Scott:

Reliable? Who wants music that is "reliably" "precise", in just about _any_ sense of that word?

[...]

I'm bothered by your view (as I received it) that in order to appreciate something's "precision", "reliability",and quality, in the context of it's technique, then something NEEDS to be codified from the get go. There is plenty of music that is interesting to listeners, esp. critical listeners, BECAUSE of its total lack of constancy in precision and unreliability in terms of cleanness.

This, to me, needs to be qualified. Of course it does not make any sense to make an "aesthetic" evaluation by comparing how good someone is at coming possibly close to a "gymnastic" optimum. But there is a meaning of the word "precision" which I think is a very good parameter of aesthetic evaluation, though never the only one. "Artistic Precision" could refer to the extent to which someone is capable to realize his ideas, to make his musical imagination become audible for someone else. The opposite term would be contingency. Someone whose audible outcomes are a result of anything but his very ideas cannot really be credited for what he sounds like. This is of course not to deny that the inexpectable, the accident, plays an eminent role. But if someone doesn't have control at least in REACTING upon the accident, it is a real punishment to be in the situation to play with him. By the way, this reminds me of a notion by Robert Musil. He speaks of "utopic exactness" as opposed to "pedantic exactness", and the former is, needless to say, a high ideal for his view of good artistic expression.. Fritz ############################################## Fritz Feger mail@fritzfeger.de www.fritzfeger.de ##############################################