Don Satz writes:

>Bill provides another definition to chew on, but it doesn't make much
>difference what the particular definition might be.  The only definition
>I could live with would be predicated on my having total control of how to
>define music for myself.  I'm not into anything in the area of music which
>restricts my personal options and freedoms.

I tried to come up with the most flexible def.  I could.  It describes all
the music I have ever heard.  In the interest of making it better, would
you please tell me where it restricts your options and fredoms.  Can you
offer me a piece of music you like that does not fall under that def.

>I do have a question for Bill? If we need "one" definition so badly,
>how is it that this list operates fairly well,

Well I enjoy the list immensly and would by no means slam it, but I rarely
see us coming to any conclusion about anything and I think that this is
due to our lack of at least a "working definition" of music.  It sometimes
looks like we are not.even talking about the same thing when we discuss
music.  We might as well be discussing X.  There's good X and bad X.
Everyone likes different X.  There's old X and new X.  We can't break X
down into its parts.There are no rules for producing X and X is undefinable
but fun to discuss.  But we are discussing the indescrible and undefinable
X, to gain a better understanding of X which will be difficult since
everyone has their own definition of X So far the only thing that can be
said about X is that a computer can't make X, whatever X is.

I would challenge someone to find CM that does not fall under this def.
Notice the def.  does not talk about good music or bad music, 19th century
or 20th century, popular or classical - just a series of sound effects that
evoke emotions.

Bill Pirkle