Thus far in our efforts to interpret rests, we have established that music is far more “pause-ridden” than might otherwise meet the eye; its notation expresses rests that are both written and unwritten. However, many of these rests do not always express pauses which are directly related to punctuation, and furthermore, their notation, explicit or implicit, must necessarily remain somewhat imprecise. This concerns where the pauses fall, how regularly or irregularly they occur, and where they lie on the scale from scarcely perceptible (including those that admit of no repose at all) to highly conspicuous. But if we demand too much specificity from our visual aids, we achieve the opposite, creating confusion and limiting their effectiveness. And while there are some standard rules by which one can learn to discriminate among the various rests and locate those that are “hidden,” one can also expect deviations and exceptions to the rules according to any given situation—among the highly diverse array of compositions to which the concept of musical punctuation is applied. But among those compositions, which (as Mattheson implies above) are particularly well crafted, the “uncommon diversity” of their expressions and corresponding punctuation marks will be all the more perceptible. It all comes down to the correct and persuasive portrayal of affect, the style and character of the musical sentiments being expressed.

Crucial to the expression of the affects (and also identifying them) is an understanding and recognition of the various possible subjects of discourse. This is also the case in language. As Parkes explains in 1993, “A number of treatises are concerned only with usage in particular situations, and relate only to special kinds of texts.” He cautions that misinterpretations can occur if this is not taken into account. For instance, “A scribe who regularly copied philosophical treatises might well miss nuances of meaning in a devotional text.”