this is the definition of music off of dictionary.com


mu·sic
n.
The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.
Vocal or instrumental sounds possessing a degree of melody, harmony, or rhythm.

A musical composition.
The written or printed score for such a composition.
Such scores considered as a group: We keep our music in a stack near the piano.
A musical accompaniment.
A particular category or kind of music.
An aesthetically pleasing or harmonious sound or combination of sounds: the music of the wind in the pines.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Old French musique, from Latin msica, from Greek mousik (tekhn), (art) of the Muses, feminine of mousikos, of the Muses, from Mousa, Muse. See men-1 in Indo-European Roots.]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

uh . . . dictionary definitions have already been discussed. They don't seem to be complete, and some provide a definition which is unclear or can be interpreted in more than one way.

I agree with trimen here. If no one is around to interperet music, well, some one or something is still making the music right? Some people say the sound of the ocean is music, but its just a natural motion of earth, not sounds made by any porpuse to listen to. Same goes for rain and thunderstorms, so often you hear compositions meant to imitate these sounds which are just made with no composition at all. And also people say a persons voice just speaking can be music, I wouldn't call mine music though. So therefore couldn't music be defined as any audible sound? I feel like a philosipher now. LOL!

Ok, in that part of the definition formed on this post about being "for a purpose", it is talking about being interpreted for a purpose, not necessarily created for one. I believe that if there is no one or nothing around to interpret, then it is nothing more than sound. It is once it is interpreted and recognized (according to one's understanding of musical elements, as stated) that it becomes music.

And no, I don't agree that any audible sound is music. Any sound COULD be music, depending on that which interprets it. I don't think you should be too specific in how you define music, or else, it may not be correct in relation with everyones', and everythings' "standard of musical elements".

I think instead of saying that 'any audible sound' can be music depending on someone's interpretation, I think it is more accurate to say that these sounds have 'musical qualities' instead since I would not categorize them as music. So since we are defining music here, I would not include these into the definition. If that doesn't make sense I guess I can describe it better but I don't have the time right now. I would consider imitation of these sounds 'music' since someone took the time to figure out how to reproduce them and 'arrange' them, but that also might be taking the term a little loosely. Maybe later I will try and post about a recent discussion with one of my art professors and some other students on 'what is art?' since these are similar genres.

I would think it would be something like, "A collection of audible sounds that is put together to make one sound." Or something like that.

man....all these answers are all so deep and well thought out..this has got to be my favorite post

How about this: The arrangement of sound and time.

somebody <IGHT have already answered this, but why does someone need to be around to interpret the music for it to be music? Also, I think CD players are playing back music, not making it. I DO think that people with instruments MAKE they music, because it is with their own breath/hands/anything else, and it is not ELECTRICAL DATA, it is DATA read by the mind.

Music is the authentic or implied combination of sounds and silence that is interpreted by a perceiver as organized to serve a purpose. This interpretation of organization is based on cultural, academic, and archetypal elements/standards, varying in structure and in complication.

indoor: The problem with saying pieces have "musical qualities" is that
1) You use musical to define music
2) Who decides what is a musical quality?

In the end, you backtrack into a circle, and it's no more accurate than saying the point which sound becomes music is when the listener justifies it (consciously or subconsciously). If you still feel justified in your thoughts, I'm certainly interested in heaing more - perhaps another post would make more sense, but I find it hard to say defining music through whether it has "musical qualities" is better in opposition to the statement that music lies in the ear of any given listener.

Ler: I like where you are going with that. There are several problems, I think. Mostly that it's too vague. i think there are a lot of musical compositions that don't arrange time - one could argue that time exists anyways - but time is at equilibrium on earth whether or not music is playing or not. Also, time is a relative concept - it depends a lot on gravitational forces, rotation periods, etc. So it'd be difficult to argue that as a "better" definition. i like the diretion, though.

homsar: indeed, it was answered. to save you the trouble of looking back THROUGH the thread to chart the evolutionary paths of the thread, here's the abridged version. Without the interpreter, sound is simply frequencies and vibrating pulses in the air. Sound only exists in the way it does because of how we are built. It is silly to say that sound exists outside the body - rather our brain/bodies interpret those signals, and based on the constructino of our bodies, these frequencies are interpreted as noise. That's why you have to have a listener. Also, the distinctino between noise and music lies within the perciever of that "noise/music", so he has to be present to make that decisino for him.

CD players are replicating data, information, sound waves, wahtever you want to call it. It still takes a person/group to physically organize those sounds (orchestra, soloist, studio artist, even electronic composers, are all responsible for the organization of those sounds that are recorded at a point in time so that those sounds can be replicated). But it IS data read by the mind, and in the grand scheme of things, no different than the produtino of "music" by authentic instruments (as far as the analytical elements of the brain are concerned). There's a whole other discussion on the effects of a live performance vs a studio performance, but for our sake, I think it's safe to say they're all commonly interpreted as music.

I posted at the beginning, now at the end.

Music is the authentic or implied combination of sounds and silence that is interpreted by a perceiver as organized to serve a purpose. This interpretation of organization is based on cultural, academic, and archetypal elements/standards, varying in structure and in complication.

I'd really like to hear arguments to this specific definition as to why it WOULDN'T work - or how something could work BETTER, and have justificatino for it. I'm not trying to be "snooty" by posting my definition and focusing attention on it - i just think it's a good definition that hasn't met a lot of opposition yet.

That's enough rambling for the evening.

~Adam