Fri Jun 7 10:18:00 1996

From owner-tc-list  Fri Jun  7 10:18:00 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA14145; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 10:16:34 -0400
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 10:15:26 -0400
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer)
Subject: Re: Another set of miscellaneous replies
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1133

Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>Now, on a subject near and dear to my heart....

>>> Rather the logic here, it seems to me, would be the same as asking how
>>> could Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn and all the rest, working independently,
>>> have come up with a style of music which we (now) call "Classical"?

>Please folks, let's not use analogies to classical music. [...]

(One minor point:  Please note that I did not write "classical"; rather I
wrote "Classical", i.e. a specific style characterized by those composers
that I mention.  I could have used "Romantic" or "Neo-Baroque" with a
different set of composers; however I happened to be listening to the
Archduke Trio as I was typing.)

>If we must use musical analogies at all -- and I'd rather we didn't --
>we should use analogies to folk music. [...]

In any case, at issue here was not a music point; nor even, really, a
musical analogy.  Rather I was simply pointing our an a priori/a posteriori
flaw in the original argument.

Cheers

Nichael
nichael@sover.net                                               __
http://www.sover.net/~nichael              Be as passersby   -- IC

Back