Kevin Sutton wrote:

>I am certainly NOT making this up.  I have been called equally foolish for
>NOT liking certain kinds of music because others say I should.

Are you sure it was because you disliked the music? It is indeed foolish
to criticise someone for not liking something.  I can't stand okra.  This
does not make me a bad person.  I respect your taste and not liking this
music we're discussing.  I was fairly unimpressed by the short snippet I
heard, too.  But I would never presume to make a determination of whether
it is Music or not.  Of course it's music, and of course it's Art.

>You say to me that Oliveros' heartbeat symphony is art.  I say it's
>dog shit.  Now who's telling the truth here, you or me?

Me.  Calling something "dog [ahem] poo" is a statement of opinion.  If an
artist presents their own work as Art then it's Art.  Bad Art maybe.  Art
nonetheless, and that's fact, not opinion.  IMHO.

>I never said that it can't.  Improvisation is the basis of jazz, and many
>other forms of native and folk music.  But you can't call that composition.

Why on earth not? Of course it's composition.  It doesn't involve sheet
music or pencils or music stands or major chords, but it is composition.
Sponteneous composition is no less valid than pen-and-paper composition.

>...  If you are telling me that Ms. Oliveros has composed some new
>pieces for me to hear, and then I get to sit and listen to my heart-beat,
>then you have commited fraud and I am due redress.

I beg ignorance.  Does the piece consist solely and completely of listening
to your heartbeat? Doesn't matter, really, anyway.  Surely you check out
the performers/composers of concerts you go to.  Wouldn't you be prepared
for anything if you went to a concert of hers? And where is the line
between Bad Art and canine excretions?

>Again, were I to respond to your invitation (and being the open minded guy
>that I am, I will) I would know going in what I was about to experience,
>and I may indeed find musical elements in the above.  I won't however find
>a musical composition, now will I?

By my definition of "composition", yes.  In fact, you might be surprised,
as I was, how these improvs take on a form and harmonic language all their
own.  I have gotten feedback from people who simply refused to believe that
there was no preplanned structure, but that's the case.  You listen, and
when you're listening, pretend that we are playing written notes from a
score.  Does that make it a "composition"? A score? Little lines and dots?
Music has to be written to be a composition?

>Now you're getting really defensive and personal, taking my comments about
>a specific composer and event and applying them to what I might think about
>your work, and in turn making me out to be the bad guy.  This kind of
>statement doesn't even deserve a response.

But I'm glad you responded anyway.  Sorry, didn't mean to be mala leche,
as they say in Spain (bad milk) but I had the impression that the comments
went beyond the specific composer to all kinds of aleatoric, non-written
music, and that's something I play, so I took it personally.  Forgive me
for my lousy manners.

>>awfully sad.
>
>If they were artistic endeavors, it would be.  Even someone who appends
>their signature with the title of composer can also be a fraud.

I guess, but let's not be too quick to judge.  Why should she be a fraud?
For the money? I doubt that she does the Mercedes thing on her concert
income.  Fame? Has anybody really ever heard of this person? Are there
ever any more than about 50 people in her audiences? No, I would think
that her efforts are indeed artistic endeavors and she makes the music
she does because she feels it and thats how she says what she wants to say.
So nobody likes listening to it? Fine.  Again, she's doing it for herself,
not for you or me.

Dave Runnion
http://mp3.com/tramuntana