Stirling Newberry wrote in response to me:

>But you still have not shown any evidence whatever that the artist must
>feel the emotion which his art communicates, nor that the upwelling of
>emotion is the unvarying sign of creation.

I'm not enrolled at Sterling Newberry University where the sensitivities
and whining of the students is indulged.  I go to Listeners' University
and these are my listening requirements:

1.  If a composition has appealing melodies with which I connect, I keep
listening.

2.  If the composition conveys emotion in the degree and type I want, I
keep listening.

3.  If I have the feeling that the emotions conveyed are not sincere, the
work becomes history.

Of course, Stirling has a large advantage on me in that he works within the
artistic world.  I'm just a business/market/management type who listens to
classical music.  Cutting through to what I care about, is Stirling going
to try to satisfy my listening requirements? Does he have any interest in
doing so?

Being a good sport, I'll respond directly to Stirling's comments.  No, I
have not provided evidence that the artist must feel the emotion which his
art communicates.  I never indicated a "must" premise.  My "must" premise
is that without that feeling, I'm not interested in the composition.  I
also did not say that an upsurge in emotion is an unvarying sign of
creation; that's a creation of Stirling's.

When this thread started, I thought that the subject was a simple one.
But, we have list members who question the value of emotion in creating
music and turn the issue into one that requires some kind of proof or
evidence.  With that kind of mind-set, music they compose will not satisfy
listener requirements.  Maybe they don't care.  I don't care either.  When
I can't get what I want from one source, I get it from another.  Active
composers are competing with other contemporary composers and with all
composers of the past.

Don Satz for Listener Rights
[log in to unmask]