Dear Frogman, There is also great joy in discussion with
eloquent persons for the sake of argument. My problem with
the éssentilism in the context of 'composition' is that when you take the 'essential part'apart and remove the 'accidental' one you will have no composition. Ie a composition presupposes more parts then one. The musical works are creations of composers and they are called compositions. I don't believe that the composers will allow
any partitioninig of they work. Thy even have protection
from the law by copyright wich is a part of intellectual property law. So even in the law- matters we need ,uh, the
'composed' parts.Ie a single part regardless of importance or essence will not do.
Regards,
eloquent persons for the sake of argument. My problem with
the éssentilism in the context of 'composition' is that when you take the 'essential part'apart and remove the 'accidental' one you will have no composition. Ie a composition presupposes more parts then one. The musical works are creations of composers and they are called compositions. I don't believe that the composers will allow
any partitioninig of they work. Thy even have protection
from the law by copyright wich is a part of intellectual property law. So even in the law- matters we need ,uh, the
'composed' parts.Ie a single part regardless of importance or essence will not do.
Regards,