And then there is Umberto Eco's helpful distinction between dictionaries
and encyclopediae: a dictionary definition involves the direct one-to-one
definition of one word by way of another word or set of words; an
encyclopedic definition, on the other hand, involves an expansive matrix of
words each of which is defined in relation to the others. Perhaps in
creative taxonomy we are running into a particularly sticky encyclopedic
web, in which terms both describe repeatable patterns of work and predict
(or even demand) compliance with a imprintable pattern-become-mold. For
example, musical style X is named to describe artists A and B, but perhaps
artists C and D make aesthetic determinations within the structure of style
X; to call A and B innovators and C and D sheep, however, would be too
easy. Yet as a musician I hope that music is prior to
language-about-music, as I generally prefer the sound between the speakers
to the text on the inner sleeve, unless - as in the case of The Hafler Trio
- that text says nothing (or only befuddling things) about
music. Obviously this is a personal preference rather than a
logically-reinforced analysis of relative value, but then again perhaps I
am just wallowing in post-critical romanticism by wishing for the
subversion and dislocation of such language - of logical systems - by new
creative work...