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

To try and clarify my first problem with Adam's definition:
Your second sentence of the definition states, "This interpretation of organization is based on cultural, academic, and archetypal elements/standards, varying in structure and in complication." My problem is a somewhat picky and generally understood by the reader, but it is in regard to the lack of defining what cultural, academic, and archetypal elements. What can vary structure? What can vary in complication?
I believe the reader understands the implication of the elements being musical ones, but it is left open for interpretation.
The bottom line is that, I believe it should state: This interpretation of organization is based on cultural, academic, and archetypal musical elements/standards, varying in structure and in complication.
Does that clarify my arguement a bit better?

To drummerboywes: Are you saying that a song without a melody is not music or is a poorer quality of music than a song with a melody?

To marimbaman: In my opinion, I would be careful with that definition because it can be easily falsified. Just think about listening to a sermon or play. Although there is a factor of visualness to it, if you remove that factor, you are left with only sound. These can be some of the most emotional forms of art, but they will normally be distinguished from music by the listener as a sermon, monologue, or just speech. Yet they still meet the requirements of the book's proposed definition of having sound as its medium, it is an art form, and it evokes emotion.