Leighton Gill rides his particular hobby horses at full gallop: >>Of course they're music, just not music you happen to care for. > >I seem to recall you saying that you would never again respond to any of >my posts. I have a poor memory, but thanks for reminding me. >As for Stockhausen being music, I've heard it, and I've heard music, and >the two have little in common. See below. And then quotes Geoffrey Gaskell's speculation on whether Stockhausen hasn't gone barmy and concludes with: >Now he can't even write a simple String Quartet, without having to >incorporate theatrical gimmicks such as four helicopters. ... I rest my >case. By the way, if a performer completely botches a Stockhausen piece, >how could anyone tell? What's so simple about writing a string quartet? By the way, what about string quartets with the addition of voice or some obbligato instrument? Are those theatrical gimmicks as well? What about Stockhausen's other works like Gruppen, Stimmung, Gesang der Juenglinge, Donnerstag, and so on - in other words, the works that people have said they liked? After all, the odds are good that any composer will write a piece you won't care for. Why dismiss the rest of the work on the basis of one piece? The short answer to your last question is: the same way one can tell if a performer has completely botched a piece by Bach. The slightly longer answer involves that you at least know how the piece is intended to sound - either through previous performance, knowledge of period style, or through score. If you have little idea of any of these things, you're not going to know. Steve Schwartz