I have been reading and digesting the comments on a variety of sub-
jects in these pages for some time now and wish to add a few of my own
opinions.  First, I heartily endorse the past editorial comment policy
that has been so effectively used up until now.  They are clearly
identifiable as such and I think they add to the content rather than
detract.  I realize that this is no small task and Jody and Robbie are
deserving of our unswerving gratitude.

The information content of this digest is extremely high with little junk
or garbage to wade through.  This makes the total package much more
usable.  Witness the brief exchange of info on the Clay musical clocks
some time back.  This is the very sort of thing that makes Internet
exchange worth while.  In short, thanks guys, for keeping the signal-to-
noise ratio so high.

I think most everyone is in agreement that musical styles are personal
taste matters but any style is fair game to at least experiment with on
mechanical music devices.  One suspects that musical selections so
produced in the past may not have always been universally appealing.
But we really do not know that for sure as we were not there at the time
to note the reaction of the public.  It is fun to speculate on esoteric
questions of this sort but we must realize that we may not be able to
ever answer them.

I do think that we frequently tend to focus almost exclusively on our
instruments and ignore the music that was produced for them.  A well-done
arrangement may say something unique even on a second rate instrument or
a machine not in our list of favorites.  When asked what to look for in a
music box, Etienne Blyelle said at the MBSI annual meeting last year in
Orlando, "Don't look, listen".  I would like to suggest that we appreciate
both instruments and their music and keep open minds about all of it.

As for demographic data, Nancy Fratti said that age is a state of mind so
that makes me, oh, say, maybe 39?  While curious, the distribution of ages
in this digest is a function of many more factors than an interest in
mechanical music.  The data are flawed samples biased by the fact that the
responders must be at a technological level to have at least e-mail
capability.  Secondly the responders must have had some connection to lead
them to the digest.  If not Internet then it is by hearsay.

So we really only have a subset of computer-with-modem users who have
discovered this fine digest and are subscribers and, I might add, willing
to respond to this request for data.  Nevertheless, it will be fun to see
what develops.  The geographic distribution will be interesting.

Chuck Walker¶
9/31¶
Hopewell Junction, NY 12533¶
cewalker@prodigy.com

 [ The suspicious statistician would note that the respondents of
 [ the survey are "self-selecting" -- hardly scientific, but it's
 [ nonetheless fun.  A normal distribution of ages will be symmetrical
 [ about the average.  I'm curious, though, if we have a gap in the
 [ 25-35 age group.  With enough respondents this gap might be evident.
 [ -- Robbie