John Dalmas wrote:

>Imagine, if you will, a lengthy poem written
>with perfect clarity of form, grammar, syntax, meter, and all the poetic
>devices of alliteration, consonance, etc., and that poem was read to us by
>an outstanding actor with perfect diction and intonation.  We would all be
>mesmerized, right? But what if the words in the poem expressed nothing in
>particular, or even anything in general; the recitation was merely a
>succession of words being read, beautiful sounding in their context, to be
>sure, and leaving you with the feeling you have heard something wonderful?

Unfortunately, John's analogy is false.  He ASSUMES Bach means nothing.
Whereas for me, Bach means everything.  He is not somebody who writes
technically perfect, by meaningless poetry in anybody's eyes other than
John's.  But all the replies on this subject will not change John's mind.
Of this I am sure.  And he is entitled to his opinion.  Perhaps one fine
day the light will dawn on him and he will suddenly see what he has been
missing.

I hope, for him, that day arrives soon.

Jonathan