In a seminal article, Philip Alperson (1991) first argued that a proper philosophy of music and music education should account for all musical "praxis." Nonetheless, his introduction of the concept of praxis into the philosophical discourse of music education seems to occasion either a yawn or hostility, despite having a much longer and more solid intellectual history and philosophical pedigree than aesthetic theory. And, in recent years, a "practice turn" in social theory has stressed the critical importance of social practices and "communities of practice" to culture and society. However, since praxial accounts of music rely in part on social theory and empirical research, they may seem sacrilegious for those in music and music education who have succumbed to the sacralization of music, with its quasi-religious sounding aesthetic rationale and discourse. In a recent paper Alperson (2010) reconfirms and further examines the idea of music as praxis, and clearly demonstrates that praxial philosophy is thriving in music education circles despite wishful thinking to the contrary by its detractors. His account once again affirms that understanding "music as a species of art" leaves out much of what music has to offer; namely, that "music is produced and enjoyed in a wide range of contexts and circumstances in which music can be understood as having many different kinds of 'functions'," thereby reaffirming the praxial robustness of music. Alperson's recent assertions thus afford an opportunity for the author to focus on these traditional claims and, thereby, to critique some of the many typical, intractable problems inherent to aesthetics-based approaches to questions about music, musical value, and music education. His and other claims that have music dependent on "aesthetic this, aesthetic that, aesthetic whatever" also allow the author to clarify that such speculations compromise the most useful advantages of the praxial orientation, and that praxialism most definitely is neither an impure nor a robust species of "aesthetic education"--that its premises are fundamentally different; that it offers a distinct and highly pragmatic alternative; and that it is fully robust on its own without recourse to aesthetic speculations and language. The author's analysis concludes with a consideration of the advantages and usefulness to music education of the distinctions offered by praxial theories. (Contains 61 notes.)