"Music," said Boris de Schloezer, "is a language which expresses nothing beyond itself." One could relate this assertion to the statement of Maurice Denis, for whom painting was essentially "a flat surface covered with diversely colored shapes." Both statements reflect the difficulty that confronts any artist in speaking of his art when it is nonmeaningful, when it is devoid of any intention to be descriptive either of situations or sentiments. Indeed, this is the fate of so-called "pure" music (absolute Musik) and no doubt that is what Stravinsky meant when he stated that: "Music, by its very nature, is incapable of expressing anything whatsoever..." And, he goes on to say: ". .. If, as is almost always the case, music appears to express something, this is but an illusion, and not a reality. This notion is simply an added element which through tacit and deep-seated convention we have imposed on music, like a protocol, a ritual which has become, in short, an attitude, and which, through mindless habit, we have come to confuse with its essence." With the passage of time, such a statement, from the pen of a composer who expressed his admiration for the technical perfection of Schoenberg's music but who, at the same time, proclaimed his disgust with the "aesthetism" (sic) of this music, may seem to be paradoxical. In actual fact, if one of these two composers, Stravinsky or Schoenberg, has proved to be an initiate and practitioner of pure music, it surely can only be the latter. Talking about musical language means, then, talking about music itself. And conversely, talking about music should be an attempt to construct a description of its language. This means that we must try to stay clear of certain literary conventions which are abundant in the