It seems to me that, yes, even on this great musical site(a four page discussion on accoutics""), there seems to be, like everywhere in the world of music, excessive, and even pointless analysis of things that, at the end of the day mean nothing.
The simple question that must be addressed is that why when reading the writtings of the great composers, there is clarity and sense, when on the other hand when reading the great players or musical academics, there is no sense, and in fact the writtings upom most subjects of musical conception-theory, harmony, meter, technique, and the like, written by the best in the field are crappy, nonsensical, and for the most part not very helpful. Check this out for yourself-go to your local library and check out even a basic book on music and you will find it to be mostly pointless. The most we know of Bach, and upon the brown of his own views comes down to the simple point of putting the fingers in the right place at the right time, yet when one reads a musical analysis by a great harvard man on Bach, there is hundreds of pages of nonsensical rubbish, every measure is unclearly analyzed to the point where you do not know what is going on after the first page of the commentary. Yet when Bach speaks it is simple and downright concise, practice and develop the feel, in other words gain confidence through rigourous practice, and henceforth the key and eternal element of music will arise and that is instinct. A biologist may think that they know the wolf, yet are they one.AH"""
Another simple example of this argument is this-video games-you may have played a very physical video game where only practice dicatates the move, and someone watches and says-man-how do you do that-well the person perfoming the move has no answer-for it is now part of the subconcious mind. The mechanism of perfoming this great move is now encoded in the instinctual apparatus of the brain, thus leaving the peformer at a loss for words, I dont know how I do it, I just can.
Thus we are dealing with hundreds of years of musicology written by generations of musicologists who have no real feel for the instinctual underpinnings of what a great composer thinks or really feels, they believe that the composer like themselves were musical robots, devoid of feeling and filled with analysis, scrutininizing every note as if music was written in only one way. Yet Bach and all the rest were inventive, mystic, extremely imaginitive, and of course spontaneous in there music. Thus the anylytic aproach employed by our payed genuises at the universities is largely masterbatory material, or at best it is meaningless.
Thus to conclude this newest rant, remember play, think playing, and question, yet never microscopically analyize your playing; all that this exercize will do is lead to doubt, and double tracking. You will find no certain answers for as we have found all along is that the greatest lesson of music is its mystical subjectivity, and not it scientific certainty. If we try to give music a one and done formula it will cease to exist. Thus feel music, for god sakes dont think it.