Re: What do you think is necessary in order to have anexcellentcomposition?

[kkissinger@kevinkissinger.com]

Quoting Krispen Hartung <khartung@cableone.net>:

> Imagine if everything time I said something was
> beautiful, I had to qualify exactly what I meant down the specific
> logical atoms that denoted my owen sensory data or memories of sensory
> data. It would take hours and we'd never be able to communicate. It's
> easier to just use the word and assume we have a common understand in
> absence of there being an actual "Thing" out there called beauty.

This point is well-taken: that a word such as "beauty" is a shorthand  
that we can use to communicate with the presumption that you and I  
have enough in common that our respective approaches to "beauty" are  
similar.

Having worked with live organ/choral music, a "good" acoustic suggests  
a live space with reflective surfaces and enough reverb to carry the  
sound without destroying clarity.  A "poor" space would be one that is  
"dead" -- that is, a space with carpet, acoustical tile, and absorbent  
properties.

One time a live-sound person commented to me that he had dealt with a  
lot of "bad" rooms.  I asked him, "What to you is a bad room?"  And  
his answer: "A room that has reverb."

Thus, when someone tells you they want to deliver to you a "good" or  
"beautiful" product, you might want to investigate exactly what they  
mean to avoid an unpleasant surprise.  :)