Arto, I'll be on the topic in another letter, this is just to answer your parenthetical question about your use of the phrase "red herring". You used it correctly, it implies a distraction. But you might be interested in the origin of the phrase, a phrase now considered to be standard. It was an old trick used by those escaping from something to drag a smelly object across their trail to distract the dogs from their scent. So the old phrase was "drag a herring across the trail".
The color of the herring is relatively new. There is a fish called a red herring, but this use of red implies Communist. It was during the Senate hearings by Sen. Joe McCarthy in the fifties, that were accusing the US State Department of harboring Communists, that some Senator or attorney with a sense of humor accused "Tailgunner Joe" of "dragging a red herring across the trail" - nicely playing on the name of the fish and McCarthy's obsession with Communists. The colorless herring has disappeared from the vernacular and now the phrase "red herring" has become a compound noun for a distraction from the main issue. Best, Jon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arto Wikla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "James A Stimson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "carlos flores" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 5:05 PM Subject: RE: composers style, analysing for > > Dear all, > > James A Stimson wrote: > > > These composing machines and programs seem able to copy lots of things > > about a composer's work, except those things that make the work worthwhile > > -- inspiration, individuality, diversity, unexpected charms, grace, > > elegance, spirit, etc. > > Are you really sure? I do not say I disagree, but in communication there > is the sender and there is the reciever. This question is philosophically > very interesting! And I would certainly not underestimate the reciever - > in our case the listener! Who is the one who really makes the art? Is > the message really sent by the artist? Or is it produced while reciving > by the reciever? > > To take an analogy from visual arts: If a painting is defined to be > painted by Rembrandt, many can see the artistic values. If after a couple > of years it is proofed that the painting was not by Rembrandt, the > artistic value diminishes - not to speak about the economical value... > > To me - in music - the claim that some piece is "composed by J.S. Bach" is > a kind of red herring (was this the saying?). Every spot of ink by him > should be a gem - and to me every spot certainly is not. Well, many are... > > But at the end, I totally agree with James: The only importantant art is > made by men/women! And the reciever is the judge! There just is, and has > been, that much of "wannabe-art" that could easily been produced by > machines, too. The "real thing" - whatever it is or could be? - cannot > be achieved without human makers! > > All the best > > Arto > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > >
