Peter Varley writes ...

>Mailing lists don't work that way.  Anything people agree on gets tacitly
>dropped.  To find out what people agree about, you have to look for what
>they're NOT saying.

Does that mean that there is a great silent majority out there that agrees
with me:-)

You are right and that's too bad.  I seldom see an "I agree" to posts
(not mine but everyone's).  Lurking is somewhat irresponsible.  It just
takes, never puts anything in, nor re-inforces those who stick their neck
out and frankly state their opinions.  One reason is that many posters so
forcefully disagree that others are reluctant to state their opinions for
fear of being pounced on.  CM types are probably very intelligent and
therefore very sensitive.  We should be allowed to state our opinions
frankly, but should state our disagreements tactfully.

I offered my "Philosophy section" to the list as guidelines that my
software follows and not a absolutes that must be applied to every
composition.  I think that they are generally true, at least about the
music of the 18th & 19th centuries, which IMHO represents the zenith of CM.
I don't have time to respond to every counterpoint made but I did read them
all.  Thanks for the feedback.

If the value in CM is the music itself, as most seem to think, then
"did you enjoy it and would you like to hear it again" should be a valid
judgment criteria.  I will temper with "a valid" vs "the valid" to make
room for those who believe strongly that the music itself is but one way
to judge the music.  I am a "the proof of the pudding is in the eating"
kind of guy who doesn't consider the font, paper quality and binding when
reading a book.  For me a thing can be true even if Hitler or Stalin said
it and a piece of music can be good even if it sounds like a Beethoven
knock-off and was written by an amateur.  The question for me is do I get
chill bumps when I hear it.

I do think that this is an interesting thread, even with its thread drift.

There seem to be parallels to the music, art, poetry and literature of the
times.  It is possible to see the paintings of a period and determine what
the music from that time probably sounds like.  This is because the artists
(in general use of the term) like to communicate with each other - even
hang out together.  As Delecroix was a friend of Chopin, one sees heroism
in his paintings and in Chopin's music.  Artists seem to have the same keen
insights into the spirit of the times and reflect that in their works (art
imitating life).  As one sees acceptance of poems that don't rhyme, one
then see paintings with no perspective, and music that abandons traditional
rules, for lack of a better word.  This makes it possible to understand one
art form by looking at another.  Music can thus be visualized by examining
the paintings of the same period, at least in my mind.  But this happens at
a very abstract level that is not verbalizable and attempts to verbalize it
often results in misunderstandings, hasty generalizations, etc.  We can
only talk about what is generally true or possibly generally true.

It seems to be the social values, or lack thereof, that drive art.  Where
anything goes, socially speaking, anything goes in art as well.  (With life
imitating art, this reinforces the anything goes social behavior.  Only the
artist can stop this vicious circle because in a democracy, the politicians
a forced to accept the will of the people.).  Where there is a well defined
social structure, the art of the period seems to reflect this.  The 19th
century was very revolutionary - the French revolution, Napoleon's wars
with the nobility, etc.  and this seems to be reflected in the art of the
time, or perhaps the art of the time caused the revolutionary spirit.
Those times are very similar to our own times, yet the art or our times
does not seem to reflect the heroism or our times, except in some rare
instances of rock music.  The CM of our times seems to have become
institutionalized or bureaucratized with accredited teachers teaching in
accredited music schools to students who pass accredited entrance exams.
Its doubtful is many of the great composers of the past would make it in
that environment.  I think there needs to be a revolution in CM which is
why I developed software that lets anyone produce it and I think that it
produces CM that is just as good as some of the stuff written today, but
in more traditional styles.  Computer generated music must be ruled based,
which means that its must produce music from a time when there were some
rules about the construction of music.

Today's freedom oriented world thus produces art with no rules - anything
goes, anything is acceptable, if you like it, do it which is OK with the
understanding that the artists have a noblese obliege (sp?) to inspire
people to higher dreams not merely appeal to their base instincts.  (Thomas
Jefferson used a wonderful term - the natural aristocracy - the describe
the bright people among us).  I'm for artistic freedom but that must
include the freedom to express thoughts in the older styles as well.  You
can't say that composers are free to write any kind of music EXCEPT music
in the styles of the past without contradicting "free to write any kind of
music".

I don't think that these styles are exhausted and wish using them was not
considered cheating in some way.  If one thinks of these styles as a good
way to evoke emotions, like the music of Wagner, one wonders who benefits
if by their suppression.

Bill Pirkle