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