Christopher Webber replies to me: >I suggested you might be better using "love" to describe your reaction to >the music you like. (I was not talking about the subject matter of the >music, only your reaction to it Sorry for that misunderstanding. Love is a good would to use. I use profound, perhaps wisely or not, to describe the results I get when I try to analyze what I am hearing, a thing I can scarecly avoid. I find it hard to just listen to music in the way that a director cannot simply watch a film. They tend to analyze camera angles, close up effects, dialogue, etc. I am afraid I do the same thing with music, for better of for worse. I do not get the same reaction to modern CM that I get to 19th century CM, probably because I have not studied it to the same extent. Its a self-defeating process - not wanting to hear more of what you don't care for, preventing you from learning to care for it. One can choose get a general overview of all CM or concentrate in one area. As CM is not my vocation, I don't have the time to make an in-depth study of modern CM. I just hear samples on the radio from time to time. As far as my desert island analogy, which some have indicated as "ridiculous: etc. I personally find it a good way to get in touch with my values. Many times I have moved and had to decide what to keep and what to throw away. I once realized that I grew mentally by having to rationalize those choices i.e. what is really important to me. I often use the desert island analogy on myself as a test. For example, if I were stranded on a desert island and could have with me only one Beethoven composition, what would it be? Maybe others find such an exercise useless. Different strokes. Bill Pirkle