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.