Jim Willford wrote, in part:

>The "music" we hear is a physical phenomenon.  There is no intrinsic
>meaning in it.  It has no intrinsic significance.  Meaning is a human
>construct which all human beings feel compelled to create and some, to
>impute.  It is entirely conceivable that on other planets and among alien
>civilizations this particular "music" could provoke an entirely different
>exercise in the creation or imputation of meaning.

Bravo Mr. Willford!  My feelings exactly.  This concept of yours (and
mine) seems a bit foreign to many (most).  It is, I feel, certainly true
in the secular music of Bach (including his organ preludes, fantasias and
fugues, trio sonatas, etc.)

This desire or need ("compulsion" I almost wish to say) to read things into
music by many is curious.  Music, I feel, is unique among the arts in not
having to "mean" anything.  I'm far from the first to note this but I
certainly believe it to be so.

I wonder if the combination of music and something visual (a film, a TV
program, a "video") so prevalent these days hasn't led to this.  After all,
most people these days hear music as an adjunct to something visual -- a
soundtrack to a film, for example.  And more and more films (movies) these
days are (for a variety of reasons) using public domain "classical" music
as their soundtrack -- to the extent that many (especially the younger of
us) EXPECT an image with their music and if one is not supplied, gratis,
they invent one.

Is this "good" or "bad"? I don't know.  I only mark the phenomenon.  On
balance, I rather suspect it is more "bad" than "good".  I, personally,
would rather listen to, say, the Goldberg Variations unencumbered by
anything other than Bach's handling of the notes -- armed with, perhaps, my
knowledge of the various ways of writing a canon -- especially a retrograde
canon!!!

Dave Pitzer