The Definition of Music

So I just recently finished a book entitled Breaking the Sound Barrier (An Argument for Mainstream Literary Music) by John Winsor and there were more then just a few things I disagreed with but the one thing that stood out the most and just rubbed me the wrong way was his attempt to define music. He states that having a working definition is useful to set up a criteria to determine that which is music and that which is noise. His definition of music is much more ridged. Winsor defines music as "the use of sound to represent biological rhythm." He also states that music must communicate to the listener and allow the listener to "participate vicariously in the act of composition." He also list a few criteria as to what music should be, but I will not really go into detail about them however.

When I look for a definition of music, I take the Edgard Varèse approach by using the simple definition that music is organized sound. I feel that is the most simple and open definition for me.

However most people I have talked to take the "misty-eyed" romantic approach to defining music. Usually their definition contains phrases as "the most expressive art form for the human emotion" or "Divine gift from the Heavens" and such.

All this attempts to define music, though usually fruitless in any attempts to sway public opinion on the subject, promoted me to ask the following questions to my fellow composers on this forum:

What is YOUR working definition for music?

Is a definition of music needed or is it a personal subject?

Music is what happens when you're actually listening.

Music: Sounds organized in melodious and harmonic combinations made by voice or instrument.

(10 points to the person who can guess what movie that's from.)

Like most things in my life. I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it (hear).

Music is what happens when you're actually listening.

Ah, yes.

Music is a difficult word to define, and this is largely because of its contextual (or some may say subjective) nature. Musical expectations are largely a result of cultural conditioning and personal preference, so naturally there are different takes on the definition of music. Despite popular belief, music is not a universal language. While most, if not all, cultures develop music, it is unlikely, for example, that many Westerners would appreciate the subtleties of minyo (folk songs) from Japan, and this is not due to the language barrier. One might liken the Japanese singing style to the howling of a dying cat, and this cultural misunderstanding can do a great disservice to both the listener and the performer (not to mention the tortured cat mew aficionado). Then there are questions such as "what is the distinction between noise, sound, and music," "if music is defined in terms of sound, how can deaf people experience music," and "with so many uncertainties how can we decide upon one definition of music?" The truth is that there will almost always be dissent, but at least one consensus can be reached: music is an art (a process or product of arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses).

I think there are a number of equally valid ways to approach the idea of music. One may take the stance that all sound is music. Then there are people who don't believe that all sound is automatically music, but they think that all sound can be music in the right context. There are some who believe there's a difference between sound art and music. There's also Zen non-music, or sounds that transcend the human form or are free from the intentions of a human composer. I tend to think of music as sound, or a graphic representation of sound, that is appreciated as its own aesthetic entity. I think of sound not as something to be heard but as something to be felt. Sound is vibration perceived through the senses of hearing and/or touching.

Music as organized sound is convenient but vague.

One of my composition instructors suggested that music is the art of producing sound.

I don't really know if "organized sounds" even count as a definition, since organization only exists as an imposed and arbitrary criterion. The problem is mostly that for something to be "organized" we have to define what isn't organized, and then say THAT isn't music. It's frankly pointless since it'd be very easy to contradict this definition.

But it's true you can just as well say that music is an art and leave it at that. Put the burden on the already impossibly vague term "art" and forget about it.

Now for a bit of time travel:

Music: Sounds organized in melodious and harmonic combinations made by voice or instrument.

Those monks in the 1400s would be VERY disappointed with your inclusion of instruments. Everyone knows TRUE music is only really vocal!

Hopefully this doesn't go under your category of cheesy.

Two Tuesdays ago, I saw Penderecki give a lecture at the University of Toronto. During the Q&A section, the final question asked was, "What is the purpose of music." He responded with, "To communicate with each other."

I think you can expand that to: music is an aural vehicle for communication.

What's gets me tripped up out these broad definitions is whether or not sound effects are included. Like, every sound effect has an intention and is used to communicate very simple ideas, but it's not what I would consider music.

I.e. lightsaber duel :sith: vs. :jedi: . The whirrring, crashing sounds the lightsaber make tells us some qualities about the lightsaber such as its powerful, electronic, fast. You really get a sense of speed judging by how fast the lightsaber sound buzzes. In short, the sound effects communicates ideas but doesn't seem like music by itself.

I like inclusive definitions of music, but I don't think that little things like sound effects should count.

I don't really know if "organized sounds" even count as a definition, since organization only exists as an imposed and arbitrary criterion. The problem is mostly that for something to be "organized" we have to define what isn't organized, and then say THAT isn't music. It's frankly pointless since it'd be very easy to contradict this definition.

Yeah, I think "organized" is a filler word. All music is ordered in one sense of the word, even aleatoric music since there is a governing compositional procedure. If you listen to the sounds of nature as music you could argue that there are still governing principles/laws of nature at work. Plus most people listen to music in blocks of time, and if you set aside a block of time and consider all sounds within that block to be music then you once again have quantified, organized sound.

But it's true you can just as well say that music is an art and leave it at that. Put the burden on the already impossibly vague term "art" and forget about it.

I don't know if definitions for art are all that vague. "A process or product of arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses" isn't so bad as an all-encompassing definition. You could get a little more abstract and try to define the purpose of art. Ayn Rand, for example, claimed that art is "a selective recreation of reality based on an artist's metaphysical value judgments." I'm not a big fan of the term metaphysical, but one can infer from her definition that art is a solidified abstraction that embodies a person's idea of the universe and proclaims "this is what life means to me." I'm sticking with my first definition, but Rand's is an interesting idea to throw in the mix.

I like SSC's answer...I don't like Tokkemon's.

Here's mine:

Music....is.

Very interesting comments. I wonder though if we are approaching a definition such as this in a different manner than we should. For instance, how many of us sit in front of our scores widdling away the hours writing the notes and rests in. Do we actually hear what our eyes see? I don't think we entirely do - not unless you have perfect pitch. We see relations and organization of 'written' idea. Sort of like how we read written word. Perhaps the real definition of music is a language? Which, if you think about it, does make some sort of sense.

Yeah, I think "organized" is a filler word. All music is ordered in one sense of the word, even aleatoric music since there is a governing compositional procedure. If you listen to the sounds of nature as music you could argue that there are still governing principles/laws of nature at work. Plus most people listen to music in blocks of time, and if you set aside a block of time and consider all sounds within that block to be music then you once again have quantified, organized sound.

Again, that's why my "definition" of music doesn't talk about music, but the perception of music. Like I said, music is what happens when you actually pay attention. I would argue that background music is NOT music if you aren't really listening to it (it's just as much music, in that case then, as any other ordinary sound.) This doesn't apply when the background music affects your perception (movie soundtrack vs elevator music.)

It's a much better division.

I don't know if definitions for art are all that vague. "A process or product of arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses" isn't so bad as an all-encompassing definition. You could get a little more abstract and try to define the purpose of art. Ayn Rand, for example, claimed that art is "a selective recreation of reality based on an artist's metaphysical value judgments." I'm not a big fan of the term metaphysical, but one can infer from her definition that art is a solidified abstraction that embodies a person's idea of the universe and proclaims "this is what life means to me." I'm sticking with my first definition, but Rand's is an interesting idea to throw in the mix.

Same problem as music, art can be tons of things and it's easy to make counterexamples. For example, why should art necessarily "Appeal to the senses?" Wouldn't this also leave out tons of music?? And TONS of things?

ETC, the more you try to define it, the more it escapes definition.

Same problem as music, art can be tons of things and it's easy to make counterexamples. For example, why should art necessarily "Appeal to the senses?" Wouldn't this also leave out tons of music?? And TONS of things?

It's the opposite, I think, and perhaps I just ran into the same issue as using the word "organize." Anything that exists appeals to (or stimulates) the senses. Maybe it would be better, in a definition of art, to acknowledge that the "arranging of elements" is tied to an aesthetic goal. That is not to say that art must be aesthetically pleasing, but it is necessarily, as Rand suggests, tied to judgments of sentiments and taste. The next problem is that any action we take, beyond what we must do to stay alive, is also tied to such judgments!

We're talking about an concept rather than a concrete example so yes, the narrower the definition the more easily the concept will escape that definition.

Well "arrangement of elements to stimulate senses" could be anything from playing soccer to composing a ballet to ironing a shirt.

It's sort of a nonsense definition really because it's TOO inclusive, it makes no sense to define music as something that could as well be any other number of things.

To paraphrase Louis Armstrong:

If you have to ask, you'll never know!

In my opinion music quite simply is the art of noise. It doesn't need to express something unless the composer feels it is adequate to do so.

In my opinion music quite simply is the art of noise. It doesn't need to express something unless the composer feels it is adequate to do so.

“The aim of music is not to express feelings but to express music. It is not a vessel into which the composer distills his soul drop by drop, but a labyrinth with no beginning and no end, full of new paths to discover, where mystery remains eternal.” -Pierre Boulez

“The whole problem can be stated quite simply by asking, ‘Is there a meaning to music?’ My answer would be, ‘Yes.’ And ‘Can you state in so many words what the meaning is?’ My answer to that would be, ‘No.’” -Aaron Copland

Music....is.

I agree. Best. Definition. Evar!!!

My definition of music:

A phenomenon where sound is cognitively transmitted and/or perceived within a culture.

My definition of music:

A phenomenon where sound is cognitively transmitted and/or perceived within a culture.

Is music always tied to a particular culture? Can we create something outside of a cultural context?

Within a culture is very restricting, because then you'd have to argue it's impossible to escape culture or that definition would again be easy to break.

Pay attention to the language I'm using please:

A phenomenon where sound is cognitively transmitted and/or perceived within a culture.

No one needs to argue that it is impossible to escape culture for the definition to remain valid. What is and is not music within a culture is, as SSC pointed out, a matter of perception. And, as we know, perception is always subjected to change. So, what might not be "music" to a culture may eventually -become- music to the culture, generally, because of changes in perception among members of the culture. This is evident within the traditions of not only Western Classicism but virtually any culture that develops a musical tradition.

So, put it to the test. Would a tribal culture have the capacity to perceive the sounds of traffic as music? If not, then within that culture, the sounds of traffic are not music. But then we have other cultures, like Western Culture, which does perceive the sounds of traffic as music. Within Western Culture, it's music. But we shouldn't be concerned about whether it -is- or -is not- music. We should concern ourselves with what sound is perceived as music in some cultures and not in others. And we do just that in Ethno-musicological study quite frequently in comparative studies.

My belief is that music does not transcend culture. This does not limit music, though, because culture does not exist within a vacuum. Cultures merge and share with one another, and over time, cultural perceptions change. Thus, what is not defined as music in a culture that is not exposed to other cultures may very well become music when cultures co-mingle and share ideas/knowledge. Debussy's exploration of Gamelan music is quite insightful to this end. He sought inspiration from what, at the time, was considered "ethnic" music. Now we often find it even more difficult to approach music categorically because of the synthesis of cultures in the world.

I would remove the discussion on culture altogether from the definition of music. Both are linked, yes, but culture is a much more extensive thing. I'm talking about the perception of music from a standpoint of the modern world, because if we'll restrict based on culture then we can as well craft very easy definitions of music depending on what is prevalent on the culture in question.

I think that's un-interesting, since cultures very too much between eachother to be of any interest what may or may not be music according to any one single culture.

In other words, music is a human thing, so I'm treating it as such. Musical culture is a byproduct of the capacity to perceive things as "music." This perception and human capacity DOES NOT vary with culture, as again, culture is only a product of this capacity existing in the first place.

We should concern ourselves with what sound is perceived as music in some cultures and not in others.

Why consider cultural over individual perceptions in a definition of music? Each person experiences music on his or her own terms. Ideas about music may be shaped by culture, but since there are a number of other factors that influence how we think (environment, upbringing, genetics) I don't see the point in singling out culture. Why not skip to the source and consider the various individual beliefs, even if you consider music to be a social construct? I actually don't think there are many variances in what people consider to be music.

"It seems to me that the most radical redefinition of music would be one that defines 'music' without reference to sound." -Robert Ashley

A sociological perspective is particularly relevant here. In the hierarchy, we have the entirety of humanity. This breaks down into human civilizations spanning time itself. Then if we focus in on one of these periods of time, even this one, we call it society. In society, we have cultures spanning the globe. Culture is inclusive of literally all environmental, behavioral, and value-based influences upon members of the culture.

It seems pointless to make the claim that culture has -nothing- to do with human perception, as our worldviews form BECAUSE of the cultures in which we develop and grow as individuals. If you're born in the Middle East, you grow and learn in that culture, you won't be the same person with the same perceptions of the world as you would being born in the United States and growing in that culture.

Music, like it or not, is also tied to our perceptions which, in the case of music, grow with cross-cultural inclusion of knowledge and ideas. Thus, not including "culture" in the definition of a phenomenon dependent on human perception is like calling something without lasagna noodles "lasagna." I'm eating lasagna right now, in case you couldn't tell :)

In other words, music is a human thing, so I'm treating it as such. Musical culture is a byproduct of the capacity to perceive things as "music." This perception and human capacity DOES NOT vary with culture, as again, culture is only a product of this capacity existing in the first place.

I agree. Cultural differences have nothing to do with how the human species differentiates music from everyday sounds - even when those sounds are used in what could be termed 'musical work.'