Actually, for what its worth and not being belligerent, I enjoyed Steve's
post and have saved it in a special folder, reserved for things I want to
read again.  Steve there are very few posts there, congratulations:-).

Ed Zubrow writes:

>Steve Schwartz's review of Marsalis and McCartney stimulated a number
>of thoughts and questions.  As often happens, considering other aspects
>of music can illuminate our understanding of the classical form.

About that, lets me say, I have posted a question to the ams-l and will
give it a try here.  The term "classical form" is the issue.  I asked
"where did the term classical musical originate and does it have a specific
meaning".  My participation on this list has caused me to question this
term as to its relevance at all, given the many exceptions that can be and
are noted about any specific definition..  It does not mean old music (we
have current classical composers), nor emotional music(much in playful in
nature), nor long music(the short pieces of Chopin) and I am not sure what
it means - Gregorian Charts, are they included? What about the music of the
Elizabethan period or the late Roman Empire?.  I know of many so called pop
compositions that are classical in nature to me.  If it includes the songs
of Schubert, it would have to include "She's Leaving Home" by the Beatles,
by my thinking, "Yesterday", and many more.  So what does it mean?

If I were to tell you I write classical music, that would tell you very
little, not nearly as much as if I told you I wrote Rock, Jazz, Blues, Hip
Hop, or Rap.  It seems to be a catch all term, but I'm not even sure what
it catches.

Does anyone know where this term came from.  I'm talking classical vs
popular, not classical vs baroque vs romantic, vs modern.  Did Bach think
he was writting classical music, did Mozart? If some one asked Beethoven,
"What kind of music do you write", how would he reply?

Bill Pirkle