All right, let's try this again.

This is in response to those who have misunderstood my postings (not Mr.
Runnion).  Music is not a language, per se, but a set of code symbols
interpreted by the analytical mind (rhythm, spatial pitch, mathematical
relationships, measures as sets of notes that are part of the larger set
that comprises the entire piece, etc.).

Needless to say, this is very possibly not very musical.  Music as we hear
it (either performed, or in the creative mind of a particularly gifted
musician/performer), is a realization of that purely analytical collection
of mathematical, physical, and acoustical principles, tempered with the
emotions of both the composer and the performer(s).

Certainly music can express emotion.

My original point had nothing to do with emotion, or music's ability to
express that emotion.  My original point is that in and of itself, music
cannot be considered a language because the printed notes (at the time,
anyway) cannot express written ideas.

For example, if I were to have written this post in musical notation
using Finale or Sibelius to create the post, and then inserting it into the
message as the body text, the notes would not have represented every single
letter of every word in this post.  I do agree, however, that it would be
very easy to glean the emotion of frustration from the piece *smirk*.

As I stated in a previous post, expressing this concept is not easy.
I hope I've been more clear about my opinion/position this time.

Charles L. L. Dalmas
[log in to unmask]
http://www.winternet.com/~davion