On the contrary, sir, I am positing an unattested “ur-text” that seems to have been garbled by the no doubt extremely stoned Martin Mull in an interview and subsequently set in stone culturally. I explained why I don’t buy the “interpretive dance” explanation — if you accept the notion of “interpretive dance” itself then there’s nothing whatsoever absurd about doing an “interpretive dance” about architecture, or anything else. The point of the saying, unless I have it wrong, is to underscore the absurdity of writing about music. But, screwy as the idea of “interpretive dance” is (and I agree it is indeed screwy) if it’s possible to dance “about things” in that way, well, why not do it about architecture? Why would that cast an aspersion about writing about music? The saying, in this form, doesn’t do what it clearly purports to do.