Denis Fodor writes:

>As Bernard Chasan states correctly, as correctly as Denis Fodor averred
>before him, music is a different mode of communication from language.  But
>then to insist that therefore music cannot be objective is the same as
>saying that only langauge can be objective.  Not so.  In the sense of its
>own conventions and systematization- -4"33" has come a long way from the
>caveman's grunt, as has,e.g., the Vienna sonata form--music can convey an
>objective meaning.  And it's not as difficult to apperceive as the meanings
>conveyed by languages.

Denis, pick the Viennese sonata of your choice and tell me what objective
meaning it conveys.  That this music is rich in content and form is not
in question.  That this richness is communicated to the listener is
likewise not in question.  But to me, "objective meaning" is NOT what is
communicated.  Perhaps I am being too literal minded, but to me objective
meaning requires that some definite message is received by all qualified
listeners, who all AGREE on the message.  Denis, what am I missing here?

Bernard Chasan