"::I am surprised you dispute whether or not the Analects contain music criticism when this is so widely written about. Your criticism of Steben’s 2010 paper, “The Philosophy of Music and Ritual in Pre-Han Confucian Thought” http://www.academia.edu/1929545/The_Philosophy_of_Music_and_Ritual_in_Pre-Han_Confucian_Thought_Exalting_the_Power_of_Music_in_Human_Life) for not using the word “criticism” is as unsupportable as your insistence on the word “theory.” Lest we devolve into absurd arguments about the definition of “criticism,” In general, the word is defined as “The action of criticizing, or passing judgment on the qualities or merits of anything….” (The Philological Society, ed. The Oxford English Dictionary, Vol II C, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1970, p.1181). With regard to music specifically, “The Oxford Companion to Music” defines it, in specific regard to music, as: “…the intellectual activity of formulating judgments on the value and degree of excellence of individual works of music, or whole groups or genres.”(Latham, ed. Oxford University Press, 2002, p.324) Steben’s paper then clearly describes Confucius’ criticism. As another example, WP’s article on Yayue refers to Confucius’ writing: “The term yayue itself first appeared in the Analects,[2][3] where yayue was considered by Confucius to be the kind of music that is good and beneficial, in contrast to the popular music originated from the state of Zheng which he judged to be decadent and corrupting.[4][5] Yayue is therefore regarded in the Confucian system as the proper form of music that is refined, improving, and essential for self-cultivation, and one that can symbolize good and stable governance.[6][7] “ The Analects contain music criticism whether the word “criticism” appears or not. I think you may be the only person around who thinks otherwise. In the future, if you make assertions like, “You claim that ""Confucius' Analects is, in regard to music, criticism""; but the reference that you quote in support of your claim utterly fails to actually support it, because it merely never speaks of criticism,” please cite a reference to support your argument. Your continuing argument that a thing cannot be accepted as theoretical unless it specifically uses the word “theory” is similarly problematic because it is not supported anywhere that I can find. Throughout or discussion, I’ve pointed you to references that contradict your personal opinion. If you have a reference for your opinion, please cite. Jacques Bailhé 

"