Dave Pitzer wrote, in part:

>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.

Evidently, the range of human response to music is limited only by the
capacity for responses of all kinds in the species. Some animals are
brighter than others. This may be regrettable but it can't be criminalized.
Even the madman will reach his own conclusions about Bach and no one can
argue against his right to do so though we may find the spectacle
distasteful to observe.

If every response to Bach were identical, supposing we were in a position
to determine this absolutely, there would still be no evidence that Bach's
music has meaning intrinsically. It would just mean that every listener had
exactly the same capacity for response to that particular piece of music.

Human beings display a bewildering variety of capabilities, the most
sensational of which are discussed in the morning papers and eventually
find there way into one record book or another.  No doubt there is at
least one person in this world who erupts in hives when he listens to
Bach.  Perhaps there is even a village where the whole population develops
apoplexy at the mere sound of Bach's name!  Neither these nor other far
more fantastic misfortunes are beyond the realm of possibility.

But irregardless of the response, the music remains the same.  The music
is not the playing of the music or the act of listening to the music.  The
music is an idea.  It's existence is ideal and immutable.  Every other fact
has it's own existence, real or ideal, outside the existence which the
music has.  If we attempt to find meaning or anything else (such as a
secret code) in the music that isn't measurably there, we are indulging in
a metaphysical exercise, and we have left the fact of the music behind.

Jim Willford
Toronto, Canada