Bill Pirkle wrote:

>Satoshi Akima, who writes ...
>
>>The more fundamental question is however what the point is of making such
>>partitions
>
>Because partitioning (classifying) is the way our mind trys to understand
>reality.  For example, real/imaginary, animal/vegatable/mineral and so on.
>Inquiring minds want to know as they say.

Yes we do tend to want to classify.  The difficulty arises when we forget
that not all categories are as clear as "black" and "white".  We are in
trouble when the classes start mattering too much, and we get uncomfortable
and disagreeable with regard to where specific examples belong.  (It is
also the case that some people are more comfortable with ambiguity and lack
of clear categories than are others.)

Classification is useful, in a number of ways, to the enjoyment,
understanding and discussion of music, but it is in the nature of music
that it is not necessarily easily pigeonholed.  Afterall there is not even
universal agreement about what is and is not music, even within the Western
tradition.  In the realm of vocal music, where does "music" end and
"poetry" begin? We can enjoy the discussion of these questions, but....

Helen Duggan
(probably, to logical and systematic thinkers, a somewhat woolly thinker?)