Leguin Reading

This selection explores the idea of conversation in regard to music, making potential inherent connections between the two and raising a multitude of questions about how music and conversation may or may not resemble each other. Leguin sets the stage for the subject of this discourse - music - early on in the text (pg. 15, 3rd line). As the discussion manifests, however, we see the subject is primarily discourse/conversation itself, and the music becomes secondary, a resource to which we compare the initial ideas of conversation after they arrive. In this way, the subject of music has multiple functions in this discussion: It is the catalyst of the conversation, but as the questions center mostly on the idea of discussion, music secedes into the background as a resource to be called upon once one's ideas have already been manifested. The treatment of music in this discussion exposes one of the greater notions that we are embarking upon in this class, I believe: The audience is becoming involved. And not just by listening, but by incorporating the music into every step of the process of discussion. The participants of this conversation are extending the meaning of both music and conversation by incorporating the two and ceaselessly questioning every aspect of this connection that arises.
The meaning of this gathering is to converse, and explore other possible meanings throughout. Despite the free play of ideas, one very important question is never raised: Is it worth it to discuss music in these manners? The participants would readily say "yes, or else we wouldn't be here," but one can't help but notice the unreliability of the inferences made. For example, the narrator claims that Haydn knowingly expressed the meanings in his sonata that are exposed here in this discussion. How does one know that? This conversation is interesting because it relies on the idea that Haydn was embodying their ideas about conversation in his sonata, when in fact he himself is NOT part of the discussion. The participants seem to think that Haydn wrote this piece for the purpose of discussion, but such cannot be proved, and any compelling arguments in that direction are still extra-musical. The conversationalists' ideas are spawned much later than Haydn's sonata. While the music is treated secondarily as the resource from which to bounce their ideas off, it is in fact the notions arisen in conversation that are secondary to the music.
My questions, then, are: Should music be discussed in these manners, as representational of conversation, when conversation happens after the fact? Is it worth it to even ask the above question, as such may inhibit the kind of fruitful conversation we have just witnessed? Is music changing meaning, or is meaning changing music? More to come in class. The ideas here are quite general, and hopefully through discussion we can specify what this discussion really should be about.