Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site olivej.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!oliveb!olivea!olivej!greg From: greg@olivej.UUCP (Greg Paley) Newsgroups: net.music.classical Subject: Re: Response to Greg Paley; Why experimental music is so popular. Message-ID: <201@olivej.UUCP> Date: Mon, 20-Aug-84 11:54:58 EDT Article-I.D.: olivej.201 Posted: Mon Aug 20 11:54:58 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 22-Aug-84 05:29:11 EDT References: <3394@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: Olivetti ATC, Cupertino, Ca Lines: 20 I've read this "response" over three times and I'm still bewildered. The author clearly had certain points he wanted to make on the net, which is fine, but I still can't grasp where any of these had any direct relationship to my article, which was being commented on. I certainly have no interest in knocking "experimental" music, as he wants to call it (my use of contemporary "classical" was purely to distinguish it from pop & rock - I don't know who Mr. Janzen's "we" is who never use the term "classical" but there's another sizeable "we" that still use the term to describe anything performed by a symphony orchestra in a concert hall) or put a damper on anything new. I was merely observing the fact that the ticket-buying public which packs the hall for Beethoven performances will leave a hall nearly deserted for all but a handful of "contemporary" performances, and I was supplying my hypotheses as to why. - Greg Paley