Mimi writes:

>I don't think of this as being puritanical.  In fact, I feel deeply sorry
>for people who never learned to read music, never experienced playing in
>a musical organization, <snip>

and Karl adds:

>While I don't see anything of the puritanical in all of this, I do believe
>that when one makes music one understands it differently, at least that
>has been my experience

This seems like a good opportunity for me to vent (just a little vent,
mind you).  There are many people on this list who approach music in
different ways.  Some just listen, some play but do not compose, some
compose.  Now, the idea of a thread is to allow a subset of the list to go
off line in a virtual sense and discuss a topic of mutual interest to the
subset.  I see many threads that are posted to, not to discuss the topic
but to disagree with the topic entirely as a valid topic for discussion,
perhaps killing the thread.  Recently the issue of "music as a language"
arose.  I happen to think it is and would like to discuss its grammar,
syntax, vocabulary, and definitions with those who agree.  In this sense,
those list members who do not think music is a language or that it is not
definable, should simply refrain from posting to the thread and let us
discuss it on our own.  In many cases, thread topics are not discussed,
they are debated as to the validity of the topic at all.  This has happened
to many good topics that would have furthered understanding of CM.

As Karl and Mimi point out about, we all have a different understanding
and thus a different approach to music and that is fine and as it should
be.  I would like to introduce a concept called "thread respect" which
says that "I totally disagree with the notion that music is a language
(for example), that music is definable, that there is a meta-language
for composition, etc.  but I will allow others to discuss music in that
way if they want to and will not interfere."

Please understand the intent of this post.  I am not saying that people
can't read a thread, nor can't post.  I am saying that if you disagree with
the "fundamental notion being raised", just ignore the thread.  Sometimes
violent disagreements inhibit others from posting to a thread that they
might be able to contribute to.  I think it is healthy to discuss a thread
topic but not to discuss whether the topic is valid for discussion.  If its
not, don't worry it will die on its own.  Mail lists are self cleansing.

We might start any new threads with a header, say the topic "music as a
language"

"This thread is being started to discuss music as a language and explore
music from the stand point of definitions, grammar, syntax and how these
are reflected in various compositions.  Any list member who totally
disagrees with the notion that music is a language should refrain from
posting to this thread"

Or "listening to music"

"This thread is being started to discuss music, simply from the listening,
not an understanding perspective.  Anyone who thinks that music should not
simply be listened to for enjoyment, rather feels that it must be analyzed
and defined, should refrain from posting to this thread"

Finally "is music a language"

"This thread is being started to discuss if music is or is not a language.
Anyone who doesn't care whether or not it is a language should refrain from
posting to this thread and not try to make the argument that it doesn't
matter whether is it or not"

Maybe we need to be more explicit when naming threads or include a header
like those above.

Offered in a constructive way,

Bill Pirkle

 [There's no reason to plolarize the list so.  Anyone should feel free to
 post on or respond to any thread they feel compelled to participate in.
 -Dave]