Sometimes musicologists are just too much:
From The Music Quarterly in the discussion of the rhetorical devices found in Beethoven's Missa Solemnis:
"Although we cannot know whether Beethoven was aware of these long-lived theological and iconographical traditions, and although we must admit that all music is heard through the ear, I am tempted to point out that the prominent sound of the flute not only corresponds to the light colors of the dove in paintings, but also, emanating as it does from a reedless wind instrument, renders the fertilizing breath of the Holy Ghost much more directly than the painted rays could do."
Now really? tempted? That's like saying: Although I really don't like insulting people, I am very much tempted to tell you that you are ugly. Completely worthless. This trend appears in a large portion of the literature that expounds the motives, compositional strategies, and inspirations of various composers. I've been editing Wikipedia articles on Beethoven for some time now. I tend to append my own opinions and otherwise unsubstantiated analysis to the end of various canonized Beethoven scholars. The difference between me and them? About a lifetime of legitimate Beethoven scholarship. But hey, when you write sentences like
"Whether analyzing a historical work with a new perspective or evaluating a modern work that hopes to find tenure in the ranks of the illustrious, those who write critically about music are challenged to transpose the excitation of the senses, both aural and visual, onto a philological plane."
No one seems to care whether or not you know anything :)
