Hi folks.  Interesting thread.  Many comments have been intriguing on both
sides of the issue.

One important question here IMO is that of performer v.  composer, or
performing composers, or participatory CM, all of which I associate.
I find myself inwardly divided on this point; alternately clinging to
populist or elitist attitudes.

On the one hand, there is Cage et al, who claim that we're all
making music, we should all make music, we are all composers, and
other revolutionary sentiments.  All of these thoughts can be noble and
interesting, certainly.  I lost the post to quote the list member who said
they'd probably like Cage, Reich etc.  more if they were in there banging
with them.  Undoubtedly.  Improvisation is wonderful.  Banging on things is
wonderful.  Even I play in the communty amateur orchestra here in town.
Here I sound like the populist.

Communal and/or spontaneous music is great.  But isn't there a difference
between a drum circle (or compsing via the I Ching) and the serious
lifelong study of, say, theory and counterpoint?

Not that I would discourage amateurs from making music!  Just as I would
not have discouraged (years ago) my 12 year old sister from writing crappy
poems about boys.  I believe it was good, or valuable to her, and fun for
her.  And that should be encouraged.  In this sense anyone can make poetry
(or music).  But my 12 year old sister's poems should hardly be mentioned
in the same breath as, say, Whitman (good thing I'm typing.  eh? Or is
there an electronic breath?).

I've wondered before how Palestrina & Cage are both considered CM.
I guess no other genre will have them?

Now I sound like an elitist again.  Oh well.

Bob K.