Denis Fodor wrote:

>"Leighton M. Gill", who strikes me as something of a Horatio At
>the Bridge fending off the Stockhausen barbarians, has emerged
>from the fracas in pretty good shape.

Since Denis has resurrected this thread and provided what I consider
an erroneous assessment of Leighton's advocacy of his position that
Stockhausen's works are not music, I ask two questions:

a.  Will any list member provide a definition of music that excludes
Stockhausen's works as music? Somebody must be willing to tackle this one,
and you don't even have to believe in the premise.  Just approach it as
if you're on a debating team, and you have to defend a particular position.
I'm going to try to think of one also.  Obviously, I reject Leighton's
claim that a definition of music is impossible; I think that's absurd.

b.  Why can't listeners who strongly dislike the works of Stockhausen et
al just simply state that they "can't stand" it or something to that
effect? Why call into question its identity as music?

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]