Marcus Kim B.Sc. wrote:

>In my humble opinion, music that cannot be played by humans defeats
>the entire purpose of the art.  No player piano or computer can produce
>the subtle nuances, textures and expressive qualities that makes music
>much more than mere playing of the notes.  I can't imagine anything more
>repellent than a "soul less" performance of a great work of art.  As for
>works that cannot be performed by mere mortals, where do the distinctions
>etween noise/music, academic exercise/inspired expression,
>insanity/sanity, banal/sublime etc...  lie? After all, any moron with staff
>paper and pen can write a composition that cannot be performed by a human.

Any moron with a pen can also write music than ANYONE can perform.
However, not ANYONE can write music, whether playable or not, that is
just damn good music.  Of course good is different to each person but,
well......you know what I mean.  If someone conceived the idea for
glorious music in their head and, after writing it out, discovered it was
unplayable, would it no longer be considered good music? Of course it would
still be good music.  The limits of our technical facility can never reach
the heights set by the limits of our fantasies and imagination.

--Wes Crone