Pablo Massa wrote:

>a) The ability to read music is a tool, not a blessed or magical state of
>musical understanding.
>
>b) Being a tool, that ability only has meaning if you want to perform
>certain types of music, or if you want to study some technical issues of
>it.

For me, it depends on what you might define as a technical issue.  If you
are reviewing a performance, I believe it is highly desirable to know the
score.  Performance is interpretation and how a musician relates to the
printed score.  As a reviewer, I am often frustrated having to review a new
work without the benefit of the score.

>c) No player or composer is better fitted to "understand" music just
>because of his condition.

But, I believe that they have the potential to relate to the music on
another level, in addition to what one derives solely from listening.

>d) No good music can be understood only by playing it.  (That's stupid:
>is just like saying to a player that "music can be fully understood only
>by composing it")

I started composing to learn more about music.  I loved listening so much
that I wanted to know more of the process of creation of music.  While I
would not suggest that only composers understand music, they certainly
are likely to have a different perspective..."been there, done that."

Karl