Leighton Gill Wrote:

>As for Stockhausen being music, I've heard it, and I've heard music, and
>the two have little in common.

Leighton evidently will continue to state that Stockhausen's works do not
constitute music.  That's a relatively extreme statement to make, and
Leighton states it in a definitive manner.

Now, I'm assuming that Leighton possesses an overall definition of music
which necessarily excludes the works of Stockhausen; otherwise he could
not logically arrive at his conclusion.  Is Leighton willing to share his
definition with us? If he does not, I can only conclude that Leighton
simply wants to "get a rise" from some folks by making extreme statements
of no merit.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]