Christopher Webber replies to me:

>I suggested you might be better using "love" to describe your reaction to
>the music you like.  (I was not talking about the subject matter of the
>music, only your reaction to it

Sorry for that misunderstanding.  Love is a good would to use.  I use
profound, perhaps wisely or not, to describe the results I get when I
try to analyze what I am hearing, a thing I can scarecly avoid.  I find
it hard to just listen to music in the way that a director cannot simply
watch a film.  They tend to analyze camera angles, close up effects,
dialogue, etc.  I am afraid I do the same thing with music, for better of
for worse.  I do not get the same reaction to modern CM that I get to 19th
century CM, probably because I have not studied it to the same extent.  Its
a self-defeating process - not wanting to hear more of what you don't care
for, preventing you from learning to care for it.  One can choose get a
general overview of all CM or concentrate in one area.  As CM is not my
vocation, I don't have the time to make an in-depth study of modern CM.
I just hear samples on the radio from time to time.

As far as my desert island analogy, which some have indicated as
"ridiculous:  etc.  I personally find it a good way to get in touch with my
values.  Many times I have moved and had to decide what to keep and what to
throw away.  I once realized that I grew mentally by having to rationalize
those choices i.e.  what is really important to me.  I often use the desert
island analogy on myself as a test.  For example, if I were stranded on a
desert island and could have with me only one Beethoven composition, what
would it be?

Maybe others find such an exercise useless. Different strokes.

Bill Pirkle