Mike Leghorn wrote:

>Being a devil's advocate here: Maybe that's the point, that you can do
>that in the bathtub.  Maybe we can be more observant and appreciative of
>the music that surrounds us every day.  I, for one, could really benefit
>from that.  I need to live in the moment more, and be more Zen-like.
>Hummmmmmmmmmmmm.....

Music does not surround us every day.  Ambient noise surrounds us every
day.  Music is something that is created.  It doesn't happen by accident.
That we use elements of ambient noise to make music is coincidental.
In order to be music, it requires thought and structure.  It's a human
creation.  Living in the moment is a wonderful thing for your spiritual
well-being, as is relating ambient noise to music.  My objection is that
alleged "composers" collect ambient noise with no structure or order and
call it music.  Let's call things what they are shall we?

>Stravinsky and Britten had completely different objectives than Oliveros.
>Obviously the work and skill that Oliveros put into composing her "music"
>can't compare with what went into composing "Rite of Spring".  Also
>Stravinsky and Britten have received a lot more credit for their work
>than Oliveros (I've never even heard of Oliveros).

Really? Then why is Oliveros pulling down a faculty salary and able to
maintain a certain amount of fame and recognition for being a "composer?"
I think her objective is entirely the same as Britten and Stravinsky.  That
she has neither the skills or the creativity to pull it off is her undoing.
I want to see Pauline Oliveros or Paul Chihara or Morton Subotnik or Larry
Austin sit down and write a piece of absolute music.  Not some computer
generated happenstance.  I want to hear a work that has a beginning, a
middle and an end.  One that shows some thought beyond "please press play
now." Let them use all the zippers and plungers they want, but let them use
these things as instruments, not gimmicks.

>I wonder myself.  But, is Oliveros taking unfair advantage of her
>established reputation and credentials by offering this "music".
>Credentials or no credentials, the listening audience should be the
>final judge.

Come now Mike.  How many times can you look at a plain blue square of
canvas and call it art? I love Mark Rothko's work, but I still have to
wonder if his final installation, (The Rothko Chapel in Houston, Texas) is
much more than large squares of differing shades of black.  If you can
answer this in the affirmative, then please go enjoy the "art." But does an
uneducated listener appreciate the likes of Oliveros because some erudite
scholar says he's a plebian if he doesn't.  I dare say this happens too
often.

Kevin