Denis Fodor wrote:

>Leighton no doubt has at very least an individualistic and subjective
>definition of music.  In another posting Don asserted that this suffices to
>justify judgements in music.  Here, to the contrary, the kind of definition
>that Don seems to require is the kind that resembles a paradigm.

Thee's nothing contrary about my position, and I don't "require" anything
of Leighton.  If Leighton does not provide his definition of music, I'll
carry on just fine and so will Leighton.

Yes, I feel that the individual has every right to define music.  However,
once the definition is stated, the individual, if being consistent, has
to live with that definition: works that fall "within" the definition
are music, those that don't are excluded.  I was just interested in a
definition which would exclude the works of Stockhausen.  I did offer a
challenge to Leighton, but we are not gladiators in the Roman coliseum.

My definition of music is any sound, series of sounds, absence of sound,
or any combination of sounds/absence of sounds.  Who the hell am I to tell
another individual that something he/she considers music is not music? What
"proof" do I bring to the discussion to argue my case with? There is no
"proof." Rules/definitions established by humans are not set in concrete,
nor are they sacred.  This applies to "speed limits" as well; so many
times, passengers in my car tell me that I must/need to obey the posted
speed limits as if God stuck the post in the ground.  I detest blind
obedience to laws and rules; I accept the legal penalties for not adhering
to laws.  Anyone for civil disobedience?

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]