Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Thu, 21 Sep 2000 12:39:46 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Don writes:
>Bill Pirkle, in a recent posting on this thread, questions the relevance
>of the term "classical music". I just wanted to relate that I consider
>it highly relevant. It has been, for me, the entrance "ID" to the music I
>want to listen to and own. Also, everybody I know has a generally similar
>notion of what classical music sounds like (love it or hate it). And the
>typing of the term in a search engine brought me to Dave's website; that
>has plenty of significance as well.
>
>My basic response to Bill is that a descriptive term can be relevant
>without being exacting. It's a slippery world when one wants the exact.
Indeed, I don't have a problem with the term per se, nor am I looking for
an "exact" definition. Any definition will do, and that is looking less
and less possible. I do not think I am being unreasonable in expecting
that words have a definition, even a broad one. George Orwell (1984) would
agree. Could you complete this sentence to the satisfaction of everyone on
this list -
Classical music is music that ....
I don't think that anyone can. What's wrong with this picture?
Bill Pirkle
|
|
|