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.--