Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site tekecs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!tektronix!orca!tekecs!jeffw
From: jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow)
Newsgroups: net.music.classical
Subject: Re: Poor composers or poor listener (mild flame)
Message-ID: <3783@tekecs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-May-84 12:28:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekecs.3783
Posted: Thu May 17 12:28:48 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 21-May-84 05:16:48 EDT
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 20

(ugh)

> On the contrary, I think a lot of such condemnation come precisely from such
> study.  Though people can certainly listen to and enjoy whatever they like,
> those who do analyze what went into musical works have found a number of
> important things.  Such as, although a piece of music may be well-loved and
> although it has survived for hundreds of years, the composer was a hack and a
> thief who stole the idea from a strugging, starving, and currently unheard of
> composer with much more talent.  (Imagine that...)

And analysis is always objective and accurate. Seriously, if a piece is
as you describe, the analysis is probably wrong - at least in judging the
work a hack job. After all, music is more than just what can be analyzed.
(As if I had to tell YOU that, Mr. Rich Rosen. Shame on you! :-)

Of course, if you REALLY want to get an argument started, you might give
an example...

					what's repentance, anyway?
						Jeff Winslow