I have been trying to find a clear, concise, and complete way to define the term Music. Since a person can interpret music as being any form of sound and/or silence, how do you distinguish the difference between noise and music?

This is my in development definition currently:
Music is the interpretation of the organized combination of sound/silence (which can be audiated in the mind)

Interpretation defines that music cannot exist without someone around to hear it.

Organized defines that the sounds/silences of music can be analyzed by the person doing the interpreting or listening.

Combination of sound/silence defines the obvious: music exists as sound/silence.

Audiation defines that actual sound waves must not be produced for music to exist. If a person can recall or create in his/her mind the illusion of sound/silence, than they can hear music without sound being produced.


Problems:
Can music be interpreted by non-human and/or non-living objects?
Is a cd player interpreting music or just data?
If it is interpreting data, than is audiation music?
Is sheet music, music?
If nothing is around to interpret the sound waves representing music, is there music?


I would like to hear your idea of the definition of music and any answers or questions about the above. Thanks.

Can music be interpreted by non-human and/or non-living objects? depends on your definition of interpret, if it is to analyze and make data then yes, if it is to take it and make ideas and emotions out of it then no at least not yet

Is a cd player interpreting music or just data? a CD player is taking data and making sound out of it it's just reading data not interpreting music that comes off of sheet music

If it is interpreting data, than is audiation music? NR

Is sheet music, music? no... it's just that sheet music, instructions for making the music

If nothing is around to interpret the sound waves representing music, is there music? Yes because the music is still in existance wether or not someone is there or not.

In the non-human category, studies have shown that a plant that has pure harmonies or is more pleasant to humans such as romantic music playing around it, grows better than a plant which has dark and heavy or distorted music playing next to it. Cats can interpret music in that there is a video of a cat that moves its mouth with the lyrics of "old time rock-n-roll." The cat understands what happens next in the music.

A cd-player reads the data and provides a playback correct.
When we read notation, we read the data and provide playback. Sure non-beginners apply musicality to it. But then are beginners not creating music, because they just provide a playback for data on a page. and at a poorer quality than a cd-player.

So then, music has a much more concrete definition. What might you suggest the definition be. If music still exists whether or not it is heard, than there is a distinction between noise and music.

If music is being played or produced someone has to be their to hear it.

But you might come back and tell me that their could be a CD player making the music, but we already said that it can't make music, but rather interpret data and make sound.

I think it takes a sentient-being to make music, otherwise it would be noise.

do we not just interpret data and make sound.
The majority of music played is from some sort of sheet music. Whether it be actual sheet music with standard notation or tab, or by ear. When playing by ear you just do not take the time to write it down. So we are just the cd-player. The cd is like the sheet music. And the cd-player is the performer. It analyzes the data presented and provides playback. That is what we do.

Like what about the case of the musical piano.
The method used is to pluck strips of metal. Each strip is tuned by length and is plucked by a braile-like dot on a wheel.
This is the kalimba at work. A person plucks strips of metal to play a song.
Also the musical piano normally sounds better.

If the musical piano is making music, than isnt the cd-player, just it means to produce sound is different.

Music: a preformance of sounds and notes that fit together to please that of whom it was preformed for...

By that you believe music has to be enjoyed. Music cannot be disturbing or boring. you also mean that music is intentionally made sounds. you are saying that music cannot be found in nature. And music must be performed for somebody. Somebody being the keyword. Music cannot be performed for the sake of music. and Not for a particular somebody.

To the part of the discussion regarding making music and the argument of player pianos, beginner and established musicians, and cd players....

The discussion right now is covering whether or not any of the previously mentioned "devices" actually "makes" music. I think it is safe to say that they all "produce" music, but I think that point has been established.

I think right now it all goes back to the "definition" being used for what can "make music" in regards to interpretation which so far, is really only effectively done by a human being rather than a machine.

But...talking about "making music" what about the composer writing down ideas on a piece of staff paper? No sound is coming out other the scratching of a pencil on the paper. However I think it safe to say this is a situation where music is truely being "made". Now, this person can then go to a piano or other instrument and play what he wrote (or what's in his head if not written down like was mentioned in a previous post) or even hum or sing it out loud or to themself, but this...going by previous discussion...can just be considered as "producing" the music and is an analysis of a code. If you take it that far, you go into the area where the line between music and math starts to blur. Music can be as abstract as other (more complex) mathematical theories, I mean you can break things down and do very complex things that aren't standard practice when it comes to composing but that's generally not done. Why? Because it's supposed to be accessible. You can talk about music as a theory/mathematical tool (abstract theories), as a language (interpretation, what you can see), or as sound (what is heard). I guess it all depends on which area you are coming from.

**Edit**

Quote:

---

By that you believe music has to be enjoyed. Music cannot be disturbing or boring. you also mean that music is intentionally made sounds. you are saying that music cannot be found in nature. And music must be performed for somebody. Somebody being the keyword. Music cannot be performed for the sake of music. and Not for a particular somebody.

---

After reading this I have come up with the simplest answer I can come up with. Music is what the listener percieves. It's like blasting a CD that you think is great music, and someone yells at you to "turn off that noise". It is not music to the other person. A dripping faucet can be music to one person and noise to another. It all depends on those who hear it. Certain things are just assumed to be music and others not. The tricky thing here is "the pleasure principle" of music. Enjoyable things can be considered "music to your ears". In that phrase music is taken to be something enjoyable. As to whether music can be disturbing or boring yes it can be. But it is up to the person hearing it to decide that. Lots of "popular" music has what many would consider a "disturbing" sound to it (i.e. prog rock, death metal, that type of thing etc...) but it is still "consumed" by many people who enjoy it, even though there are other people who dislike it and do not consider it music. What about in the score of a movie? Disturbing sounds can be used to convey a mood and although it may not be pleasurable to hear, if it provides the desired effect it has done its job. Is it music? Most would consider it that since it is a scored piece of literature. But this is getting abstract again. If you go more into that it has to do with it has a purpose or serves a need and thats really somewhat offbase so i will leave it at music itself if percieved by the listener. This is not to say though that music cannot happen when no one can hear it, that goes into the idea of how would you know. It would be a rumor, if no one could hear it, it could not be proven....beyond that, how would you know about it?

i think i stopped making sense a long time ago here, and i have no idea what point i was getting at anymore so i will leave it there

My last point I want to make on "devices" making music is the CD player has no choice in what is played. Thus it can't really play music. The audio device "making" music is just a technological technicality, because the music has already been created.

indoorperc made me think of this. It DOES all depend on where you are coming from...or even how you were raised. My father, for example, swears up and down the rap is not music. He claims it is noise.

I like quads4ever's definition. Jake....I do believe music has to be enjoyed....if it isn't enjoyed it is just noise to that person....like my dad who thinks rap is noise cause it annoys him.

well, the main question i would like to come closer to answering is what is the definition of music?
We branched off when discussing whether or not audiation (hearing music in your head) is music. Because most definitions state that music uses sound. When audiating no sound is produced, only an illusion of sound in the mind.
I believe that the information inside a composer's mind is music. NO doubt about it.

We branched off due to the statement of music is the interpretation of....
It was said that a cd player merely interprets data and produces playback. I know have switched to believing that a cd player is making music.
Because if i put on a cd and you do not know if that is performed by a cd or a live ensemble, if asked what is heard is music then the answer would be yes in both situations.
If you could please give me examples of what you believe the definition of music is. Or if you have any questions or disproving examples of my definition please reply.

mine is:
Music is the interpretation of the organized combination of sound/silence.

1) I think music (as a noun) is sheetmusic. Not nesseccarily what is written down on paper but the combinations and the language used to get the ideas across to whatever (human, machine, etc...) produces that sound. I guess to go along with the discussion, this would be the "data" or the "code".

2) Music as a description (verb i guess, maybe musicality is a better word, but i guess we're not talking about that but i will go into it anyway) I would say is that gray area where you interpret what that produced data/information is.

So then I would say that the actual "sound" of music is "production" whether that be by a cd player, a musician, or other device.

So where does "making music" come into play? This I would say is the thought processes that go into organizing the "data" into combinations. This can be done by a human, or perhaps someone could set a computer to select notes/rhythms (other data) at random to form combinations. Both of these would be "making" music. After that though, it's up to another person to say whether or not the percieve it to be "musical" (the verb form i mentioned in #2). So the closest thing I have to a "definition" of music is what I have in #1.

i don't know if that is what you were looking for

Well the opposite of organized would be either unorganized or, to strech a little, random. So then nature wouldn't be music cause it is random, but nature, such as birds would be communication with music or sung notes. "What a complex riddle we have stumbled upon."

Jake...I think you have the most precise definition I can think of, but I would add one thing.

"Music is the interpretation of the organized combination of sound, silence, and emotion."

Music has to have emotion. Music is made from and produces emotion.

To me, music is life..:-P... but I think that music is what you want it to be. If you are listening to something you like, it is music.

Actually, to make a correction, the correct wording is that:
Music is the use or implication of the combination of sound/silence that is interpreted as being in some form (whether through rhythm, melody, harmony, mathematical functions, for the sake of being unorganized, or any other undefined means) as being organized.

I would still be hesitant about adding the emotion in there. Because if you consider a begining instrumentalist, the sound produce, does not generally cause an emotion. Even in some compositions the purpose is not to create emotion rather than just to play notes and rhythms. One big example is excercises.

This definition still allows for the subjectivity of each individual person, yet does not exclude any sound/silence that is produced. Because all sound/silence has the potential to be music, just an interpreter must feel the sounds/silences are organized in some way to him/her.

Music is a way to express yourself without words. It should be enjoyed and appeal to the senses, whether or not you actually like the genre of it. ...and sometimes what you think is noise, could be music to someone else...

First, snare02. I consider your comment about cd players not being music producers. And the only thing i can say is that any object that produces sound is a potential music producer. Because if that sound can be interpreted by someone as music then the object has thus, created music.

And indoorperc, I can see what you are thinking about. Because i have considered this myself.
Music is sheetmusic. Do you instead mean that: Music is Language.

Not to be confused with Music is a language. A being the keyword there.

Language is the system by which the entire world communicates. Many cultures have different languages. Those languages can be written or spoken. Even delivered through hand signs in some cultures.

When considering the English language, anything that is oral or written is still considered English. That applies to all languages.

Now trying to define music as that is a little tougher.
The only thing i can think of is:

I first get the defintion of Language:
the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community.

Now to apply this to music:
I shall think about that first then write it down later, but if you can identify it as this, then all forms of music including sheet music in any form whether standard western notation to us, tablature, Avant-garde formats, Eastern styles, and all other elements of music remain music.

To give a specific definition of music is the equivalent of trying to define "art", or "language", or describe an entire culture in one profound statement. Because music is subjective, as all art forms are, there exists a degree of uncertainty when we try to place limits on what music can or cannot be.

However, with that being said, I think it is possible to create a statement that doesn't necessarily limit what music can be, but at the same time gives a more-or-less accepted truth of what music is. Of course, we are trying to define subjectivity, so there will never be an absolute truth.

To define music, I think we have to address the following topics:

1) What significance does person responsible for the "Creation" of the music hold?

2) What significance does any creation/tool/instrument used to "create music" hold?

3) What role does an audience play in determining what "music is"?

4) Finally, what separates “music” from "noise"?

I think if these 4 questions are thoroughly answered, then a more formal definition of "music" can be established. For now, I will use the term "music" as I see fit, narrowing its use as I become more specific as to what music is.

Topics 1 & 3: The Creator and the Audience

The first conflict that arises in defining music is in that of who decides what is music. In the case of instrumental music, there are two creators. There is the composer, and there is the performer.

If music is a child, then the composer is the father. Without his ability to create, the child would not exist. Of course, the performer(s) would be the mother. Although any given piece is initially given life by the composer, it is the mother role that has the actual taxing burden of giving life to a piece. Does this extended metaphor make sense?

Then there is the issue of the audience. What is its purpose? Is music created to entertain an audience? Some music, I'd say yes. Circus Marches, most "pop" music, etc. Their purpose, to entertain, and to make money. Not all music serves this purpose, though. Some music is created to compliment an environment. Soundtrack music, background music, elevator music, etc. Some music portrays specific events, stories, and such. 1812, Don Juan, Peter and the Wolf. Some music is meant to invoke emotions. Think of Dvorak's New World Symphony, and of the free spirit in which he wrote it with. Yet, there is also music that is written for people. The Enigma Variations, Mendellsohn's E minor violin concerto. And some music is performed as conversations. Jazz is the #1 example of this.

There are so many purposes music is written for. Different types of music integrate different roles for the composer, performer, and audience. Some music may require a strict adherence to 'sheet music', whereas some music may require improvisation. Some music is written so than an audience will be satiated, some is written without regards of how an audience will feel. So we know that we cannot define music through assigning roles to the creator(s) and audience. In fact, there are many occasions when one person could take all three roles. I wouldn’t say that there have to be three distinct groups, because a group/person can be responsible for one or more duties. Nor can we define music by the intent in which a creator created the music for.

Topic 2 - The "Instrument"

Technology these days has made the boundaries between recordings and live performances very subjective. Recordings were frowned upon decades ago because of the lack of quality or justice that it gave to a performer. Yet, we look at recording these days, and we are marveled about how authentic recordings are. I think it's safe to say that recordings can do justice to music, and I also think it's ok to say that the output of sound from devices can be safely considered music. There is no difference between the frequencies coming from stereo speakers and the frequencies than those that come from a live performance.

Well, I think there is a difference. I think there exists this aura, a "spirit" of being “there” as live music is being created versus the realization that music has already been created. But, that is an issue of live music versus recorded music. I think for now it's safe to say that recorded music is still music. Recordings can bring back nostalgia of a performance, or they can almost recreate a performance for someone who was unable to attend. It’s still music, right?

In literature, characters are referred to as acting in the present tense. I think it’s the same thing with recorded music. Even though literature can represent a thing of the past, the “moment” is captured, frozen in time. Is that not what recorded music does? If not capturing a moment, creating an ideal moment (in the case of studio recording), fictitious, yet still substantially recognized as music. It is because of this that one can define a cd-player, computer, or any other such device, as being a form of instrument in that it holds the capabilities to produce those sounds which we recognize as music and define a musical instrument as an instrument used in the playback of music. Perhaps this idea can be thought of as unconventional, but is there any logical reason to disagree with it?

Topic 4 – “Noise” from “Music”

With the above all being mentioned, one can delve into this last topic before deciding on what it is that defines music. This topic is what will bring up the most subjectivity, I think. To one ear, rap music isn’t music, and to another death metal music isn’t. But, perhaps what people mean by “isn’t music to me” is “music I don’t appreciate”. Take me into consideration. I’m not a big Beethoven fan. I think his music is melodramatic, his orchestrations a bit dull in color, and his music overall overplayed. Now, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, whether you agree or not. However, just because I don’t care to listen to his music does not mean that I couldn’t think of it as music. There is something that exists in its structure that says “this is music”. There is a difference between ‘not music’, and ‘music I don’t appreciate’.

However, there are some forms of “music” that people refuse to acknowledge as music, and perhaps they have sincere reasons for believing so. Some people need melodic structure for a piece to be “music”. Some people need rhythmic structures. Some seek mathematical patterns, some traditional musical form. There is something each ear, consciously or subconsciously, looks for to distinguish noise from music – cultural or personal standards.

I also believe that the correlation between what we perceive as music and its unique abilities to help the growth or nature of other plants and animals cannot definite what is music and what is not music. I think, instead, those examples only show a relationship between the human mind and the minds of other living creatures.

Tonal music appeases us, and it generally appeases things in nature. I think the structure of frequencies produced in tonal, melodious music, creates a balance in our minds. However, does music HAVE to serve this purpose? Or perhaps tonal music being pleasing to our ears is the result of adaptation and culture change. This brings me to my last points.

I think the majority of people forget that music is a cultural attribute of life. Ultimately, music is not a tangible thing. Instead, it is something that is viewed in different opinions because of different circumstances. That would explain the subjectivity of music, would it not? It would also prove that music exists as a state of being, something “of the moment”, whimsical, and not tangible. It is with this that I propose the following as a definition for music:

Music is an intangible art, created through the intentional combination of sounds and silence, created to serve a variety of purposes, and is ultimately interpreted by a listener by a standard of cultural or personal expectations (such as rhythm, melody, mathematical functions, emotions conveyed, emotions invoked, etc.).

How is this for a start? Did I leave anything out or anything unexplained? I’m a bit scatter brained, so feel free to address anything I failed to.

-Adam T.

Very nice asessment, I especially liked the metaphor:

Quote:

---

If music is a child, then the composer is the father. Without his ability to create, the child would not exist. Of course, the performer(s) would be the mother. Although any given piece is initially given life by the composer, it is the mother role that has the actual taxing burden of giving life to a piece. Does this extended metaphor make sense?

---

I don't think that music can be pinpointed down to one concrete answer, but as far as anything I've posted, I'm trying to pintpoint a definition that works for me, but that can make sense to others.

For me, to get as cold and simple (that's what i'm going for, whereas someone else may go for comprehensive and concise) I would have to ultimately split music into more than one concept. Physical music....the things abstract that is music, whatever it is that we interpret into notes on a piece of paper to read if you are a musician (can be applied to cd players etc, in whatever "language" they use), and the sound of music. The sound being what you hear and the interpretation of it whether that be between pleasing to the ear or noise or what have you. but then again, i'm only offering my ideas and honestly my brain is too fried to think about this any longer for right now...

thats is the best comprehensive definitiion i have heard. this has been the clearest, simplest, and least unarguable explanation.
the only thing i would like added is that since music is similar to art, and i find art in natural scenes, such as sunsets. Then music should be able to exist without the intentional use of sound/silence.

But, a sunset is just imagery until it is captured onto a canvas, from which then it becomes art, yes? There are things that are naturally beautiful, but I would call an oceanview landscape and a painting of such art.

I think there are natural sounds that are very harmonious to the ear, but to say that these are art by nature would be to assume all sounds are music. Perhaps such sounds are musical, because it's natural sounds that comprise the palette for any given artist. But, I firmly believe that it takes an artist to create art, because I will always think of an art as a type of human expression.

What do you think, Jake?

I guess i consider a proposed idea of the purpose of john cage's 4 33. The piece is 4 min and 33 sec of silence from the performer. The proposed idea is that the intentional silence causes an uneasiness on the listening audience. Their reactions and sound produced by them, from moving around in anticipation, or crumbling of papers, or even comments as far as 'lets get the show on the road' is actually the music and not the performers who are in silence.
In this example, the natural sounds from the audience are intentionally induced.
What if the intention was lost.
For example, in the situation of cage's piece, the environment for the audience was uneasy.
What if the environment was relaxed. like someone wrote a piece that had no preformers and was intended to be "performed" with no announcement. Then the same intention is still there but now the environment is one of any regular day attitude. Thus, the natural sounds could be interpreted as music.

Just to let you know, Im fishin!

Only because i believe music can exist without intentional sounds being produced.

this thread makes my head hurt.

Music is:
The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.
Vocal or instrumental sounds possessing a degree of melody, harmony, or rhythm.

A musical composition.
The written or printed score for such a composition.
Such scores considered as a group: We keep our music in a stack near the piano.
A musical accompaniment.
A particular category or kind of music.
An aesthetically pleasing or harmonious sound or combination of sounds: the music of the wind in the pines.

thankyou dictionary.com

yea, it could be more than that, but as I'm sure the pro's who made the dictionary realized that if you analyze it anymore than an art, the definition becomes unique to the individual, an opinion if you will, therefore not a specific definition.

Case closed.

For that, Jake, we have to ask ourselves:

"Was Cage intending natural sounds to produce a musical effect?"

The answer, of course, is yes.

Consider an improvisation solo. To the composer, a 32 bar solo, is free game. There are boundaries, of course, but the produced effect will almost always be different. A soloist can take chord changes and evoke all kinds of ideas.

With Cage, I'd compare his ideas of using silence and natural noises to be much like a composer laying ground work for an improvised passage. Of course, Cage has preconcieved notions about the type of sounds that would occur during 4'33". Of course, composers can always be surprised by the performers. However, I would still say that Cage intentionally created this "music" by intentionally not writing any 'notes', making room for something of an "improvised passage" for the entire length.

Consider this also. In the performance of that work, who is the performer? Who is the audience? Here again, we come to the point of confusion that the roles of the audience and the performer can be manipulated in different ways.

Does that comparison to an improvised passage make sense? It's getting a little bit late, so my thoughts arne't as clear as they could be - if it doesn't make sense, I will edit this in the morning so that it is clearer.

Kevin,

The point that Jake made is that music is poorly defined by most dictionaries, and your excerpt from the internet is no exception.

The problem that exists with your definition is that it does not "define" music to a point that is not questionable.

Wouldn't the art of arranging sounds be something more along the lines of musical composition? I mean, by that definition, one would say that Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony isn't music. Instead, the process that Beethoven underwent to create the masterpiece is music. The process. Not even the 'sheet music' is music. Simply the process he underwent. THAT is how your definition defines music.

Secondly, the qualifications for something to be a composition could easily be questioned. There are compositions that are created, to invoke certain emotional moods, using the opposite of some of these "Requirements" (continuous, unified, etc.) One can even begin to further question the degree of these words as to their relevance.

Also, the thing that immediately came to mind was the neccessity for "melody". What about polyphonic music? There is no clear, concise melody, one could definitely argue.

And Jake's example of 4'33" certainly defies vocal or instrumental sounds possessing a degree of melody, harmony, or rhythm.

It also doesn't differentiate what is commonly accepted as music from what is commonly accepted as noise, while allowing the subjectivity associated with music to also exist as part of its definition.

But, thanks to dictionary.com just the same.

Define: to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of

The keyword is essential.

In the literature of music, there are numerous examples that go without many of those essential elements mentioned.

First, Evocative.
There is plenty of literature that is not evocative. For example, scales and excercises.

Second, Melody.
What about accompaniement figures. Does this mean that if accompaniements played without a melody are not music.

Third, Harmony.
What about melody only music. If one plays twinkle, twinkle without harmony, are you saying music is not made.

Finally, rhythm.
What about the previously mentioned piece of Cage. There is no rhythm defined. All is spontanious and unorganized on meter format.

If those are the essential elements that define music. Then a lot of currently respected literature is not music.

Thank you Merriam-Webster.

Case open?

Heh, now I can't let the three of you have all the fun now can I?

I'm going to throw a new view into this so prepare, and analyze, disagree, comment, or whatever you see fit.

I'm going to go out on a limb and tackle this in a sociological perspective. I think it might bring a new division of discussion to play.

I'm gonna pretty much say this: dealing with the two of these in my intro class last year, it taught me that studying these two things concerns things like the congenial relations of the overtones of a tone, as well as with the relations of the motifs among each other, the melodies among each other, and the sequences among each other. But also, it deals with the congenial relatinos between the overtones, motifs, and sequences.

In this context, the sociology of music not only corresponds to the system of the inner-human, but also to the outer human social relations, which it describes realistically by means of the mentioned parameters.

How far such a description of the sociology of music can go on the surface is demonstrated by the hierarchic structure of classical music, and on to the dictatorship of the masses in twelve-tone music, where all the tones of the scale and their parameters (pitch, duration, amplitude, etc.) have the same value, and in the technique of serial composing – the perfectioned twelve-tone music – in which all these parameters are applied like patterns manipulated by arithmetic operations.

In the field of inner hearing, but also based on the physiology of the outer musical instruments, there are fixed nature-given orders of the sound-space which, after their systematic investigation, lead us to infer a nature-given sociology of music, because they express themselves as firm congenial relations of the tones among each other, but also of sound-spaces among each other.

These natural, sociological orders of the overtone-spectrum are applied by the great musical artists in the macrocosm of their music – in the outer structure of their compositions – where they can easily be traced and identified by way of analysis.

In this context, it should be noted that an outer deviation from the nature-given inner order of music creates the impression of dissonance within the listener; a phenomenon that indicates a rift between the macrocosm and the microcosm of music, and which appears each time the logic of the macrocosm has deviated from the logic of the microcosm.

The fact that we recognize a dissonance so directly confirms that in our mental faculty of perception there already exists an awareness of harmony being the organizing principle in music, and that we have at our disposal a built-in, musical mental-spiritual capability for perceiving sociological order.

And there is my addition to all of this madness. Something to remember about music in general, it is one of the two cultural universals that all place in the world have in common. We make noise, Japan makes noise, everyone around the world does in some way or another. But man, that's enough of me sounding like a college student tonight sheesh, back to the parties.

So after all that is said.
What do you feel is the most concise way to say what elements are essential in music?
What is Music?

I can say this by talking about the ecological aspect of music. What the ecology of music talks about is the whole range of what is called "music" in the conventional music theory.

The ecology of music concerns the sounding musical event – the music surveyed from outside by the sense of hearing on the level of the mind, and much more even, the musical performance in the concert hall.

So, the ecology of music begins where the composition is already completed, i.e. where the finished musical event resounds on the level of the mind and is perceivable to the inner ear.

The ecology of music also concerns the influence of music on its entire outer surroundings, particularly the musical influence of the mind on its environment.

The ecology of music concerns everything that surrounds the finished piece of music.

And the aspects of the environment of the finished piece of music are: the inner ear of the composer, of the musician, and of the listener, their nervous system, their body, and eventually the whole environment of the musician – the field of material ecology.

And to answer your second question, you can't define what music is. There is no possible way to do this because like the human race and technology, music is also ever changing. It evolves just like the other two. When you think you have the answer, another new breakthrough, or discovery is coming up. This is an undefinable act, but, music is also necessary for the human race as a whole, because as I said in my previous post, it is one of the two culture universals, the other being the belief in the supernatural. It is these two things, that every one person in the world shares with one another if nothing else. So, pretty much, it is pretty much over our heads is my answer to the second question.

Yea, you guys made a good point, but you still missed the 'meat' of my post.

"yea, it could be more than that, but as I'm sure the pro's who made the dictionary realized that if you analyze it anymore than an art, the definition becomes unique to the individual, an opinion if you will, therefore not a specific definition."

You can come up with whatever you want, but itll never be a standard definition because everyone has a different view on what is or isnt music.

The definition of music:
noise that makes sense.

Good game.

This is a bit off-topic, but I thought I should share my old band directors idea on how music got started. It isn't word for word what he said cause he told this to us when I was in like 5th grade.

One day a caveman was knawing away on a bone trying to get the last piece of meat. Once he was finished he tossed the bone aside so he could start on the next chunk of meat. Before he could start in on his last portion of dinner his attention was caught by the strange noise he heard. He turned and realized it was his discarded bone hitting a rock. The caveman was so intriged by this sound we laid down his raw piece of meat and walked over to the rock. He picked up the bone and starred at it for a moment and then proceeded to drop it on the rock. Again it produced this same intriging sound. The caveman was entertained by this sound. This sound brought happiness to him.

The caveman, now with his full attention geared toward his new creation. He hit the bone over the rock over and over. He then got more bones, all different shapes and sizes and made different pitches....and thus music...and drumming as we know it today was born.

I think most would agree that music's essential elements are sound and silence. The performer, the instrument, the interpreter, and composer are simply a means to get sound out. I compare the cd-player to the combination of sheet music, performer, and the instrument. All those three combined in the end simply create sound. That is all the cd-player is doing. It reads data and provides a playback. All of those sounds can then be interpreted by someone as music.

And thanks Mr. Indoorperc. It is about the discussion.

But i think about chsknight's definition and i think it is close to a more concise definition. Because it considers that there must be sound(noise). I would add that an absence of sound may exist, so sound/silence. And it considers that there must be an interpreter of the sound/silence that can perceive that as being organized in his/her mind.

Middle Age Man - I agree that the CD player doesn't "create music", because a CD player plays a moment frozen in time, or a moment that is theorized through studio recording. But, it is able to play back these moments, and for that, I agree with you that it is an intermediary device. But, in my first post, I related the CD player to any instrument, incapable of creating music, but a tool for the creation of music by humans. Would you agree with that?

Indoor - Looooved your quote. I don't know how to dot he box with the quote, but the "discussion and not the answer" comment was great.

Kevin - well..The definition that I gave - how would you argue that it could not exist as a standard definition? You can define something as being subjective, or giving freeway for interpretation, and still hold on to a concrete explanation of what something is. I feel that my definition did a fairly good job of that.

CooCoos - interesting stuff. It did make me think a little bit. What you are suggesting is that music is interpreted on an archetypal, subconscious, level.

The only thing that I would respond to that is that it is archetypes that create our culture as it exists. Of course, the subconscious, archetypes, are the true foundation of our existence. And I think that the perception that music is created to preserve sociological order can be implied in the aspect of cultural or personal interpretation. I post again, without change:

Music is an intangible art, created through the intentional combination of sounds and silence, created to serve a variety of purposes, and is ultimately interpreted by a listener by a standard of cultural or personal expectations (such as rhythm, melody, mathematical functions, emotions conveyed, emotions invoked, etc.).

The only thing I have begun to consider to change is the "intentional" aspect of the definition. Perhaps to "intentionally created through the combination..." instead of "created through the intentional..."...I'll think about that one and I'll post when I think about it long enough.

Does my definition not allow for the subjectivity (interpretation), cover the broad styles through evolution (cultural and personal), distinguished between "noise and music" (intentional being the key word), and provided examples of intuitive characteristics that people commonly seek in defining music, while not limiting music to these traits?

~Adam T.

Again, this thread makes my head hurt, I just wanted to give a few cents, good points by all.

response to middle-aged man

With that an instrument is not a tool to create music. A performer is not a tool to create music. A composer is not a tool to create music.

Because music the elements of music is sound/silence, the tools that create music are any sound producers or guidelines for what sounds will be produced.
That means that each object of cd containing data, cd-player that reads the data and provides playback are tools to producing sound. And that sound can be interpreted as music. Thus allowing cd-players to be tools in creating music.

Nice response, Jake. I agree that music can only be created by the performer, the creation of music reserved as a human capability. However, the CD-player is just a method of producing what humans have created, sounds to be interpreted as music. Nevertheless, its outputted sound is derived (at an earlier date) from the creation of an individual or a group of people, and THAT is where the creation lies, not in the production of the sound. Hence, as Jake said, the cd-player is simply a tool for producing sound, as is any instrument, to voice the creation of music. So then it would be a tool, yes?

I think the areas of "making", "creating", and "producing" are all kind of in a muddy area so far. CD players, phonographs, tape decks, etc reproduce an already recorded sound. What about old-style player pianos? This is closer to an instrument actually being "played" than anything else I listed but is it creating music? I don't think so. I think the "creation" stage lies within the mind of the "composer" whether that be a person or not, or intentionally or not. There's also comparing cd players and the like to instruments. They all fall under the umbrella that they are making a sound. They all get "played" but in the case of an instrument the role the person has is key in creating the sound of that instrument(sound, not music). A cd player needs someone to push the buttons on it, but a cd player is really second-hand since it is simulating the sounds, not producing them as an instrument would. So maybe there has to be a second area of sound "producers" and sound "reproducers". Then again, you could consider a musician playing piece of familiar music to them to be "recorded" in the way that sheetmusic would be like a CD, it's just someone/something reading data and "reproducing" it. I think there is a difference in that one is "actual" sound and one is "synthesized" (maybe that's a bad word for it, but oh well) sound. I need to organize my thoughts on this whole "second-hand" sound idea....

I think you have made a good point indoorperc. I was thinking about a different way to put it. ANd you said it better with "the "creation" stage lies within the mind of the "composer"".
I feel a better way to put it would be the creation of music occurs when it is interpreted as organized in a musical way (based on the interpreter's mind)
So an ensemble is only making noise. It is in their minds and listeners that the sound is converted into music.


I was also thinking about trying to get a working definition started and see if we can compose a better form for it.

I would like to start with utmusic's of:

"Music is an intangible art, intentionally created through the combination of sounds and silence, created to serve a variety of purposes, and is ultimately interpreted by a listener by a standard of cultural or personal expectations (such as rhythm, melody, mathematical functions, emotions conveyed, emotions invoked, etc.)."

okay Im sorry
maybe when i was saying all that from the first quote i should have said.
Rhetorically: With that an instrument is not a tool to create music. A performer is not a tool to create music. A composer is not a tool to create music.

I think all of those are tools.
Any object used to cause or guide the production of sound, Is a tool.

Also with the scientific definition of music there is no distinction between sound and music, or music and noise. So there must be interpretation present in the definition.

::places box around Middleage's Quote::
By that definition UTMusic, anything could be a tool. The fiberoptic cables that connect the recording equipment would be considered a tool. The air around the performer would be a tool. The light that illuminates the page of sheetmusic that they are reading, and by association the water that spun the turbines that generated that power to light the bulb. The clouds that dropped the rain to the place where it could spin those turbines would be tools. The mixing of the elements that created the water to go into the clouds... We can get as holistic as we want and eventually everything would become a tool that particpated in the creation of music. See how silly this gets?
--
(forgive me, I don't know how to use the box quotes here, be imaginative with me)

The question isn't about what tools are necessary to create music. Of course any given environment or little nuance of difference can ultimately create a different experience of sounds to become interpreted as music.

The point is that tools are used by humans to create music. But, the art of music is something that is created and forged by the natural phenomena of sound/silence. Whether the sound is produced/recreated through the vibrations of a string or the reading of digital data, the ultimate result is the production of sound organized in a way that can be interpreted as music.

As I said many times, a CD player cannot CREATE music. A paintbrush cannot create a masterpiece. A cello cannot make notes into music. Yet, these things are applicable as tools to the creation of music. A CD player is a way to make "music" accessible, but in a sense, doens't every tool contribute in this?

So what if the "tools" to create music are vague? To limit tools would be to confine music to boundaries. I don't think "my definition" holds music to limits, but still sets general guidelines for how mankind interprets what is music from what is not.

Indoor - ::quotes::
--
I think the areas of "making", "creating", and "producing" are all kind of in a muddy area so far.
--
You're absolutely right. There are many inconsistencies as to who the creator is, and the relationship between how music is defined and the roles of the audience, the composer, & the performer. But, wasn't all of this addressed in my first post? I agree, we could AND should delve into this topic perhaps in more detail, but will doing so advance our search for a unique and authentic definition of "music"?

hmmm... The instrument produces the music, but the performer makes the instrument produce the music.

The definition of music being a sound that pleases a listener is not quite right because my mom hates DCI stuff, she hates it. Does that mean that it isn't music?

Music is made of multiple vibrations that occur over a length of time- I like this definition the best myself but then what distinguishes it from noise, or common sound?

I think that a CD player or a computer DOES produce music. I went to a school with a very strong TIMARA (Technology in Music and Related Arts) program, and was in fact one of the founders of TIMARA. I've seen people use CD players and computers to play music, and then played with other computers live to modify what was coming out of them. In that sense, a CD player is an instrument, because the sound is being modified. If you follow a slippery slope argument, you modify the sound coming out of the CD player simply by turning the volume up until it overdrives the speakers, creating a sound that wasn't originally intended by the performers. Following the slope, it can be argued that any change in volume is a modification of the sound, and thus you are using the CD player as a tool to produce the music you want.

On the topic of sheet music, I would say that it IS music, because when I see a piece, I can hear it in my head (not perfect, but a general idea). My mom, who cannot read music, would not think of sheet music as music, because it means nothing to her. If I had expert eyesight and could understand binary code, I would think of a CD in the same way I think of sheet music, so for the argument, I WOULD consider a CD to be a piece of music.

I forget who it was (someone 2 pages back) that said they wouldn't consider nature to be producing music, becuase nature is not orderly. Nature IS orderly, we just don't understand all the perturbations yet, nor will we really ever. But, nature is orderly enough to produce music, if not by itself, then with human interpretation. Imagine a cello player sitting on the beach, playing a song, using the waves crashing as his rhythm. Has the waves become an instrument, since the cello player is using them as a tool to make his music?

Many interesting questions, I believe we have only started to scratch the surface. This takes me back to that semester I took a philosophy of science course. One question: What is science? We didn't answer it.

On your consideration of sheet music being music, the only thing i can say is, "Is it the sheet music that is music, or is it the illusioned sounds you hear in your mind?"

When we hear sound are brain is interpreting those signals and frequencies and turning them into information that we understand as sound. Correct? Since we as humans, do so much hearing and listening, we can recall that information or data without it existing in the physical world. This means that we can hear without sound being made, or we can only imagine sound. For example, as you read this or if I was a close friend of yours and you had my voice memorized. Rather than just reading, in your head you can actually hear a voice speaking to you. Maybe you associate a tone of voice with what you are reading. Although there is no tone or sound, you still hear one.
I say all of this to prove that sheet music is just a guide to what you hear in your head. It is the imagined and recalled sound that is the music rather than the piece of paper.
I also say this because I am a firm believer that the presence of sound is needed to define music. A graphic is not music.
I guess I am also saying that the term Music is not Language. Because if it were language, then non-sound objects could be considered music.
I believe sheet music is another tool that helps produces music because it causes minds to recall and apply sound.

If sounds are simply one's interpretation of frequencies, at some point, do the boundaries between imagination and reality become crossed? Do we call the mental sounds that our brain recreates authentic sounds in that our brain can recreate frequencies? Perfect pitch would be an ideal example of this, yes? But, then, imagining music doesn't attribute sheet music as being music as an art. I think sheet music is a code, a language, and even if it's understood in the mind, the mind still creates a general concept of sound which to the mind can be interpreted as music. Right? Not a whole lot of posting tonight...Hope my ::boxes:: didn't scare everyone off.

To distinguish between physical sound (something that can be measured) and imaginary sound (sound inside your brain), you must consider that sound is the sensation perceived by the ear from the sense of hearing (webster dictionary). So if there is no sensation, then there is no sound. Only what is imagined.

Even still, the ear only sends signals or data that is interpreted by the brain as sounds. The mind ultimately conrols what is heard. That's how perfect pitch works, I think. The mind has a memory capability to reproduce mental replications of sound (which are then able to be transferred to a physical state of applying perfect pitch).

Where do you draw the line? What about the composer who envisinos music before it is written?

Well how about trying to diffuse the science of sound itself?

Music is a vibratory phenomenon. Air particles are set in motion and these air particles in turn set matter that is within hearing distance into motion. This is called vibrational sympathy: When the vibrations of sound effect the airwaves, the airwaves effect other matter that they come into contact with in a manner that is in sympathy with the originating source. An example of vibrational sympathy is the sympathetic strings on the North Indian musical instrument called the sitar. The sitar is a large wooden instrument that has strings attached to it not unlike a guitar. These are the strings that are played by the musician when he or she is performing. Underneath these main strings, however, is a full set of strings that are tuned to the scale of the composition that is being played. The performer never plays these sympathetic strings except occasionally, simply for effect. The purpose of the sitar’s sympathetic strings is to give the sitar a richer sound. When a note is plucked on one of the main strings of the instrument, the sympathetic strings vibrate in sympathy with the main note. The sound that is produced by one of the main strings, when it is plucked, vibrates the airwaves and causes the secondary sympathetic string to vibrate, in sympathy. Thus, for every note played on a string on the instrument, two strings actually sound.

The effect of vibrational sympathy is easy to demonstrate. A well-known example is the cliché story about the opera singer who sings a note so high and so perfect that it shatters a crystal goblet. You can demonstrate the principal of vibrational sympathy for yourself. Open the lid of a piano and while someone holds down the right pedal--the one that releases the dampers on the strings--shout into the sound chamber of the piano. All of the strings that are tuned in a pitch that resonates with the tones in your voice will begin vibrating in sympathy and will produce a rush of sound.

Tell me if tht helps any with this, this is a left fielder right here for sure.

I'd just drop the word "interpretation" from your original definition because that adds a philosophical element that I think is unnecessary. That's the whole "if a tree falls in the woods" argument. I think you're trying to define what music is not the circumstances of it's existence.

One more thing, I had a Musicology professor who railed on us about music NOT being a language. Music can communicate emotional content, however that content is subject to the interpretation of the listener and therefore lacks the specificity of language.

Sure enough, Middle Aged Man. But I think the required degree of interpretation separates music from language.

I would like to first comment on the disscussion of the musicologist's point.
There are numerous examples in Emglish language that demonstrate the level of interpretation to be extremely difficult.
For Example, "Fox."
The complexities of interpretation that is open in that one word is incredible and extreme. And if I do not verify what I am saying then, you can only imagine what I mean.
So I must agree with Middle-Aged man in that both require interpretation and english can be just as unspecific in meaning as music.

The next thing I would like to discuss is an unusual concept. So try to bear with me and do not worry, there will be more clarification to follow.

The idea: Music is not defined by sound.
The reasoning:
I was talking with Utmusic about the definition of music and the topic about the composer's musical ideas in his head. Since we both had no doubt that the imagined sounds that a composer hears is music, we decided that physical sound does not have to exist in order for there to be music.
My second point to prove this is as follows:
Sound will always exist no matter who or what is around to hear it, or rather Sound waves will always be floating around. Then in order for those sound waves to turn into music, A person must interpret those sounds as being organized in way that they know as being musical. Meaning: Everybody has had music training because music is one of the few universals of the world. Some have more complex levels of analyzation, while others have basic fundamentals. If in your mind, you can relate the sounds you hear to one of the numberous tools of musical organization you have in your mind,it is then, and not a moment before, that you have music.

Music is an intangible art, intentionally created through the combination of sounds and silence, created to serve a variety of purposes, and is ultimately interpreted by a listener by a standard of cultural or personal expectations (such as rhythm, melody, mathematical functions, emotions conveyed, emotions invoked, etc.).

Even if the listener's mind is that which combines (subconsciously) sounds to interpret as music, this still fits in with this definition.

I agree wholeheartedly with Jake that music is not defined by sound. It's a good explanation for such an abstract concept, as well. Even with this new concept of thinking, this definition has not been proven wrong. There hasn't been a post to prove a lack of truth in this definition, and all examples that have been given still fit into the guidelines of "music" as it is defined here. Or am I wrong?

I am still trying to consider music as language. And the more i think about, I will undoubtedly say that it is. Since music has both auditory and visual aspects. Another main sense is feeling emotionally. Since music provides at least three senses, it cannot be defined by only one sense(hearing). And since music is communicative, that only makes a stronger arguement for music being language.
The difference between defining music in that sense and the way that we are trying to define it is:
We are trying to define the music that is heard through sound. The music that only uses one sense. Whereas when defining music as language, you are considering it to be communicative. I think this need revision, but that is a start.

I hate to keep harping on the "is music language?" question, but one of the things that defines language is the communication of thoughts.
Existing musical systems don't communicate highly specific information like thoughts. For example, people don't use their pianos to tell somebody, "to get the gas station you go down there, and take a right at the retarded kid selling fireworks on the corner..."
Is it possible? Certainly. But until some group of people devise a system to communicate specific thoughts using musical instruments and sounds, I don't think you can define music as a language.

In response to beat master, I think that no matter how well and specific the idea being said communicated does not matter in defining language. Besides, in music there is a strong specifity in what is commucnicated. Now in your explanation earlier, you said "communicate specific thoughts using musical instruments and sounds," A musical instrument is simply a tool that is used to create sound and enhance the creation of music. Well, sheet music is another tool in that creation, and the amount of specifity can be near exact. If the composer wants you to play a crushed roll for three counts and a paradidle on the fourth at a soft than soft(pp) dynamic level at 133 counts per minute. There is no doubt in what he wants using standard western notation. That is one of the easiest ways I can think of to describe how specific in ideas that music can be communicated.

The next thing I would like to mention:
I proposed the definition of music that utmusic and myself have composed and arranged to the head of music department and the professor of percussion at my school, and both of them had only one arguement, that was the same. I asked them at different times, and they proposed the same arguement.

Here is the revised definition:
"Music is an intangible art, intentionally created through the combination of sounds and silence, created to serve a variety of purposes, and is ultimately interpreted by a listener's own standards of musical elements."
--Adam T. and Jonathan O.--

The professors' arguements or rather suggestions were that 'interpretation' is the wrong word to use. I could not truly understand why they felt it should be changed, so I will not try to say why. But one of them did say that another word, such as received or recognized, used with a bit different wording may work. Well, I will attempt to say that, they feel that with this approach, anyone on a lower level of knowledge(not having as many tools in musical elements) can say farther fetched but very respected musics are not music. For example, a child can say that atonal music is not music. So if you all could ponder on this idea and maybe give some feedback. I would also like to say, thanks for all the ideas, each idea only adds another approach, another question, and another arguement, that makes the definition have to be all that more complete, concise, and clear.

I believe that if, in fact, a rock-solid, inarguable definition of music did exist, it would be too lengthy to go into here. I'm afraid that I lack the time, knowledge, patience . . . and vocabulary to convey exactly what I feel music is. But i can at least try.
First of all, I will try my best not to repeat what has been previously stated, unless it is necessary to make my point. I agree with much of what has been said, but I feel that alot a lot of it goes into other aspects of music than just what it is.

Primarily, I believe that music is the recognized/interpreted combinations of sound & silence (as Jake has said). It's only two essentials is that which is the source of vibrations (producing sound), and that which is capable of first interpreting the vibrations as sound and then recognizing them as music. Instruments, performers, composers, etc, are all only additional "tools" that we use to "create" the majority of our music. Actually, they only assist in creating the sounds. I believe that final product of what we call music exist only in the influnce that the sound has over that which recognized it. A composer is not needed, nor is a performer (in regards to a human and such). For example; "wind blowing wind chimes" To many, this is music. It has no composer, or performer. Also, I disagree that music is created for necessarily for any purpose. The forces causing wind chimes to cause sound are not capable of doing so for a purpose. It's just that the majority of our music is created by human means and for a purpose.

Now, once sound has been recognized, it influences that which recognized it. It can do this by helping or harming the health of a plant, or evoking emotion, etc. At any rate, I believe that the influence is what gives music its existence. Therefore, that which cannot be influenced differently by varying combinations of sound/silence, is not capable or recognizing music.

Now, I do believe that music will, in fact, cause emotion in anything that is capable of receiving it, whether it be positive, negitive, or neutral. Many people mistake neutral emotion for lack of emotion. How the sound influenes something is determined by the sound itself, and what some may call "atmosphere", or what other recognizable forces are present, such as other noises, the enviroment, etc...

This, by no means, sums up what all defines what we call music. I believe that is entirely possible that some of my points may incorrect. I'm no music expert, this is just my opinion.

~$tephen~

I like what you have to say Mr. DrumsNRoses.
After considering your comment on 'Music not being created for a purpose,' I will use your example of the 'wind-blowing wind-chimes.' In the scenario, sound waves are produced from the wind-chimes crashing together from forces of the wind. Up until this point, there is no music because an you have not even recognized those sound vibrations. Then the sound waves are processed into your mind as sound. At this point there still is no music because your mind has not compared the sounds of the wind-chimes to some musical element or organization. After you have processed the sound, you then relate the sounds to pitches, rhythms, harmonies, etc., and any combinations. Once you have made the connection, it is then that you have created music. I think this would still conform to your two essential elements of music. If not, then just throw out the arguement, but I think it is accurate. In the statement, "For a purpose," the quality of that purpose is left open. So what Utmusic and myself are saying that the connection of creating music out of sound, even in a sub-conscious state, is still serving a purpose. The purpose of hearing music out of the combinations of those sounds.

Another question I would like to ask for help on is: Is there a minimal amount of time or sound activity that must occur to be music?
Example:
You have a snare drum etude.
In its complete form, there is very little question that the etude as a whole is music. Correct?
When you take an excerpt of that etude that is only 4 bars long, I still would think there is very little doubt that it is music. Correct?
So now you are looking at only a measure of the 4 bars, is this still music?
One about if you reduce that measure of a bar down to a half a beat?
Get the drift?
Is there a point at which you all do not classify that excerpt as music? And if so, which level, and why?
And if I did not reduce the etude enough, please state at what non-listed reduced level you think that the excerpt is no longer music and please state why?

Thanks.

Jake - Two things:

Here is the last revision of the definition that you presented:

"Music is an intangible art, intentionally created through the combination of sounds and silence, created to serve a variety of purposes, and is ultimately interpreted by a listener's own standards of musical elements."

While I might not totally agree with the verbiage of the definition, I'll accept that it is one definition. The issue I have with it is actually in the content of the description. You use a derivative of the word (musical) to describe itself (music). You can't use a derivative of the idea (or object) to describe the base idea (object). That would be like the following definition:

Run - The act of moving forward at a quick velocity while running.

It doesn't make any sense because you still haven't defined what 'run' is. While you can use the base object to describe the derivative, it doesn't work backward. It's akin to the square/rectangle situation:

A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square.

A square (derivative of the idea) is a specific subset of rectangles, but rectangles (the base idea) are not squares.

Does that make sense or did I just muck everything up?

The second thing is this:

Quote:

---

Jake said:
After considering your comment on 'Music not being created for a purpose,' I will use your example of the 'wind-blowing wind-chimes.' In the scenario, sound waves are produced from the wind-chimes crashing together from forces of the wind. Up until this point, there is no music because an you have not even recognized those sound vibrations. Then the sound waves are processed into your mind as sound. At this point there still is no music because your mind has not compared the sounds of the wind-chimes to some musical element or organization. After you have processed the sound, you then relate the sounds to pitches, rhythms, harmonies, etc., and any combinations. Once you have made the connection, it is then that you have created music.

---

I don't buy this argument. Let's say you put out a mouse trap in your basement and leave it there for a few days without checking on it. During that time, the trap is set off. When you finally check the trap, you see the mouse. Does this mean that there was no mouse there until you actually saw it with your own eyes? Does it mean that a dead mouse put itself in the trap? No, what it means is that there was a mouse there, even before you knew it was there. In fact it was there so long it had time to expire itself. Just because you are not aware of it does not mean that it is not there.

Quote:

---

Another question I would like to ask for help on is: Is there a minimal amount of time or sound activity that must occur to be music?
Example:
You have a snare drum etude.
In its complete form, there is very little question that the etude as a whole is music. Correct?
When you take an excerpt of that etude that is only 4 bars long, I still would think there is very little doubt that it is music. Correct?
So now you are looking at only a measure of the 4 bars, is this still music?
One about if you reduce that measure of a bar down to a half a beat?
Get the drift?
Is there a point at which you all do not classify that excerpt as music? And if so, which level, and why?

---

Again it depends on the listener. You, I, and all people on this board would consider a snare etude to be music. I know quite a few band directors and regular people who would argue that it is just noise.

Quote:

---

And if I did not reduce the etude enough, please state at what non-listed reduced level you think that the excerpt is no longer music and please state why?

---

I myself would say that music would require more than one note in a sequence (as chord is just a complex or beefy sound,) if otherwise, I would classify it as a sound.

Mr. Middle-Aged Man,
I clearly understand your opposition to using musical in the definition because before posting the definition, UTMusic and myself considered that aspect. So the question is, "Can you use musical in defining music?"

To first state, These are all opinions of mine, I have not done research to back up my solutions, and I am only using logic.

To first clarify our intention and purpose of using musical:
Musical elements:
Throughout one's entire life, he/she is, first, subject to hearing music of his/her culture. It is this sub-conscious awareness that generates musical concepts. A child will begin to distinguish a difference in the organizations and combinations of sounds. He/she will begin to interpret a difference between speech and music based on his/her culture. All of this is done in the mind with no formal training. A child does not have to know that notes and rhythms are being played to know that what he/she hears is music. He/she slowly builds the tools to identify between speech, noise, and music. As that child starts school or formal training, it is then that he/she can identify that those organizations of sound (music in for this purpose)is made of 'rhythms,' 'melody,' 'notes,' and basic fundamentals of music. Each of those are just terms that specify what makes up the music. And each of those are just tools that allows a the mind to make a connection with and identify music from sound.
Now this is where a break in average person and an in-depth musically trained person occurs.
For the average person, The only basis of organization that music can have is Melody, Harmony, rhythm, instrumentation, and emotion.
For the in-depth musically trained mind, basis of organizations that music can have are melody, harmony, rhythm, instrumentation, emotion, numbers, series, motifs, vectors, color of timbre, improvisation, random sounds (look to brief discussion of John Cage earlier in post), and whatever else a composer may think of.
When identifying the tools that each of these two people have, there is also amount of independence that can exist between each element.
The average person may have to have rhythm, melody, and bass present to identify that it is music. Or may need harmony and melody.
Whereas the in-depth mind only needs harmony. Or only needs rhythm. Or may just use numbers.
Now all of these elements have been taught through some method, that they are means of organizing sound into music. Every person in their own mind knows what tools they have to organize sound as music. Most of the time it is sub-conscious though so the recognition level of the tools is low.
So now to say this:
In the definition of music, utmusic and myself believe that these tools of organization are musical elements.
Now the only reason why we choose not to say, "the organized combination of sound/silence," is because music is not just the organization of sounds/silence. If that was the case, all speech would be music because speech is also organized sound/silence. So we felt a need to add that the listener must use a means of organizing the sound 'based on his/her tools of musical elements.' I know I still used musical, but what other word can I use? Now that I hope I have given you a better meaning of the word 'musical' please help in substituting in other words.

Now for me to consider the second objective of Mr. Middle-Aged Man.
I believe that in society we are taught wrong. It is continually forced into our mind that "THIS IS MUSIC" while listening to some Mozart, Beethoven, or even pop on the radio. Sorry, for maybe overexaggerating the force. But here is my point. The so called, "Music" is just sound. What you hear is just sound. It is no more complex than the sounds of nature. What makes that sound into music is our minds. Since we have an understanding what tools are used to organize sound into music, we apply those tools and recognize that the sound of mozart complies with those basis of organization. Since I feel that most of us have agreed that music is the organization of sound based on some musical element, and I believe that music is intangible only created in the mind. Music does not exist before it is created. Just to emphasize my arguement, A cd-player playing mozart is just sound and nothing more. It is when a mind interprets it and has a strong positive co-relation between its musical elements and the minds musical elements.

Now to discuss the statement that "quite a few band directors would not consider a snare etude music." Earlier, I mentioned that an in-depth musically trained mind may only need on tool to organize sound to create music. Well, I also believe that this is normally a contradiction. Most 'in-depth minds' need more than just one or two elements. Because those minds begin to associate a quality of music that is defined by musicality. There are certain dynamic fluctuations in a phrase that create a higher qualitied music. Certain emphasis on certain beats that make sound a higher quality of music, if done. Both of these elements are musicality (I am not limiting musicality to these factors at all), and the more precise and in-depth a performer can make those elements of musicality better, the music is a higher quality.
Once this level is reached, I think the advanced musician does not accept lower quality level music as being music. Although he/she understands that it is music, since the overall musicality is extremely low, it is just noise that can be played by anyone.

On the discussion of what is the limit of what is the minimal amount of duration or activity must occur before it can be considered music:
I side with indoorperc on this one.
My reasoning:
If you are looking at a piece of sheet music, the organization of musical elements is laid out for you. YOu know the timbre, rhythm, dynamic level, articulation, duration, you can see how that note affects what is after it, and you can also see how that note is affected by notes before it. That is much information just to know about one note. And all of that information is based on musical elements. So I believe that one sound can be music. If you can know all of these means of organization and it is not music, then that opens even wider doors on what music is and isn't. Then the sounds would have to be heard as a whole rather than as an excerpt to be music. But that is just my two cents.
Thanks again for the discussion, I am very pleased to hear your responses, and I am pleased that they are also making me write my arguements down and analyze them myself. Thank you all for the great discussion.

The CD player is producing sounds which then are heard by the listener. As stated previously by "indoorperc", it is up to the listener to decide for him/herself what is noise and what is music. This is reall being made out to be more difficult that it really is.

In response to Mr. Greg the drummer:
I think I know what you mean by it is easy to define based on that statement, but the only problem is: How do you define music? In your statement, you still have not defined music. You have listed two elements that are essential in defining music, which are: Music has to have sound/silence; and Music has to have a listener. But then on your last statement: "must decide for him/herself what is music," This goes back to "What is Music?" I think this follows a derivative of Mr. Middle-Aged Man's reponse of, 'You cannot use the word your are trying to define in the definition of that word.' So nnow that I have said that, How would you define 'music' in your statement? And even then, try not to define 'music' using a word derived from music in it (Which is what I am working on right now, but I do not see it happening. Trying not to use musical elements, is quite difficult, and I do not see it happening). I am very confident that you will find this is a tough question. And the difficult part is trying to include every type of music, all the essentials of music, and to consider that some people with more 'tools' of musical organization can appreciate and recognize more complex concepts in music. Now, if you can do that without refering to the any of the previous replies, without thinking for longer than a couple of hours, the definition is clear and concise, and your definition cannot be argued from any aspect. Then, you will have proven me wrong. and you can say, "Defining reality is easy as apple pie."

Oh yeah, and by your first statement, I really didn't follow the intent of it, what are you saying?

yo jake.... this is my thought on the definition of music:

if you just beat on sumthing or fool around with an instrument...u can either make noise or music, as many of you have already stated...but..to some people..the noise could be great music to them and to other people the music could be unbearable noise..it all depends on who is listening to it so basically, any noise can be music and any music can be noise

so to me...any sound that you hear can technically be music to someone or something either beacause they dont know any better or because thats just wut they like

pz out...and SAVE THE MUSIC

Do not double-post

somebody once said, when asked wut they think about music, that its "Stuff you listen to!"

that might be the answer ive been looking for

music is wutever u listen to think about it...its simple and kind of rude but it kind of sums up wut music is music is wut u play and listen to..that statement sums up half of it

Alright, I follow you very simply.
I agree 110 percent about the idea that any sound can be music. Now the question, "Why is that?"

Now the problem with the last statement, "Music is whaterver you listen to and play," is that you listen to speech. Why is 'that' not music? You listen to everday noises, but you probably do not associate every sound hear to music. All of those are sounds that you listen to, but for some reason they are not music. Please Ask yourself, "Why is that.......................................................






, and if you cannot answer that. Then look back at what we are saying. Actually i will just let you know what you should come up with.
This is the reason:
The reason why music is interpreted as music is because you, the listener, make a connection between what you hear and the musical elements that you know of such as rhythm, melody, harmony, instrumentation, etc.
Whereas in speech instances, you hear sounds just the same, but this time you make a connection between those sounds and what you know as speech as opposed to music. If that is not the basis, then tell me what is the reason why speech is not music to you at the moment you hear it.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the point so many people are missing out on.

Defining Music transcends sound. Yes, sound/silence are the colors that define music, yet music is note soley these things. A Picasso painting is not defined by paint and paper - that is not what makes it art. It is art because Picasso created something that the eye would see and the mind would interpret as art. It is the same with music. The focal point in defining music must be an intersection of the listener, creator (which in instrumental music typically is divided into composer and performer), based on elements that archetypically, socially, or academically musical. I say academically because as we grow more as musicians, our knowledge increases, and we have a higher standard (as Jake said) of what is music and what is not. Likewise, the untrained ear has a notion of what is music, either because of age-old tradition, or society defining what "is" or "isn't". However you look at it, music is defined through a delicate balance of things, not simply 'wut you hear'.

Also, on the topic of music being language. Consider the melodramatic emotions of Romanticism and the invocative music of the Impressionist Era. Music can convey emotion, music can invoke emotion, music can provide imagery. Music is often used to represent things. Consider Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique, and the story it tells. However, these are intangible things, we cannot sing a "c", and it mean "Tree". Is there a type of language that is abstract? Certainly what we associate as languages are very concrete, where things are defined. "tree" means "tree", "walk" can be translated to "caminar", etc. However, what about body language? This doesn't communicate concrete things. It is a universal way of communication. If language is simply a form of communication between peoples, then I would say yes, Music is most definitely a language. If language is something that is defined by its ability to give a verbal substance to a concrete object, then no, Music is not a language.

Jake, what's the most current definition in progress?

~Adam

then why is music refered to as the universal language??

well, if you would look a little further back in this thread, you would notice that not everyone agrees that music can be considered a language. Before you can answer that, you must ask yourself what a language really is. Some have previously said that they do not believe that music can be a language because it cannot communicate specific thoughts without a certain degree of interpretation, while others say that interpretation is necessary to some degree in all languages. I, myself, wonder if it is even necessary for a language to convey thoughts. Is it not possible for there to be a language that simply communicates types of emotions. I realize that this runs off topic from the true question of "what is music", and that it has been previously discussed. If you find my reasoning faulty, then refer to the earlier parts of this thread, to people who know more about what they're talkin about than me.

I would consider that music is a type of language in that it has been used to communicate very specific thoughts.

The military used to use snare licks to control troop movement, and each lick was very specific as to the movement that the men in the field were supposed to make when they heard it. Also, they still use bugle calls (on some bases) albeit recorded, such as Revelee (sp?) to tell the troops it's time get out of bed.

I would say that that would qualify.

Excellent points, drumsnroses and middle age man. I do believe that music is a TYPE of language, because it, in many ways, expresses something. The National Anthem is played, it expresses patriotism. Don Juan is a tonal poem that expresses a story. Peter and the Wolf? a Children's story (though with words, it does make this a slightly faulty argument). I think there are different types of languages, that serve different purposes. Music would be the type of language used to invoke emotion, convey emotion, and present imagery through musical metaphors. Music can express that whcih words can not. Does that deny English being a language because it cannot express "everything"? In the same way, I think music can not be denied as a language simply because a "D" does not always mean dog. Rather, we we should look as to what it CAN express, and then go from there.

Thoughts? Arguments?

Well to start, I would like to go back to utmusic of asking for a current definition(sorry utmusic, i changed at the last minute):
Music is an intangible art and intenionally created by a listener through the organizations, based on the listener's acquired standards of musical elements, of the combinations of sound/silence to serve a variety of purposes.
--Adam T. and Jonathan O.--

Reasoning for changes:
The previous definition:
Music is an intangible art, intentionally created through the combination of sounds and silence, created to serve a variety of purposes, and is ultimately interpreted by a listener's own standards of musical elements.
--Adam T. and Jonathan O.--

The reason for changes:
First off, we had too much redundancy in the latter definition: "intentionally created to....., created to ....., and ultimately (created) by...."; "Listener's(possesive) own (possesive) standards..."
Both of those could be summed up in fewer words.

Next, "listener's own standards":
We felt we should justify that the listener does not have to perceive why they have certain standards, and that those standards can be inherited sub-consciously. So to not exclude elements that are gained consciously(through formal instruction), we used the word acquired.

Lastly, I believe, is the omitted use of "interpreted":
Since the new defintion states, "created by a listener through sound/silence" That takes into account that the sounds must be interpreted, perceived, recognized, received, or whatever word you want to use.

If you notice any other faulty wordings in the definition, definitely respond. Even if the fault is not including a certain type of music (the definition excludes some music).


I like the view points on music being a language, the only problem I think, is that we are confusing the two types of music. There is music based only on sound/silence, and there is music based on all aspects and tools of music creation.
For example, when the statement, "Music is the universal language," I think what is implied is that all peoples of the world use music(based on sound).
But if you were to consider musics of the world (including past time), you will notice many different uses for music, intentions behind music, notation methods, instrumentation, etc.
To me, Music based on sound is 'music,' but Music based on language is all tools of music including music (sound).

So to draw a parrallel between Music and Language. I first consider to elements of Language.
In Language, there are many different categories such as, English, Spanish, French, Japanese, Body, Hand-Signs.
In Language, each one of those categories of Language has an audible, visual, and in some categories, touch aspect to them. We all can speak and read our language. Some must feel their language.
And lastly, in Language, each category makes use of only one or two of those three aspects. Language either needs visual (written, hand-signs, lip-reading, etc.), audible (speech, clicking and poping in some languages, grunting in others, etc.), or touch (Braille, the hand-signs on the hand, etc.) and any combination of those three allow sub-categories of Language to exist.

Now the parrallel:
In Music, there are many different categories such as Western, Eastern, Ancient, Medieval, Avant-Garde, etc.
In Music, each category has its own type of audible (based on instrumentation, use of pitches, purpose for music), visual (Each has a different method of musical notation), and touch (parrallel to braille but in music) aspects.
In Music, each category makes use of at least one of those three aspects, which is definitely audible, but most also use visual, and very few only use touch in combination with audible.

So in the end, I would say that Music = Language. I would say that Music is not a language.
I guess a better way to put it is that the Entire system of Language is the equivalent to the entire system of Music.

Conclusion:
I would just like to say that I think it is good for us to leave the main subject every once in a while because it makes us consider a deferent aspect and approach to defining music. The more angles you consisder, identify, and come up with a reasoning why that does not work only makes your definition much stronger, and gives you more reasoning why your definition works as opposed to someone who wishes to argue that same point that you have already consisdered.

I know that was very sloppy, but To sum up, Thanks for the debate. I think the definition is only getting stronger.

So now after all that has been said, I was wondering if you all would take a look at the definition that Utmusic and myself have come up with and revise it. Please post any editions you can think of, whether they are based on use of language or if they leave examples of music out. And if you know of a piece of music that does not fit this criteria, please state the piece and why it does not fit the criteria. Utmusic and myself feel this is the most complete edition yet. We have considered many angles on it, and could not find any errors. Thanks a lot for the consideration!

The Definition of Music:
Music is an intangible art intenionally created by a listener through the organizations, based on the listener's acquired standards of musical elements, of the combinations of sound/silence to serve a variety of purposes.
--Adam T. and Jonathan O.--

After considering all the discussions and asking a few professors what they thought about the definition, I made a few other changes and have written a paper over the development of this definition. It is somewhat lengthy, but if you would read it, I would appreciate any likes, dislikes, editions, and ideas about the definition and the paper. I am also considering, writing a few example definitions and stating why they are not complete. The only reason why I am hesitant about doing that is because I feel that if I do that, I have gone to a more defensive stand point that takes purpose away from our definition. Anyway, suggestions are greatly appreciated.

As a result of a detailed conversation with an ethnomusicologist, I've recently re-read most of this message board, and I would like to reflect on a few arguments that are stil more or less unresolved:

Is Music universal?
Is Music a language?

I sincerely believe that the two of these go hand in hand, and the explanations to both answers will perhaps offer a better understanding of these questions...

Allow me to answer the questions, and then offer an explanation.

Any given exampe of music is not universal, but the general fundamentals of what IS music makes music universal in all cultures.

Music is not a language. Rather, music when intended to express uses a variety of "languages" in doing so.

My thoughts are as follows:

The entire problem for defining music is that what is considered music is subjective. As people have grown up in different cultures, they are exposed to different things. Pop music, for example, relies on the suspension, and it will often not resolve! do you realize how upset our traditional tonalists would be in this situation? At the same time, consider the performance of tonal music in a culture that thrives with modal music. Or twelve tone music at its introduction.

In each case, a style of music that is accepted by a large amount of people would not be seen as music in that setting. The reason for this? If people cannot understand the tools used to create the said piece of music, then it's very likely that it will not be seen as "music", or at least music that fails to communicate with that individual. No given piece of music can be acknowledged as music by every cultural standard. This is why I say any given piece of music is not universal.

With that being said, I think that the system of Music, or "music" (as we are trying to define it), IS universal. There does not exist a culture who did not have some form (even primitive) of music in their society. For that, the concept of music is universal, despite that no actual production of what could be considered music is in itself universal.

Secondly, I argue that music is not a language. A language is something that is created by a society or culture to communicate. Because "music" is universal, music can not be language. Does this make sense? However, consider any given piece of music. Why does this composition hold significance in some cultures but not in others? My theory is this: musical form, the addition of lyrics, tonality, sequences, modal settings, and other pertinent things, are all parts of a language that a composer utilizes to make music accessible.

Tonality, Tone Row, Mode, Sequences, etc., are all languages that a composer can write in. Those who "know the language" can recognize this form of music. The musical language is acquired through culture and academia. This explains why music majors, or those heavily involved with music, understand more forms of music other than "Western" music, etc. The more languages a person knows, the more music he will be able to appreciate. However, this does not music a language. Rather, it only emphasizes that elements used to create music themselves are a type of language.

Although we learn "musical languages" through culture and academia, I think part of what makes music "universal" are some archetypal elements existent in all music.

Contour
Rhythm
Imitation

consider these three things. There is not a single form of "music" that does not acknowledge these three traits, even in their most primitive form. Cavemen hitting rocks, imitating each other implies imitation (which could include repetition), and contour on some level. I prefer to reserve the term "melodic" for tonal music, but I firmly believe that these three elements are existent in all things that are considered music. It is in how the listener percieves these archetypal elements, in addition to musical language, that justifies what is and what is not music to each individual.

With those several mouthfuls being said, I think this helps put another perspective into how we can define music. I am considering a new revised form of a concise definition, very similar to what Jake last posted, but perhaps adding the idea of archetypal elements, and such.

Questions, comments, complaints?

~Adam

Here's sometheing almost completely unrelated. It correlates in a wierd way though. Earlier in the week I wound up on separate occasions in an art gallery for an exhibition called "Mexico Illuminated/Illuminado". That's not important. There was an installation there called 'Killing Time' (which was about the Mexican Navy and how it's largly ceremonial, and some feel it is a waste of money). Anywho, it included some video of the Navy doing things like walking around, polishing the floor, and other trivial things like stacking chairs. In these videos the footage was slowed down and you could hear sounds that go along with being near ports/piers/water etc, and the bells on ships. Anyhow, for the class I was in we were analyzing the installation piece by piece and for some reason I asked, "Does the music go with this exhibit? or the other one?" since there were a few installations near each other all running video, and it was hard to tell. No one was paying attention to the background noise on the videos (myself included) and why I asked I didn't even know. What I'm eventually getting at is that without even thinking about it I called this music. Nothing really occurred to me until everyone was kind of like 'what?' after I asked the question. Not because they thought I had 'mislabeled' the 'sound' but because they hadn't noticed it at all before the question. It did make me think though why did i just call that music? It actually made me think of this thread (yeah that's pretty sad, but oh well). Thinking about it, it's not 'music' (or maybe it is...), it's just 'sea sounds" and 'noise' but I called it music. Maybe it's because it was slowed down and that distorted it. Maybe it was because it was on a loop and it seemed repititious. Maybe because it coming from a video source, or other visual media, you're just used to all background noise being music. Since things in a visual (tv/video/film) context are generally scored or accompanied by some type of generally accepted 'music'. So maybe that was really random, sorry if that goes way off topic from your last post, but it made me remember that and I thought I might share that experience.

maybe not - you herad repetition and rhythm in that background, right? Perhaps it was the archetypal primitive musician in you ;-). I think it does hold correlation. I think when people hear sounds in nature that resemble countour (in a 'melodic' sense), imitation, and rhythmn, they primitively, or subconsciously identify some "musicality" to these sounds....i think that there is something subconscious, and wholly instinctive, within the human mind/body that establishes music from noise. We as humans, with comprehension, extend beyond the primitive basics. However, that does not mean that we exist with out them.

Interesting stuff, indeed.

With all this said, i'd like to post now an idea for a revised form of the definition. The definition itself is very concise, stays within the limits we've defined for some time, and allows for some corollaries to follow. The corollaries define the diffrent parts that comprise the world of music, all based off of the principle definition of what music is. Can't decide if I like elements or standards better...

Music is the authentic or implied sound/silence that is interpreted by a listener as organized to serve a purpose. This interpretation of organization is based on cultural, academic, and archetypal elements/standards, varying in structure and in complication.

Corollary Number One:

The attempt to organize sounds/silence in a way to be perceived as music is the art of creating music.

Corollary Number Two:

A music system is an organized way to notate music.

Corollary Number Three:

The attempt to notate a series of sounds/silence for music to be created is the art of composition.

Corollary Number Four:

The various styles of composing can be grouped into systems of music, known as musical languages.

Corollary Number Five:

A Musical language is a general set of cultural elements that influence the creation of certain genres of music.



How does all of this stand in defining music very specifically, yet allowing freedom for interpretation of what "is" and what "isn't" music to the listener? Also, I've considered listing the archetypal elements, but I think the definition would be weaker with them.

Comments?

"To be ignorant of other languages, is to be ignorant of your own" Anonymous

It was a quote on a poster in my german class; debate about why that may have signifigance to this thread.

I spent the weekend in Houston with the UT Longhorn Band, and I tried considering the quote you mentioned, Thor.

I couldn't come up with any substantial meaning to the quote. Because we are not omniscient, we are going to be ignorant of things to some degree. There will be cultures and langauges which we will spend our lives completely ignorant to. However, perhaps by understanding another culture, it's processes, origins, and customs, you can better understand yours through apprecation and a braoder sense of the world. The corollary to becoming more educated about your own culture as you study others would be ignorance and lack of education.

However, I'm not sure how this would apply to music. The only thing I could suggest is that on an academic level, the study of genres of music that aren't associated with our culture help us realize the significant strengths and weaknesses of the musical "language" we strongly associate with. However, I don't know that I would call a person ignorant about the tonal language simply because he's never heard Organum.

So to answer your question, Thor, I don't know what significance that would hold.

~Adam

I was kind of thinking along the ways of having influences from everywhere....kind of.

I don't know exactly how I thought it might fit it, but when I saw it, I thought of how you have to be well rounded in everything you do. You don't want to be one-sided - you have to expand your knowledge.

WHich is why it's good to learn not just field percussion (tenors, basses, snares) but also to learn marimba, conga, etc.

For example (from the quote I used) after I started taking German, I understood better the signifigance of the different cases, and the origins of some of our words.

So in a sence, you have to study other forms of music to really understand a particular one.

its sounds to le like this was his home work for a music appreciation class and got off easy by posting it

The only kind of music class I'm taking is band, and we definitly don't have any sort of homework at all (except praticing).

I just wanted to get people to think about something.

this is the definition of music off of dictionary.com


mu·sic
n.
The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.
Vocal or instrumental sounds possessing a degree of melody, harmony, or rhythm.

A musical composition.
The written or printed score for such a composition.
Such scores considered as a group: We keep our music in a stack near the piano.
A musical accompaniment.
A particular category or kind of music.
An aesthetically pleasing or harmonious sound or combination of sounds: the music of the wind in the pines.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Old French musique, from Latin msica, from Greek mousik (tekhn), (art) of the Muses, feminine of mousikos, of the Muses, from Mousa, Muse. See men-1 in Indo-European Roots.]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

uh . . . dictionary definitions have already been discussed. They don't seem to be complete, and some provide a definition which is unclear or can be interpreted in more than one way.

I agree with trimen here. If no one is around to interperet music, well, some one or something is still making the music right? Some people say the sound of the ocean is music, but its just a natural motion of earth, not sounds made by any porpuse to listen to. Same goes for rain and thunderstorms, so often you hear compositions meant to imitate these sounds which are just made with no composition at all. And also people say a persons voice just speaking can be music, I wouldn't call mine music though. So therefore couldn't music be defined as any audible sound? I feel like a philosipher now. LOL!

Ok, in that part of the definition formed on this post about being "for a purpose", it is talking about being interpreted for a purpose, not necessarily created for one. I believe that if there is no one or nothing around to interpret, then it is nothing more than sound. It is once it is interpreted and recognized (according to one's understanding of musical elements, as stated) that it becomes music.

And no, I don't agree that any audible sound is music. Any sound COULD be music, depending on that which interprets it. I don't think you should be too specific in how you define music, or else, it may not be correct in relation with everyones', and everythings' "standard of musical elements".

I think instead of saying that 'any audible sound' can be music depending on someone's interpretation, I think it is more accurate to say that these sounds have 'musical qualities' instead since I would not categorize them as music. So since we are defining music here, I would not include these into the definition. If that doesn't make sense I guess I can describe it better but I don't have the time right now. I would consider imitation of these sounds 'music' since someone took the time to figure out how to reproduce them and 'arrange' them, but that also might be taking the term a little loosely. Maybe later I will try and post about a recent discussion with one of my art professors and some other students on 'what is art?' since these are similar genres.

I would think it would be something like, "A collection of audible sounds that is put together to make one sound." Or something like that.

man....all these answers are all so deep and well thought out..this has got to be my favorite post

How about this: The arrangement of sound and time.

somebody <IGHT have already answered this, but why does someone need to be around to interpret the music for it to be music? Also, I think CD players are playing back music, not making it. I DO think that people with instruments MAKE they music, because it is with their own breath/hands/anything else, and it is not ELECTRICAL DATA, it is DATA read by the mind.

Music is the authentic or implied combination of sounds and silence that is interpreted by a perceiver as organized to serve a purpose. This interpretation of organization is based on cultural, academic, and archetypal elements/standards, varying in structure and in complication.

indoor: The problem with saying pieces have "musical qualities" is that
1) You use musical to define music
2) Who decides what is a musical quality?

In the end, you backtrack into a circle, and it's no more accurate than saying the point which sound becomes music is when the listener justifies it (consciously or subconsciously). If you still feel justified in your thoughts, I'm certainly interested in heaing more - perhaps another post would make more sense, but I find it hard to say defining music through whether it has "musical qualities" is better in opposition to the statement that music lies in the ear of any given listener.

Ler: I like where you are going with that. There are several problems, I think. Mostly that it's too vague. i think there are a lot of musical compositions that don't arrange time - one could argue that time exists anyways - but time is at equilibrium on earth whether or not music is playing or not. Also, time is a relative concept - it depends a lot on gravitational forces, rotation periods, etc. So it'd be difficult to argue that as a "better" definition. i like the diretion, though.

homsar: indeed, it was answered. to save you the trouble of looking back THROUGH the thread to chart the evolutionary paths of the thread, here's the abridged version. Without the interpreter, sound is simply frequencies and vibrating pulses in the air. Sound only exists in the way it does because of how we are built. It is silly to say that sound exists outside the body - rather our brain/bodies interpret those signals, and based on the constructino of our bodies, these frequencies are interpreted as noise. That's why you have to have a listener. Also, the distinctino between noise and music lies within the perciever of that "noise/music", so he has to be present to make that decisino for him.

CD players are replicating data, information, sound waves, wahtever you want to call it. It still takes a person/group to physically organize those sounds (orchestra, soloist, studio artist, even electronic composers, are all responsible for the organization of those sounds that are recorded at a point in time so that those sounds can be replicated). But it IS data read by the mind, and in the grand scheme of things, no different than the produtino of "music" by authentic instruments (as far as the analytical elements of the brain are concerned). There's a whole other discussion on the effects of a live performance vs a studio performance, but for our sake, I think it's safe to say they're all commonly interpreted as music.

I posted at the beginning, now at the end.

Music is the authentic or implied combination of sounds and silence that is interpreted by a perceiver as organized to serve a purpose. This interpretation of organization is based on cultural, academic, and archetypal elements/standards, varying in structure and in complication.

I'd really like to hear arguments to this specific definition as to why it WOULDN'T work - or how something could work BETTER, and have justificatino for it. I'm not trying to be "snooty" by posting my definition and focusing attention on it - i just think it's a good definition that hasn't met a lot of opposition yet.

That's enough rambling for the evening.

~Adam

What's up Adam?

My only arguement to this proposal pertains to the phrase, "Music is the authentic or implied combination of sounds and silence..." Though you may have clarifications as to how the sounds/silences must be combined(organized), to me, this initial phrase implies that the only requirement for music is a combination of sounds/silences.
My problem can be stated as my preference for organizations of sounds/silences being a higher priority than the use of the elements of sound/silence.
To me, there are three broad elements to music:
1. The use of either authentic(Sounds hear in the mind and in nature- physical sounds), recalled(audiated or heard only in the mind), and created(Sounds made up in the mind-example: composition methods) sounds.
2. The use of a mind with pre-learned elements that define what is music. This is pretty much the second half of your second sentence.
3. The organization or comparison of the sounds/silences to the pre-learned elements of music.
I will say that to me, your definition does cover all of these elements, but I feel it is in the wrong order.
I feel that music is first, an organization. THen you can further define what the organization is based on.

This would still keep my preference with a slight edition of our latter definion:

Music is an organization, bsaed on a perceiver or conceiver's acquired standards of muscal elements, of sounds and silence.

This is crazy because it brings us right back to the definition of: Music is the organization of sound and silence. Although this definition is incomplete, it is still the overall definition.

One last thing about your last definition, do not forget to identify what type of elements they are. The answer should be musical elements, but you may not want to forget to include that.

I guess that is all I have to say right now, and I hope everything is semi-understandable,

Jonathan

Good points, I think.

My arguments:

The purpose of a definition is that for something to fill the requirements of a definition, it must fulfill all parts. The order in which you state should be irrelevant. As my previous definition said, it was the combination THAT WAS INTERPRETED yada yada. Consider sounds becoming music as a triangle. You have the sample space of all sounds. From there, you have sounds that are grouped and organized togther. This group comes within the sample space. Now within THIS group is another group. These are the combinations of sound/silence that are interpreted as organized. Period. now, from THAT group, applying one's musical standards, there is a tiny group that we call music. As the definition stood/(stands?), we define music as

combination of sounds
THAT IS perceieved as organized
to serve a purpose (what separates music from other noises).

Think of it as an elongated progression. You want to reach the climactic point. I think the point at which it is percieved as organized is the cadential point. However, you can't have that without the introdouctory material, that which gives a phrase definition. Which is why I think the order I had still works.

And I don't quite understand how my last definition failed to define what elements were existent. :-)

I still think the latest one I posted seems to be more complete - but that could just be my arguing for the sake of arguing :-).

I would have to say that noise is something that has absolutly no rythem, and no difference between tune. I know we've all heard noise, but couldn't a noise be described as a simple beat on a drum, and don't all those simple beats on the drum make up a composition of music. The same goes for wind instruments, a simple tute on a horn can make up part of a symphony, and a simple "noise" from a piano could make up something Betoven (sorry about spelling) or Bach composed. So then wouldn't noise therefor be music? Or does noise make up music? Couldn't the most complex rhythems come from a series of noises? Does anyone know what a hit-miss engine is? They're an old style engine that would be used to power washing machines or ice cream makers, or any other type of appliance like that. The way they work is that they cycle through about 5 times (depending on the type of engine) and then they let out a big pluff of exhaust. So they couldn't that basic pattern of hit-miss engines all running at the same time lead to the most complex type of rythem you've ever heard, but when you take 1 or 2 off even just a 16'th of a second it could be described as a raquet. So then couldn't they're be a vary fine line between noise and music? Or is noise the same thing as music??? So would there be a deffinition between noise and music?

to tell the diffrence between music and noise, take a song, and listen to it, any song, and then after you listen to it, try to imagine it without a melody, or have some people in band play a song once through, and then take out all the melody parts, then you will see th diffrence.

my music theory book defines it as "any form of art using sound as a medium that evokes a response from the listner."

i like to go by that one because it leaves all doors open to interpretation while still being concise enough to get its point across. music does not require a melody, as some believe, and it may not be rhythmically sound in any sense. music could be cars passing by or a symphony, it makes no difference. it is what you make it, and if you respond, you have made it music.

music is like a fashoin statement that never goes out of style.music is what brings out the inner person.music is the thing that makes people want to be something that is impossible.music is me

All this talk is getting deep into where it starts confusing me some. Well, anyway, heres a link I found from the Stomp site that might provide some evidence, theres a go to link towards the top that says "Noise vs. Music"-or vise versa. Click on that and it will take you to the section of the page.

i think you left the link off of the page, Irondrummer. But I'd be interested in reading it.

~Adam