Steve Schwartz:

>I learned it [grammar] as a description of *how* the language means,
>as opposed to *what* it means.  My suspicion is that the definition
>of musical meaning is so vague or so elusive that we can't talk
>about its grammar.

I don't know if you can define musical meaning or not but I do think that
you can identify and interpret certain musical gestures as meaningful
or expressive the way you can identify and interpret certain human facial
or bodily expressions or gestures--within a common culture in both cases.
A direct or averted gaze can have very different meanings even between
subcultures, for instance.  Misunderstanding such things is not a result
of their vagueness, just ambiguity from lack of context in some situations.
If a gesture is in fact ambiguous then its meaning will be elusive.  I am
inclined to think that some forms of musical expression--as of sadness, to
use the most commonly discussed--are more readily understood
cross-culturally than some human hand gestures.

As for grammar, if this is broadly a matter of how meaning is communicated,
maybe the question of how "musical meaning," IF there is such, is expressed
deserves a further look.  Deryck Cooke (The Language of Music) did as well
as anyone with this and I don't know if he has received a reading as
sympathetic as he perhaps deserves for his efforts.  Especially if we back
off from the strong claims that talk of musical language and meaning tend
to bring out, or get set up to get knocked down, then Cooke provides some
worthwhile insights into ways in which music evokes certain effects or
associations.

Jim Tobin