Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site lanl-a.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!lanl-a!jlg
From: jlg@lanl-a.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.music,net.music.classical
Subject: Re: Why classical music isn't / Rich Rosen's overreaction
Message-ID: <10730@lanl-a.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Jul-84 13:34:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: lanl-a.10730
Posted: Thu Jul 19 13:34:25 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Jul-84 03:13:03 EDT
References: <3908@tekecs.UUCP>
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 23


Well, Rich Rosen is up to his old tricks again.  I think he only posts
to the net to start arguments.  A while back he took a survey of why 
people looked at this newsgroup - he never posted the results.  One
of his questions was 'what percentage of the notes in this group do you
skip?' or something to that effect.  My answer WAS none.  Henceforth, I
will skip any note with Rich rosen as the author.

Rich Rosen accuses all classical music fans of being snobs.  The tone
of his article is 'I you don't appreciate ALL music, you are a narrow
minded snob.'  But, reading through his articles, I get the feeling that
he has an active dislike for quite a lot of classical music.

By the way, there is nothing 'so-called' about classical music.  It is 
music that has become classic.  You could even apply an unambiguous, 
objective test to it - it is a classic if is is still widely performed
one or more generations after it was written.  This definition does not
depend upon taste or point of view, and by this definition some of the
popular music of today will eventually become classic!


			J.L. Giles