I developed a large number of my attitudes while learning about statistics.
I learnt a sceptical response to statements such as below - "How do you
know?".

Don Satz responded to Stirling Newberry's request for evidence with an
insult and a credo.  I respond only to the credo.  Don wrote:

>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.

My question to Don is:

How do you know that the emotion conveyed by the music is conveyed because
of the emotion felt by the composer or the performer(s)? How do you know
that the emotion conveyed by the music is not your own emotion skillfully
elicited by a composer and/or performers who know that, in some kinds of
music, emotion can be produced in the listener by this and that techniques?

I greatly respect many of Don's opinions about music.  I have never
disliked a recording he has praised.  I respect his right to have a
different opinion from mine about state support for music.  But the venom
in his reply to Stirling Newberry suggests to me that some deeply felt
assumption of his is being questioned, and the questioning hurts.  He might
like to try questioning the assumption himself for his own benefit.

Alan Dudley
<[log in to unmask]>