Some points in Grosz will be quite useful; others are questionable; others common sense; others all three. For example, points about art’s “capacity to enlarge the universe by enabling its potential to be otherwise…”(24) are profoundly useful common sense. Similar points have elsewhere been made more prosaically, i.e., to bolster funding for PBS; but they do remind the artist why she is pursuing art. They also reissue the question of whether artists have ethical duties. The Heisenbergian quantum imagery that emerges in discussing the interchange between the perceiver and the perceived (23) is intriguing. Grosz’ quote of Deleuze on framing music (20) suggest both authors’ secondary relationships with music. The frame as an initiating gesture will be a very useful concept in writing, and writing about, music. Still, I’m uncertain about how ‘refrain’ is used, while I’m quite certain the musical frame is not limited to motif, air, theme. What about timeline, pitch range, and venue? Or, or, or. Irigaray’s (2) idea of “sexual specificity…as the very motor of cultural…production” needs further selling. While the resonance with Maslow and the poignancy of elaborate bird mating rituals are compelling, we are also told that music spiritualizes the body (21). I may agree with the assumption of chaos as the ground in which art forms a figure, but its Hegelian lack of lack is claustrophobic. Therefore I prefer the Shaivist spanda imagery in passages such as “the peristaltic movements, systole and diastole, contraction and expansion of the universe itself” (16).