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.