Stirling Newberry <[log in to unmask]> writes, accusing me,
or more accurately, the American Heritage Dictionary, with sophistry,
because it doesn't comport with his USE of the language. Responding to
my observation:

>>Duodecaphonic compositions do not always have melody, harmony, or both,
>>and therefore do not always fit the shared conceptual understanding of
>>music.  Simply ordering all twelve chromatic pitches, or the sharing of
>>the use of similar instruments, aren't sufficient to merit duodecaphonic
>>compositions with the appellation of "music."

Mr Newberry writes,

>I'm afraid this argument does not hold up on examination - you've moved the
>question "what's music?" to "what is melody or harmony?".

I gave the definition of "music" in the original post.  I won't repeat it
here.  As far as what is "melody," I again turn to the American Heritage
Dictionary:

1.      A pleasing succession or arrangement of sounds.
2.      Musical quality: the melody of verse.
3.  Music.  a.  A rhythmically organized sequence of single tones so
related to one another as to make up a particular phrase or idea.  b.
Structure with respect to the arrangement of single notes in succession.
c.  The leading part or the air in a harmonic composition.

And, as far as the definition of "harmony," I cite the same source:

a.  The study of the structure, progression, and relation of chords.
b.  Simultaneous combination of notes in a chord.  c.  The structure
of a work or passage as considered from the point of view of its chordal
characteristics and relationships.  d.  A combination of sounds considered
pleasing to the ear.

Both definitions excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language, Third Edition (c) 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and
distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States.
All rights reserved.

>At bottom there seems to be a Potter Stewartism at work here.  Why not
>focus more directly on what your criticisms of the music are, rather than
>engaging in elaborate sophistry? Why not come to terms with the idea, and
>its results and give a clear and cogent criticism?

Since USE determines MEANING (vide, Wittgenstein, "Philosophical
Investigations") and since most dictionaries identify and record linguistic
use in a collection of words, there's hardly any sophistry going on, except
perhaps for the appeal to Potter Stewart.

Mr Newberry and others are free to use the language to mean what they
want it to mean, just as composers are free to use instruments and musical
notation to compose, but in doing so they either (i) conform to the usual
and customary use, or (2) deviate from the same.  If the latter, they must
take care that they don't fall into solipsism and "private" language/music.
Not that there's anything inherently wrong with private language/music or
its solipsistic use, but such private and solipsistic use is rightfully
outside the domain of the "ordinary" language/music.  Consequently, many
people, myself included, find myself able to talk about duodecaphonic
compositions but unable to identify it as "musical, harmonic, or melodic."

I don't think I am alone in regarding many, if not most, duodecaphonic
compositions as being "outside" the ordinary, and therefore, remains a
solipsistic and private endeavor for the most part.  I also recognize
that the fact that we can talk about the subject matter,, i.e.,
duodecaphonic, implicitly makes the subject matter itself neither private
nor solipsistic.  But "talking about" duodecaphonic compositions is not the
same thing as believing they are "musical, harmonic, or melodic." Talking
about duodecaphonic compositions vis-a-vis agreeing that they fit the
conventional definitions of music, melody, or harmony are distinctively
different activities and modes of thought.

That fact that my edition of the American Heritage Dictionary doesn't
contain the word "duodecaphonic" or "twelve tone" further supports some
people's perception that they are "outside" ordinary use -- both
linguistically and musically.

Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
[log in to unmask]