Bill Pirkle writes in reply to Steve Schwartz:

>>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.

I wish people would stop using this extremely misleading analogy.

A dictionary is only useful to people who already understand most of
the basics of a given language.  For example, a French dictionary is
useless to me.  I would need a French/English dictionary, and even then my
translations would be seriously flawed absent any understanding of French
grammar.  The only way I will learn Friench is by reading, in English, a
description of French grammar, and hearing French spoken in a context where
I can make useful associations between the sounds I hear and things I
already understand.

There is no "dictionary" for music.  There is no place one can "look up"
a musical "word" (whatever that might be -- a note? a phrase? a rhythm?
a harmony?), and find a "definition" of it expressed in music.

We learn a language by associating physical things, and later abstractions,
with words.  We do this by experiencing these things and abstractions.
Only after we have developed a sufficient base of words and concepts can
we "bootstrap" ourselves up by reading.

So, if music is a "language", what is its grammar? What are its words? What
do these words mean? How reliably does music communicate these meanings?

len.