The emotion-picture evoked by a piece of music must be someone's emotion, mustn't it? That is, not the particular and contingent complex felt by the listener, but the object of that listener's perception, which forms an essential part, but not all of the experienced mix of feeling thought, memory, abstraction. It does not belong to the composer, who need only have intended something of that sort when the happy idea which he wrote down came to him. If it is an adequate work then surely the composer's mind was taken up with formal concerns. So then what matters most is the performer who draws on his own emotional and technical reserves in order to recreate or perform the piece. The performer enacts the music so that the listener can project its unity onto a suitable screen, while his mind may be elsewhere. Or does it exist for the critic who is able to put into words what no one could name or even suspect until encountering them? But the critic's consciousness is ironic or sentimental, both in and out at the same time, or even cynically self-aware. Finally, the work becomes culturally objective without ever having existed, a bearing by which you can believe in the reality of your own less developed emotion-pictures.