>> "Although our music is complex to the point that few
>> people can listen to it, we certainly do not offer the
>> world's most complex music, merely the world's most
>
>
> Who does "our" refer to? Academic music, or just academic
> music at UCSD (where I believe Puckette is based)?

I'll post the link to the whole article later -- he
speaks on behalf of american academic/university music.

>> unlistenable music. To compare our music to that of
>> north India by asking which is the more complex is
>> simply ludicrous." -- Miller Puckette
>
> Who asks this?

It's a rhetorical device -- he means to say that it is
self-evident that North Indian music is more complex
than American academic music.

He brings this up in the context that an apparent goal
of academic music is ever increasing level of
complexity & that the complexity pursued is of an
structural and theoretical nature, rather than musical.
He points out that North Indian music is more complex
and yet is still musical and listenable, whereas
American academic music is unmusical and unlistenable,
as is evidenced by the lack of interest of audiences
for western music outside of those who have been
conditioned through the grist mill of academia. This
contrasts with the far more sophisticated and complex
North Indian music which finds wide and appreciative
audiences.

>> awarded Ph.D. degrees, although art historians or
>> theorists are; their output is not works of art but
>> scholarly prose." -- Miller Puckette, 1999
>
> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm . . . . I wonder what one would call the
> "output" of mailing lists. . . . .

BINGO!!!

-- you win the prize --