David Runnion writes: >I will still say that by looking at music on the page I can draw emotional, >musical meaning from the music, and understand what the composer wanted to >communicate, as well or better than by listening, even if I don't know how >many dancers there are. This thread has gone in a number of different directions. I may be repeating a point or two here. Understanding what the composer wanted to communicate implies, of course, that the composer understood what he wanted to communicate. This surely cannot always be the case. Bruckner referred to his eighth symphony as a "mystery". As we are comparing music to language, I feel it appropriate to move to a short discussion of literature. In literature there are endless examples, that may better illustrate this point. Shakespeare's Hamlet is often referred to as his first complete character, simply because he is so complex one cannot get a proper handle on what specifically motivates him. In trying to understand Hamlet one has to make a few decisions for continuity's sake, otherwise the play can turn into a series of random shots. Did Hamlet suspect Claudius from the getgo? What is Hamlet's relationship to his mother? Does Hamlet suspect his mother of the crime as well? Is he sane and just pretending to be loopy? The beauty of the play is that we are not given any black and white answers to these questions and must insert our own understanding of these predicatments as we read the play. When we see the play, of course, we are seeing one man's answers to many of these questions. Did Shakespeare have his own answers? Probably. Did Bruckner really believe his eighth symphony to be a mystery to him, its creator? You tell me. Certainly, though, one can argue that things created may not be entirely understood by those who create them, that the process itself has enough mysterious, open-ended moments to defy a clear-cut understanding of the final result. Thomas Heilman [log in to unmask]