Mimi replies to me ...

>Definitions do not "allow understanding."

You are right.  They simply provide a base for understanding.  I must say
I am suprised by this reaction to offering a definition of music.  Usually
the problem when discussing things is "define your terms".  What do you
mean by music, what do you mean by harmony, what do you mean by form?
Its actually refreshing to find a discussion where no definitions are
necessary.  Just go for it.

>Definitions do not allow us to compare the "great master's work" ...
>LISTENING CAREFULLY TO THE GREAT MASTERS allows us to compare them.

Definitions provide a common base for comparison.  It assures, for example,
that if we are discussing "cats", you are not talking about a furry animal
and I'm talking about a broadway show.

>Don't forget that we come from all different backgrounds, and most of the
>music lovers in this group are not musically trained.

You may be right.  I have no idea how much formal training those on the
list have.  I hope by formal training you are not referring to academic
training, since one can become formally trained (whatever that means) by
studying music and reading books on their own.  Many great composers did
not have academic degrees in music.  In fact, if you include popular music,
the overwhelming volume of music is produced by people with no academic
training.

>The use of the words "sound effects" annoys the hell out of me.  It puts
>great compositions like the B Minor Mass on the same level with a buzz
>saw.

It may be possible to put a buzz saw into a composition.  Gershwin used
taxi cab horns and others used non-traditional sounds.  I used sound
effects to allow the most possible sounds in music.

>This discussion you started seems to be fueled by an overwhelming desire
>to turn everything into an either/or proposition, ideas forced into little
>boxes of ones or zeros.

I confess that as a scientist, I like to look at things analytically to see
what makes things work and how things work especially as regards the music
and the mind.  I would expect that composition classes do the same thing.
But threads die on their own if there is no interest.  I don't think that
I can be accused of forceable keeping this thread going (which I did not
start BTW).  If that were true I would be the only one posting to it.  Also
we have thread names that can be used in conjunction with the delete key
for those who are not interested.

>Mr. Pirkle, it seems that you are thrashing around trying to create a need
>for something where no need exists.  I can see something like a composition
>program as an aid to the study of music history, but I find it utterly
>useless as an aid to original composition.

I am trying to make the fundamentals of music composition available to
everyone in my thrashing around.  We have a serious disagreement.  I can't
possible see how software that composes symphonies can be useful in the
study of music history, since all its music is original and a bit avant
guarde, and I would think that the things it generates would provides ideas
for composers to use.

>Music, as you say yourself, is an art form.  It does have some RULES, but
>these RULES were discovered AFTER THE COMPOSITION WAS COMPLETE and was
>description, not prescription.

I don't think the teachers of 4 part harmony would agree with that.  You
are right in that rules were discovered through the analysis of successful
music.  I see great composers as teachers.

>I am not enthusiastic about working on a "def." that will pretend to make
>it fit into one of your little boxes.

Actually they are big boxes, so big that all music can fit into them, even
music based on buzz saws.

>This important point has been mentioned by at least five other class
>members, and you have ignored it in your zeal to tell us where we err as
>a discussion group.

Please don't try to turn our differing points of view and approach to
music into a "Bill Pirkle versus the group" thing.  I don't respond to
every message nor to every point in the message that I do respond to.
We all have a right to express our point of view and not be silenced by
disagreement.

>>Offered in a friendly way realizing that everyone has a right to a
>>definition of everything, I remain, Sincerely
>
>So you think it's ok to insult the musicologists and everyone else on the
>list because you are doing it in a friendly way?

My sinncerest apologies to anyone I may have unintentionally insulted.

>The other day, Mr. Pirkle, you really irked me.  Chopping up measures from
>all the Beethoven sonatas, but putting parts of one sonata with another
>entirely different sonata in a form that is "acceptable" because it is
>a three-part songform is as offensive to me (even though it is "all"
>Beethoven) as if you had said, "hey, let's rent a shredder and put in all
>of Shakespeare.

I think you misinterpreted my remarks.  I was making a point on the
importance of form in music and using that as an example of formless
good sound effects.

You seem to get annoyed and irked.  Maybe you are taking the list too
seriously.  My name is shown as the sender, just delete them.

Bill Pirkle