Anne Ozorio wrote: >Pierre Boulez, who knows a little about music and music writing, said >that music criticism was like poetry. Good work conveyed much more than >simply words. It ties in with the observation of so many, including >Mahler, that "music isn't just in the notes". There is much more to >understanding music than simply reading notation. Two musicians may be >technically on the same level, but one might create art, the other purely >surface sounds. Being able to play alone doesn't make anyone a musician. It could well be true that in general terms a composer or a performer should be capable of explaining all the various technical & aesthetic; spiritual & emotional; performance & interpretative aspects of their music. Some composers, however, are not particularly interested in "explaining their work in words". One notable case was Jean Sibelius. His personal assistant, whose name eludes me at present, wrote a book shortly after the composer's death full of personal impressions of the man & including numerous quotations regarding the composer's impressions of particular conductors & their recordings of his work. Generally these were very positive (the composer was a rather vivacious host who didn't enjoy upsetting anyone, even those who tended to outstay their welcome) but he did make the comment that Beecham interpreted his music from a first violinists perspective whereas Karajan appeared to uncover every voice of the orchestra. One can make of this what they will. Anyway, his PA also made a point of commenting that whenever the composer was asked to explain his music the request was met with a moment of stony silence & that granite-like stare which comes across in his later portrait photographs & belies the "party animal" personality that he actually possessed. After that moment a new subject of conversation would quickly arise. (Incidentally, I've found that Sibelius has a face well suited for creating an interesting tonal oil painting or study). Geoffrey Gaskell http://www.geoffreygaskell.co.nz/