Klarinet Archive - Posting 000224.txt from 2011/01

From: "Peter Gentry" <peter.gentry@-----.uk>
Subj: Re: [kl] Food for thought
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:38:00 -0500

I would imagine that all references to Mozart as helping plants grow or
students struggle with mathematics are unsupported by reliable observation.
They come under the general heading things "they say that" or "it has been
proved that" without any foundation whatsoever.

Why muddle up beautiful music by ascribing to it such mundane attributes?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: corvo di bassetto [mailto:rab@-----.de]
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 11:45 PM
> To: The Klarinet Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [kl] Food for thought
>
> Kathy,
>
> Would you consider playing Mozart to a certain set of plants for six
> month and than play Brahms to them for the next six month? This way we
> might finally learn whether it is actually only Mozart that makes them
> grow better. Next step would be a comparison of proliferation rates
> induced by the Quintet and the Concerto respectively.
> My cacti died last time I played Reger. It might be tangential however.
>
> Best regards,
> danyel
>

_______________________________________________
Klarinet mailing list
Klarinet@-----.com
To do darn near anything to your subscription, go to:
http://klarinet-list.serve-music.com