Steve Schwartz writes:

>Unfortunately, I have come more and more to the belief that music (or
>any art) is not definable solely in terms of itself - that is, objectively
>or internally definable.

Good point and that is as it should be since music is a language.  When
one looks up the meaning of a word in the dictionary, all one finds is more
words and it eventually becomes circular.  Like - what is a rose? a flower.
what is a flower? a member of the plant species.  what is a plant and a
species
...

Fortunately to cope with reality we have senses to give us an understanding
of what a rose is, having seen, touched (ouch), and smelled one.  We can
survive without a dictionary.  Music is only to be sensed, not described
in words, therein lies its magic - that it is indescribable.

And yet since its making is handed down from generation to generation, it
tenets must be describable somehow.  Its that right? Could one learn how
to compose music having never heard any except their own, of course.  Can
it be taught without using examples of it in the teaching.  Could a blind,
deaf person learn about our reality simply by reading a brail dictionary?
I have no answer to these questions but I realize that my software is both
blind and deaf as it composes.  That it lacks the human element and is
purely objective like Mr.  Spock might be its appeal, if it has any appeal
at all.

Bill Pirkle