# Towards a definition of music



## utmusic (Sep 15, 2006)

A few years ago, a friend an I embarked on a journey towards a clear, concise, and complete way to define the term Music. We made excellent progress but abandoned the idea for a few years. I recently revisited that old forum to see the continued discussion and found no real progress from the users since my abandonment on the search. I did, however, recently update the most accurate definition we could come up, and you can find that definition on my blog.

http://icecreamfruit.livejournal.com/313196.html

I am curious to see how everyone here would define music. Keep in mind we are looking for a complete way to define music that is inclusive to any piece of music but does differentiate music from "noise" or other generic sound. I'm sure I will post my definition sooner or later for criticism, but for now, I'm more interested in hearing ideas from everyone else and perhaps playing devil's advocate.

What does everyone think?


----------



## ezydriver (Sep 30, 2006)

I would simply define music as this. 

Sound manipulated to provoke emotion or thought.


----------



## Hexameron (Oct 7, 2006)

I wish someone would tell that to John Cage. Everytime some moron elitist pianist thinks he's poetic to play the 4'33 composition, I want to strangle someone.

It just goes to show that even the "classical music" genre was stagnating before the really awful pop stuff came along. And now the art of music is dead... perhaps forever. Will there be one as great as Beethoven in the year 4030? Another Mozart? Maybe even a lyrical composer like Chopin? A genius like Wagner? Not if the current direction of music stays its course.

I read your thorough journal and found it agreeable, but I like ezydriver's simple definition as well. I also think the key word, as controversial as it is to some of the modern composers, is *emotion*. If music was played to a plant, a rock, or the clouds... what happens?

If you play Mozart's Requiem to a stone, nothing happens.

If you play Beethoven's Eroica to a human being, there _will_ be emotion or thought. So ezydriver is right with that simple definition.

It's strange, though, when nature is considered. Birdcalls, animal howls, insect chirps, even rumbling clouds... all have a key, and beyond that, rhythm. Beethoven used nature in his 6th symphony, so nature is perfectly capable of producing music, but it's only emotion that can perceive it. I won't say humans are the only one who can be emotionally affected. I've played piano to my dog and he howls; whether it's causing pain or pleasure, it's still perceived.

But just like Math, Gravity, Time, and many other enigmatic laws of the universe, I don't think we can ever understand what music is and how to define it. Although some of the greats have said some very convincing things about it. I already have a list of questions for my maker, and "what is music" is on the top of that list... next is actually a request to meet Beethoven... I gotta believe he's still composing in some distant realm.


----------



## ezydriver (Sep 30, 2006)

Well hexameron, he is still decomposing, alas.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

Organized sound.


----------



## Oneiros (Aug 28, 2006)

Hexameron said:


> Everytime some moron elitist pianist thinks he's poetic to play the 4'33 composition, I want to strangle someone.


Thank the heavens that I am not alone in such sentiments!


----------



## utmusic (Sep 15, 2006)

*Playing Devil's Advocate*



ezydriver said:


> I would simply define music as this.
> 
> Sound manipulated to provoke emotion or thought.


so anybody who says Cage's 4'33" is music is simply wrong? There is no room for ambiguity? Also, are moments of implied silence not part of music? I suppose you could argue that you are manipulating sound to not exist, but in actuality I believe implied silence is nothing more than a lack of manipulation of sound for effect. If this is true, there is a discrepancy with this abridged shorter definition.

What about elevator music? That doesn't necessarily provoke emotion or thought, it creates an atmosphere. Is it not music? What about music that is functional, ornamentive in nature - is it not music?

What if sound fails to provoke emotion or thought? Is it not music? If my younger brother falls asleep during the Brahms double concerto, does that make it not music because it failed to provoke emotion or thought? What does it say if it produces a different emotion or thought than intended? Is it any less musical? Is it not music? Are etudes music?

Sometimes I will hear Nessum Dorma and I will bask in the brilliance of the music and I will be musically uplifted. Sometimes it makes me very sad and nostalgic, quite the opposite from the energetic and complete feeling that I sometimes get. Does that change the nature of the music? Who decides that it's provoked? Does a composer simply have to have the intention to provoke for it to be music? Does the listener decide?

Does a composer not hear music in his mind? Technically, sound exists as vibrations that are then interpreted as sound. Basically you're saying the music is the actual waves, not the interpretation. So in essence, sound has to be present, so in turn we cannot internalize music?

Sorry to play devil's advocate, but sometimes it's about the discussion, not the answer.


----------



## Hexameron (Oct 7, 2006)

Whoa utmusic... that's a lot of questions. But I'll try and answer them as best I can. Bear in mind this is my opinion and I'm on a course of musical education in college myself, so I can only answer as a thinking person, not as a learned one.


> so anybody who says Cage's 4'33" is music is simply wrong?


*Yes* 


> There is no room for ambiguity?


*Not when there is no music at all. Paintings, staples, baseball hats, and someone sitting at a piano bench doing nothing are not music.*


> Also, are moments of implied silence not part of music?


*Silence is obviously an integral part of music, and yes, the silence itself when spaced between two notes is contributing to the music, but 4 minutes of no sound doesn't establish itself as music. If on the 34th second of those 4 minutes, Cage had the pianist hit one A note, then I think it would be music.*


> I suppose you could argue that you are manipulating sound to not exist, but in actuality I believe implied silence is nothing more than a lack of manipulation of sound for effect.


*In the case of John Cage's composition, I would say it's a "lack of ideas." If John Cage put his 4'33 back in the salons of Paris in 1840, I think his complete idiocy and inferiority would be apparent when Liszt actually plays music, like an operatic fantasy and then improvises, or Kalkbrenner storms up the piano with his octaves. Those composers actually had full, rich, potential and aural ideas for music, where Mr. Cage does not.*


> What about elevator music? That doesn't necessarily provoke emotion or thought, it creates an atmosphere. Is it not music?


*I've never heard elevator music actually*  


> What if sound fails to provoke emotion or thought? Is it not music? If my younger brother falls asleep during the Brahms double concerto, does that make it not music because it failed to provoke emotion or thought?


*No, because your brother wasn't listening. I mean, when you truly listen, you can't help but think. Some people listen to Beethoven and find it boring. Some people listen to Eminem and think the same thing. The music is still provoking thought: a thought that this is boring  Both Beethoven and Eminem are music and it's not the music's fault if someone isn't listening to it. You can hear music all day and yet not really listen. I've played Beethoven's Missa Solemnis in my office while I was doing things and being busy... I heard the first opening chorus but started working on something and blacked out the music. Before I knew it, the CD stopped and I didn't even remember it was on. That's because I wasn't *listening* which I think all music requires. Without the capability to listen, then we aren't qualified to define music. Which is what I was pointing out earlier that rocks can't be affected by music because they can't listen.*


> Are etudes music?


*Oh definitely. Chopin, Liszt, Henselt, Alkan, Saint-Saens, Moscheles, Hummel, Rubinstein, and Rachmaninoff are all champions of highly musical etudes. Etudes are just as much music as symphonies, operas, or piano sonatas.*


> Sometimes I will hear Nessum Dorma and I will bask in the brilliance of the music and I will be musically uplifted. Sometimes it makes me very sad and nostalgic, quite the opposite from the energetic and complete feeling that I sometimes get. Does that change the nature of the music? Who decides that it's provoked? Does a composer simply have to have the intention to provoke for it to be music? Does the listener decide?


*Those are tough to answer. I was listening to the last movement of Beethoven's Op. 110 and realized how impossible it is for me not to feel sad when listening to that lamenting theme, or feel hope when the fugal material rises to a heavenly climax. How do we explain what makes music sad, happy, heroic, or exciting? That's way too over my head. And yet there is a solid answer somewhere because music can be strictly sad or abundantly happy. Beethoven's adagio sostenuto from the Hammerklavier, for instance, evokes only pain, sorrow, and a weak and hopeless hope. Mozart's Turkish March, though... is incapable of making me sad. Why is that? I just don't know.*


> Does a composer not hear music in his mind? Technically, sound exists as vibrations that are then interpreted as sound. Basically you're saying the music is the actual waves, not the interpretation. So in essence, sound has to be present, so in turn we cannot internalize music?


*You're right, composers and really anybody can have memories of music, create musical notes in their head, and play music in their head. But music in the head is just not possible without memory of real sound. In essence, I think the vibrations and waves of aural music must be known to a person before they can internalize it. If someone is born deaf... there is just no chance that they can know music. The same applies to sight with someone born blind. What do blind people see in their dreams? Nothing but swirling blackness mixed with sensations of moving around and hearing noises. The brain has to experience aural music to memorize or create it.*

*I'm with you in your skepticism, curiousity and yearning to know all the nuances about the phenomena of music. But I think our simple academic definitions are all we're going to be able to content ourselves with for now. Just like the meaning of life and the reason for dreams, I think music is one of those things we will never be able to analyze scientifically or even logically.*


----------



## Mahler Maniac (Sep 26, 2006)

utmusic said:


> A few years ago, a friend an I embarked on a journey towards a clear, concise, and complete way to define the term Music. We made excellent progress but abandoned the idea for a few years. I recently revisited that old forum to see the continued discussion and found no real progress from the users since my abandonment on the search. I did, however, recently update the most accurate definition we could come up, and you can find that definition on my blog.
> 
> http://icecreamfruit.livejournal.com/313196.html
> 
> ...


This sounds like it would be a great Documentary....quizing a variety of musicians and other artists about the definition of music....Hmmmm....maybe on to something.....


----------



## SchubertObsessive (Aug 15, 2006)

See this thread:

http://www.talkclassical.com/showthread.php?t=725


----------



## ezydriver (Sep 30, 2006)

> What about elevator music? That doesn't necessarily provoke emotion or thought, it creates an atmosphere.


For me it provokes a thought.

"This is crap, get me out of here."


----------



## utmusic (Sep 15, 2006)

*A response to a response*

But 4'33" isn't necessarily about silence. Silence doesn't exist. It's implied silence. And it's the sounds of the audience. Like it or not, sounds (and implied silence) are occuring that COULD be interpreted as music. It's aleatoric music at its extreme. If you say 4'33" cannot be music because of the arrangement of implied silence to create atmospheric sound, then there is a lot of 20th century music that cannot be music because it employs a traditional musical instrument to do the same thing.

And lots of music doesn't mean a lot of ideas. His idea was to challenge human perception by presenting a "work". It's really an amazing idea. The medium he used to employ was something of performance art, but it doesn't mean he had a lack of an idea. It was just dramatically different in comparison to that of Lizst or Mahler or Bach because they had different agendas with music.

My brother doesn't have an attention span for orchestral music. I know he tries, but he just doesn't really understand or appreciate the process. He perceives it as music, of course, but not as music that he identifies with or moves him emotionally. I believe you can really try to listen to music and not be moved by it.

Is Hanon music? Is a whole note scale music? You listed a lot of etudes that are performed on a somewhat frequent basis. Bring it down a notch, or several. At what point does it drop off of being music? I argue that it varies from individual to individual. But why does it vary? I argue it's because of a set of learned, culturual, and intuitive standards we develop as we age. Music to a 12 year old is interpreted much differently than that of a 40 year old professional musician. Music is defined substantially differently now than it was 300 years ago. And of course, there are elements which exist in all music and transcend. This is the basis for my academic, cultural, and archetypal standards section of my definition.

There's no doubt about it that music can evoke emotion. The question at hand was is it necessary to invoke emotion to be music. My argument is that it is not emotion that we define music by, but smaller, wholistic concepts. Social standards, archetypal standards, and academic standards. I think emotion is a standard that some people might judge by, but I don't necessarily think evoked emotion is universal, and therefore can't be used in defining music.

And yes, I agree, that if you are born with no concept of sound and cannot interpret sound, you cannot hear music. However, sound is defined by vibrations that are interpreted as sound. Implied sound is simply an internal mimicking of the interpetation of vibrations. I think my point was that music is not defined by sound, because music can be defined by implied sound as well.

With that being said, I agree that there will always be ambiguity. But we should strive for as accurate of a definition as possible. It's human nature to be in conflict (that's another discussion!), but I don't feel "organized sound" or "sound that evokes emotion" capture the essense of music, who defines it, or why it's music and not sound.

Now, a definition is correct until it is proven otherwise. "Music is organized sound" is correct until you can cite an example that does not line up within those parameters, which I can. "Music is sound that evokes emotion" would be correct, except there are examples that do not define themselves by evoked emotion. I suppose that's really my biggest thoughts. I want an example of music to contradict my argument. Music as organized sound, music that evokes emotion are well defined within the definition I've come up with, and now I'm looking for examples of music that does not fit within these paramters, so I can address and further work towards an (unreachable possibly, but that's part of the fun) ultimate goal.

_Music is authentic or implied sound/silence that is interpreted by a listener as purposefully organized based on cultural, academic, and archetypal standards._

Comments, thoughts?



Hexameron said:


> Whoa utmusic... that's a lot of questions. But I'll try and answer them as best I can. Bear in mind this is my opinion and I'm on a course of musical education in college myself, so I can only answer as a thinking person, not as a learned one.
> 
> *Yes*
> 
> ...


----------



## rojo (May 26, 2006)

Maybe music can, or should have more than one definition...although I think yours does seem to cover all the bases, utmusic. Very interesting discussion. I tend to feel as Hexameron (and ezydriver?) do; the element of emotion, for me personally, is the most important thing. But as you have explained, I don`t think one can put that into the 'definitive' definition. Unfortunately. But can I keep it in my definition?


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

ezydriver said:


> I would simply define music as this.
> 
> Sound manipulated to provoke emotion or thought.





Celloman said:


> Organized sound.


This does not differ enough from "Language".

I know that one should never use the term itself within a definition, but with music it is very difficult... so how about:

*Sounds organized in such a way that they are perceived by the listener as "music".*

I know, this is weak and by no means definitive. Please chalk it up to brainstorming.


----------



## linz (Oct 5, 2006)

Music?

Sound Psychology?

Auditory attempt at emotional or intellectual intrigue?


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2006)

If I may join in and not having read all the posts all the way through this is my opinion

Music for must have, A rhythm, not necessarily metronomic, 
A tune or recognisable theme
It must please the ear, sound nice, most of the time
Also form and structure are important

If it has one of these I can listen to it, two is better, 3 is good all 4 pleases me. If it has none then it is not music,


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2006)

sorry this was entered twice, so I deleted 2nd repeat


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

"It must please the ear, sound nice, most of the time"

This is first of all a little bit ethnocentric, but even within Western Art music is not valid all the time.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2006)

Kurkikohtaus said:


> "It must please the ear, sound nice, most of the time"
> 
> This is first of all a little bit ethnocentric, but even within Western Art music is not valid all the time.


Sorry but I do not understand ethnocentric, if you mean my comments are subjective then I agree, 
also you say " within Western Art music is not valid all the time". could you expand that just a little ?


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

Ethnocentric as in pertaining only to a certain culture, in this case Wester culture.

A true universal definition of music will be applicable to all cultures.


----------



## mahlerfan (Mar 31, 2007)

I believe music is sounds that are woven together in a way that is pleasing to the ear.
I also believe that music is the only way to display the emotions that cannot be explained through words. Music is communication by sounds other than words.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

Congrats *mahlerfan* on digging this one up! I wish Frederik would _sticky_ this one, so that all new members could have a go at this.

A true definition of music must be applicable for all cultures, as most human cultures and civilizations throughout history developed a practice that they call "music". But not all cultures do not assume that music must be "pleasing to the ear" or must "express or display emotion".

I think we must immediately throw "pleasing to the ear" out the window, even within a definition of Western music. One needn't even look to the 20th C to see that dissonance has been an important concept in Western for centuries. Listen to Perotin and Leonin (ca. 1200) if you want to hear some really raunchy dissonances that would make Mozart shiver.

Secondly, in terms of emotion, I would like to insert my argument against ethnocentricity once again. I would urge people who enter into this discussion to think carefully and wholistically about this emotional aspect of music, as it is not even necessarily universal in Western music. In the Baroque period, the "*Doctrine of Affections*" was introduced as an attempt to codify emotion (or affect) within music, and from this idea emerged the "happy and sad" arias and melodies of the classical and Romantic era. The 20th century then brought about a revolt towards emotion, _Serialism_, ironically started by the main exponent of the Expressionist movment.

So the history of _Emotion_ in Western art music is a relatively short one, spanning some 200-300 years, depending on which way you look at it. Other cultures have other takes on this. In some cultures, music has purely ritualistic purpose or a purely formal (intellectual) intention... one must take all these things into account when attempting a definition.


----------



## Keemun (Mar 2, 2007)

Here are some dictionary definitions to consider:

The science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity.

Vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony.

An art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color.

The tones or sounds employed, occurring in single line (melody) or multiple lines (harmony), and sounded or to be sounded by one or more voices or instruments, or both.

The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.

An artistic form of auditory communication incorporating instrumental or vocal tones in a structured and continuous manner.
I personally like the 1st, 3rd and 6th definitions.


----------



## Frasier (Mar 10, 2007)

utmusic said:


> so anybody who says Cage's 4'33" is music is simply wrong? There is no room for ambiguity? Also, are moments of implied silence not part of music? I suppose you could argue that you are manipulating sound to not exist, but in actuality I believe implied silence is nothing more than a lack of manipulation of sound for effect. If this is true, there is a discrepancy with this abridged shorter definition.


Almost everyone misses the point about Cage's music. The acoustics may or may not be music but Cage is about listening. The irony of this work is there is no such thing as 4'33" silence - that's the point. If I read Cage right, his point is that composers/performers believing that they write/play on a canvas of silence isn't quite true.

It's likely this discussion will lead nowhere because music is an experiential issue, so as many definitions of music exist as there are people. Some like their sound organised one way, others another way. Some like to be provoked emotionally, others like their sense of tidiness evoked, still others find it good for visceral reaction. It's difficult even to pin down what harmony is, let alone music!

EF


----------



## Keemun (Mar 2, 2007)

Frasier said:


> Almost everyone misses the point about Cage's music. The acoustics may or may not be music but Cage is about listening. The irony of this work is there is no such thing as 4'33" silence - that's the point. If I read Cage right, his point is that composers/performers believing that they write/play on a canvas of silence isn't quite true.


Even if 4'33" is an idea or statement about the nature of silence, this does not make it music. If 4'33" is music, then a blank canvas is a work of art, even though the "artist" did nothing whatsoever to the canvas. There may not be such a thing as a blank canvas (if one looks closely there is texture), but hanging a blank canvas in a gallery and calling it "11 X 17 (inches)" does not make it a work of art. It may be clever, it may be a joke, it may be pretentious, but it isn't a work of art.

Just my opinion about 4'33". . . .


----------



## Frasier (Mar 10, 2007)

Paraphrasing what I said in my prev post, I wouldn't like to claim that Cage's 4'33" is either music or art but it's definitely process.

All music depends on some "chance operations" - usually very small so when a traditional score is being performed it's usually recognised as a specific work even if it sounds different from someone else's interpretation, or a different orchestra/venue etc. A printed score is only a set of instructions so it is open to interpretation in every respect other than the pitches of the notes (with certain exceptions, obviously). Dynamics are relative and subjective, tempo can be messed about...compare Klemperer's and Karajan's Beethoven recordings - then Kempf, then Furtwangler...

Once you take all into account, Cage has only extended the chance aspects of performance. He was one of the Darmstadt lot and apparently at loggerheads with Stockhausen who initially wanted a definitive "chance-free" score by using recording. They both learned from each other - Stockhausen introducing chance into his live performance works like Mantra and Kontakte, Cage committing himself to definitive recordings as in his scores for ballet (that, by the nature of the thing had to be 'fixed').

Whether you like it or not, these people concerned themselves with musical 'issues' - so even if they've been rejected or merely closed blind alleys (as I consider Webern did), they still have to be accounted for in any "definition" of music.


----------



## The Mad Hatter (Feb 20, 2007)

Celloman said:


> Organized sound.


A little more than this.

Music is an arrangement of sound and silence.


----------



## psicorp (Mar 25, 2007)

The truth is music is completely subjective.
Something can be noise to you, and music to me, hence music is defined subjectively and cannot have an objective "real" definition.

But sure, organized sound, arrangement of sound and silence etc all work for the purpose of communication.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## IAmKing (Dec 3, 2006)

I don't have time to read this thread now. I will state my definition of music though:

Sound with a "frame" around it.

That is, if a composers comes along and records/arranges/writes down some indication of a sound and says "this is music"... then it is music.


----------



## IAmKing (Dec 3, 2006)

Oh... and about 4'33''

The silence is NOT THE PIECE OF MUSIC. The music in 4'33'' is the sounds you hear WHILE the MUSICIANS ARE DOING NOTHING. That is, the sound of the audience shifting in their seats, coughing etc.


----------



## IAmKing (Dec 3, 2006)

mahlerfan said:


> I believe music is sounds that are woven together in a way that is pleasing to the ear.


Thats a shocking statement coming from a Mahler fan.


----------



## jeremyr60 (Apr 14, 2007)

music is a social phenomeon!!!.... what noise to one culture is not to another


----------



## zlya (Apr 9, 2007)

Sound organized with aesthetic intent.


----------



## Giovannimusica (Mar 30, 2007)

An art form but also a discipline.


----------



## Saturnus (Nov 7, 2006)

I think music has two sides, on one side it is an artform of proportions, all theory and chords are based on multiplying frequencies by certain proportions or whole numbers. On other side is it influenced by our language; vocal expression.


----------



## Azathoth (Feb 28, 2007)

I got through the first page and then decided to post here before I was too influenced by everyone else's responses.

Music is essentially:

Sounds within a certain structure and rythym.

You can get stricter and stricter. Sounds with a certain structure and rythym put together as an attempt to communicate something, for example.

The word music also has two different meanings. Someone might say that Bach's cello suites are music, and Eminem's album _Encore_ is not. In other words, there is music, and then there is _music._

My layman's definition is that if you put the sounds together and like the way it works, it's music to you and that's good enough for yourself.


----------



## avrile (Apr 25, 2007)

Music is a spirit - unseen but felt; touches human hearts and minds without being human.


----------



## 4/4player (Nov 17, 2006)

I believe we can't actually give one "set" definition of music. It changes, depending on the person's view of it...so the variety of meanings can't really be categorized into one thing. That is what makes music so unique, it has no set meaning to it...(oh no! I better hide before the Musicologists and Composers enter the room!)...=O
Musically,
4/4player


----------

