Denis Fodor writes:

>To be sure, something new can replace something old but thereafter plenty
>of the old will still linger as residue.  It's largely the same in music,
>except that falsification by logic is not involved, as falsification in
>music involves esthetical speculation.

Well, there is no right and wrong in art, certainly; but:

Are you saying that today one enjoys Bach in the same way that an
enthusiast enjoys riding steam a locomotive, hearing the ticking of an
analog clock, or viewing an antique map w/dragons and monsters populating
the unknown territories? After all, these are the "residue" left behind
after the discovery of more perfect and *useful* models.  Do we really
enjoy 'old' music in a similar manner, by celebrating the whimsies and
extravagance of a creation resulting from the imperfect logic or incomplete
knowledge of its creator?

If old music is a similar-type residue, I would think that you are tacitly
suggesting that new art will always be more elegant and economical and
appropriately *useful* than old art.

>Thus quantum philosophy as applied to physics is distinguished, and
>distinguished usefully, from classical physics.  By related token, in
>music the avant-garde label betokens a valid and important distinction
>from the conventional label.

According to Steven Hawking, ("A Brief History of Time"), quantum physics
and classical physics are incompatible w/ each other, (though both in their
incompleteness have yielded *useful* things for the real world.  Quantum
mechanics differs from classical because of the former's uncertainty
principle--so if you're comparing quantum theory to the avant-garde,
maybe it's because you're uncertain that the music is good?:)

John Smyth