 1000 music aficionados could not even agree on a def.  or def.s for
>music, even is the broadest sense of "sound effects evoking emotions or
>demonstrating principles", they might say, "when you guys figure out what
>classical music is, then you can try to get me to listen to it, meanwhile
>I'll stick to R&R because I know what that is "sound effects evoking
>emotions in me, like, say Hendrix":-):-):-)

I can't imagine the "non-CM" world being interested at all in what
1000 music lovers do.  I am VERY happy being in a group this large without
having any "def.s" imposed on me.  I have absolutely no difficulty telling
with my own ears what is classical music and what is not.  There are fuzzy
lines around the edges, and it doesn't matter, as long as I can find the
cds and sheet music I want when I want them.  Furthermore, I don't give
a good beep about what the "non-CM" world discovers.  Having a definition
Alone will not make rock'n'roll fans flock to my door begging to partake
of my chamber music collection.

This discussion you started seems to be fueled by an overwhelming desire to
turn everything into an either/or proposition, ideas forced into little
boxes of ones or zeros.

Mr. Pirkle, it seems that you are thrashing around trying to create a need
for something where no need exists.  I can see something like a composition
program as an aid to the study of music history, but I find it utterly
useless as an aid to original composition.  Music, as you say yourself,
is an art form.  It does have some RULES, but these RULES were discovered
AFTER THE COMPOSITION WAS COMPLETE and was description, not prescription.
The music was created NOT by small minds needing help at every step,
but by giant minds ... so giant that we can only guess at the whys and
wherefores.  I am not enthusiastic about working on a "def." that will
pretend to make it fit into one of your little boxes.

This important point has been mentioned by at least five other class
members, and you have ignored it in your zeal to tell us where we err as
a discussion group.

>This lack of agreement would imply that the more one understands something,
>the harder is it to define.

Or it might imply that the subject is too huge to fit into your limiting
viewpoint.

>Offered in a friendly way realizing that everyone has a right to a
>definition of everything, I remain, Sincerely

So you think it's ok to insult the musicologists and everyone else on the
list because you are doing it in a friendly way?

The other day, Mr. Pirkle, you really irked me.  Chopping up measures from
all the Beethoven sonatas, but putting parts of one sonata with another
entirely different sonata in a form that is "acceptable" because it is
a three-part songform is as offensive to me (even though it is "all"
Beethoven) as if you had said, "hey, let's rent a shredder and put in all
of Shakespeare.  Then we'll arrange the strips into Act I and have five
scenes.  We'll use all of Shakespeare's words, and we will have created
something NEW AND ORIGINAL." Romeo and Cressida!  All's Well That Dreams!
And the leftover pieces we can make into fortune cookies."

High Art.

Horsepucky.

Mimi Ezust