The Definition of Music

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.

And that's where you're making the error. Even if the person was born on Mars and danced the Glip Glop Beep, he would still be a human being subject to the same cognitive capacities as everyone else, regardless of where they are from or in which culture they were brought up in.

Culture may have a restricting or "shaping" effect on how those faculties are used, but the faculties themselves do NOT change. That is to say, if we find what process makes a sound "music" to someone, it goes the same for literally everyone else. The triggers may be different, but the bottom line is exactly the same.

That's why sociology or culture has nothing to do with the perception itself, it exists before all the other and therefore when discussing that it makes no sense to mix the rest. I could as well call X and Y music but Z not due to my culture/tastes/?, but I'm still exercising the same exact capacities as everyone else is. That's where the actual definition should lie.

I think any attempts to precisely define what music is, is doomed to fail. In a general sense, as painting could be defined as the art of imagery, as sculpture could be defined as the art of matter, music should simply be defined as the art of sound. That does, however, raise the question: What do we define as art? I believe we cannot precisely define that either. One could say art is the manipulation of a certain element, for the purpose of creating something that is relative to it. We could then define music as the manipulation of sound, for the purpose of creating something that is relative to it.

...

Kinda?

Music is what happens when you're actually listening.

This is what I came to post :) Everything is music, and the most enjoyed composer, comparing how often we listen to his works compared to the works of others, must be God.

Organized sound over time.

The problem I have with SSC's definition is that if we're in the same space and both exposed to the same piano piece - it doesn't stop being music just because I'm not listening to it, any more than it becomes music when I pay attention to it. I didn't read over the entire thread, so this may have been addressed, but to me the 'definition' of music should be something that doesn't have to change circumstantially.

Let's look at the three parts of my definition:

Organized: The degree of organization doesn't necessarily matter; just the fact that it IS organized will suffice. It doesn't have to be organized to where it can be notated, or any form of rhythm, melody, harmony, form, etc.

sound: Music is an aural occurrence. The nature of the sound does not matter, but the presence of some form of sound does.

over time: As a sound occurs, it must occur over what we perceive as time. No matter how short the sound used is, it has some form of duration. This may be a bit redundant, since sound having some form of duration is self-evident, but I think it emphasizes the inherently temporal nature of music.

I think the biggest thing to consider is that not all music has harmony, nor melody. If you look at my percussion duet, you can see there is no pitched content (there are, however, crotales - they do not serve a melodic function any more than do the bongos.) If one's definition of music is contingent at all upon presence of harmony or melody, then it is inherently flawed. One could argue that music needs to have rhythm, where even the most a-rhythmic beating is rhythm, but most often it seems we associate rhythm with some sort of organizational way of classifying and perceiving durations of sounds.

Organized sound over time.

The problem I have with SSC's definition is that if we're in the same space and both exposed to the same piano piece - it doesn't stop being music just because I'm not listening to it, any more than it becomes music when I pay attention to it. I didn't read over the entire thread, so this may have been addressed, but to me the 'definition' of music should be something that doesn't have to change circumstantially.

I think you're reading the statement to literally. Sounds doesn't stop being music, because you aren't listening, you just realize that it's music when you listen. I read his definition as: "everything is music, it's just a matter of paying attention [in order to realize it's music]".

music= a different form of statement. as in all arts, we, the artists, strive the have a saying that will be reflected upon viewing, listening or experiencing. it can be statement of an emotion or about life or about anything we want it to be. it is the final border between spiritualism and materialism, since we produce our ideas in the spiritual plane, and transfer them to the material.

And that's where you're making the error. Even if the person was born on Mars and danced the Glip Glop Beep, he would still be a human being subject to the same cognitive capacities as everyone else, regardless of where they are from or in which culture they were brought up in.

Culture may have a restricting or "shaping" effect on how those faculties are used, but the faculties themselves do NOT change. That is to say, if we find what process makes a sound "music" to someone, it goes the same for literally everyone else. The triggers may be different, but the bottom line is exactly the same.

I disagree with you on this point. That one of our five senses is the ability to hear and that each of us have the same capacity to hear things exactly the same doesn't universalize the discussion about music. What you as the listener come to the table with when you listen to sound is -absolutely- relevant and will usually be different than what other listeners bring to the listening experience. When someone says, "That is music," all they're saying is that it's music -to them- based on what knowledge of and beliefs about music they possess.

This doesn't -restrict- a person from experiencing other kinds of sound as music because the influence of other cultures could very well expand this knowledge and foster a broader perception of what sounds constitute "music." But when you isolate a culture from other cultures, especially smaller communities, the sounds that members of the community consider music are less likely to expand. This is the case for many cultures that have spent generations becoming isolated from the diversity of other cultures. If your argument held any weight, this would not occur at all, but it does.

That's why sociology or culture has nothing to do with the perception itself, it exists before all the other and therefore when discussing that it makes no sense to mix the rest. I could as well call X and Y music but Z not due to my culture/tastes/?, but I'm still exercising the same exact capacities as everyone else is. That's where the actual definition should lie.

Wrong. The perception of sound as music is on the listener, who comes from a culture of values and beliefs about many different things, including music. The ability to hear does not somehow trump this perception. It just so happens that the more people learn about music among a broad array of cultures (which is the case for students studying at Uni), the more barriers to this perception break down. The actual definition cannot, at least in our civilization to date, ignore culture. It's culture that shapes worldview, and worldview is how we perceive music when hearing sound.

Eh, whatever then. I'm talking about the ability to discern between "music" and "non music," and that works the same for everyone cognitively. What changes is only the fact that the border may change depending on outside factors, but the ability to make that switch works for everyone the same way.

That in itself has NOTHING to do with culture, which is why I would leave it out.

I don't really care what the exact opinions on what music is or not are on any culture or at any personal level, I care about the ability to make that distinction regardless of what the details are.

there's always a desire in any culture whatsoever to relapse into what can be called 'metaphysics of presence'. to normalize and naturalize any set. to define any field in terms of its epistemological apparatuses. our culture of mathematico-technological paradigm is none other in this respect. falling into absolutists view of making no gap between knowledge and real, and due to the strength of its apparatus (the roots of which could historical as well as metaphysical, so to say, human all too human) it sounds very convincing and seductive. but at the same time, very idiosyncratic and, as such, impenetrable to any critics, which only amounts to being a body of death constituted on surface of alive things. these are characteristics of any culture that points it's eyes to abstract matters and it's arrows to individual beings. what will be left is an amazing amount of simulacra, fascinating and seductive to the point of irresistability. there's no need to say that the amount and power of simulacra always goes hand in hand with accumulation of knowledge and that is - abstractions. be the name of them: God, Big Bang, Tv, Internet, AI or Music. in the end they do not signify any real thing, can't be experienced by usual everyday approach to surface of being, and can't be said in sentences of language intimate.

I think SSC is just taking the science way out to answer this question. It's the whole "what's love issue." What is love? A series of chemical reactions that do something to the brain. Ok, for all intent and purposes that is love, but it doesn't tell us anything about what love is. So he's just doing the same thing to music. Music occurs when the brain registers it as music, and that is unique to each person. If you choose to define music that way, you certainly be right every time, but it doesn't really give you a clue as to why the brain choose to register those sounds as music, and to me that's a more meaningful discussion than simply when the brain does this than x becomes y.

I also don't believe that listening or the ability to listening has anything to with music. Just ask a deaf composer or musician. There's something more going on than simply what goes with that one sense. But oh well, my cingulate cortex is dead anyway.

That's what SSC and others have tried pointing out time and time and time again. The brain of every human is similar to the fact in things it registers. Something tastes sweet to one person WILL taste sweet to another - no getting around that. Something sounds piercing to one person WILL sound piercing to another. That's a biologic fact in our species. The receptors that interpret sound as music in one person ARE the same receptors interpeting sound as music in another - that's biology. There's no getting around that. Culturally and historically, we see the same exact processes under action - and in areas where there is an ongoing investigation of these phenomena it is increasingly apparent that their is a very deep musical similarities to each and every culture that is uniform - despite cultural differences, distances, isolation, etc. Music is interpreted as music for biological reasons NOT cultural nurturing - that's fact now.

And to sort of draw this in with an example....

You can listen to music of any culture and tell it is music DESPITE the fact that the means used in creating the music will be, in many aspects, foreign to your conditioning (different instruments, different sonorities, different means of organization). For instance, in the early 20th century when westerners were introduced to the music of cultures in very remote regions. They could tell it was music - it was interpreted as music - though the sound of it was completely foreign to their ears. How did they know it was music?

I definitely agree with Silasj here probably the best definition of music.

That's what SSC and others have tried pointing out time and time and time again. The brain of every human is similar to the fact in things it registers. Something tastes sweet to one person WILL taste sweet to another - no getting around that. Something sounds piercing to one person WILL sound piercing to another. That's a biologic fact in our species. The receptors that interpret sound as music in one person ARE the same receptors interpeting sound as music in another - that's biology. There's no getting around that. Culturally and historically, we see the same exact processes under action - and in areas where there is an ongoing investigation of these phenomena it is increasingly apparent that their is a very deep musical similarities to each and every culture that is uniform - despite cultural differences, distances, isolation, etc. Music is interpreted as music for biological reasons NOT cultural nurturing - that's fact now.

And to sort of draw this in with an example....

You can listen to music of any culture and tell it is music DESPITE the fact that the means used in creating the music will be, in many aspects, foreign to your conditioning (different instruments, different sonorities, different means of organization). For instance, in the early 20th century when westerners were introduced to the music of cultures in very remote regions. They could tell it was music - it was interpreted as music - though the sound of it was completely foreign to their ears. How did they know it was music?

there are plenty of very dubious arguments here. i do not thibnk you can say sweat is sweat to everyone, unless you already have aquired the meaning of ''sweat'', which of course will depend on much more factors than 'what a thing is in itself and how it is registered by brain'. actually, no structure of atoms most probably is more sweater than the other. so, basically, it just takes to have on person who does not think sugar is sweat to put that kind of argument into 'not quite true category'. hey, there are people who are feel colours quite differently than normal human sample. also, there are people who lack colour concepts, could they be painters? well, yes. painting can be derived from forms etc. so, musically, are there people who have no normal 'sound' concept? sure. can they be composers? well, yes. for the form/rhythm is still left.

this goes to your last paragraph, sound (i.e. colour) may be very different, but people would still point something to be music. where's the line and exact correlate of brain activity that is called 'music'? certainly, it might be not sound. hey, maybe it's simply intuition/concept of time and space? now, tell me how one could have specific tools to think time and space outside of time and space - i.e. the thing that would possibly be required to understand specific examples of time-space like music, painting and so on. what i'm saying here, is that it is quite logical to suppose that we really have no true brain correlates for whatever experience we name as music, painting and so on - that is - it is conceptually vague. the concept is used to communicate. now, is there anything besides the concept? most probably, yes. so here is a paradox of unnameable and as such not conceptualizeable. which is - beyond totallity of conceptualizable reach of any structure whatsoever, be it science, magic or meta-theory of everything.

again, it is neccesary that we accumulate knowledge and abstract. is it absolutely exclusive as to our possible relation to th real, that is experienceable? well, i don't know, but as kant would put it - limits of science is not limits of everything.

I don't think sweet is really a good argument. I consider it more like spicy. I can put black pepper on stuff and not really taste it. In fact, i'm often unaware of it's existences. However, give it to my older sister Izzy and she can't stand it, because to her it's to spicy. (I don't know how or why, but I just know it is for her.) So the question becomes, why does pepper register as spicy for her and not for me. When we register spiciness then yes our brain is functioning the same way and in a very absolute way, but the more interesting question for me is, why do I not register it as something spicy but she does. (Fyi, i'm mildly allergic to spices so when something is spicy I tend to get all itchy...) Anyway.

I understand what you are saying though. I can tell when my kid hits spoons together she's trying to make music. However, I just don't think when receptors active and x and y signals cross then we have music is a really good answer to anything. I just think the more important question to answer is why do these vibrations trigger music reaction, but these others don't.

That's why I gave my answer. I don't know what it is exactly, but I do know when I hear it. I'm not convinced you can give a definition of music that will be satisfactory at every angle. If i had to give it a one i'll just say it's sound produced with intent, but that's just how I would explain it to someone else.

there are plenty of very dubious arguments here. i do not thibnk you can say sweat is sweat to everyone, unless you already have aquired the meaning of ''sweat'', which of course will depend on much more factors than 'what a thing is in itself and how it is registered by brain'. actually, no structure of atoms most probably is more sweater than the other. so, basically, it just takes to have on person who does not think sugar is sweat to put that kind of argument into 'not quite true category'. hey, there are people who are feel colours quite differently than normal human sample. also, there are people who lack colour concepts, could they be painters? well, yes. painting can be derived from forms etc. so, musically, are there people who have no normal 'sound' concept? sure. can they be composers? well, yes. for the form/rhythm is still left.

this goes to your last paragraph, sound (i.e. colour) may be very different, but people would still point something to be music. where's the line and exact correlate of brain activity that is called 'music'? certainly, it might be not sound. hey, maybe it's simply intuition/concept of time and space? now, tell me how one could have specific tools to think time and space outside of time and space - i.e. the thing that would possibly be required to understand specific examples of time-space like music, painting and so on. what i'm saying here, is that it is quite logical to suppose that we really have no true brain correlates for whatever experience we name as music, painting and so on - that is - it is conceptually vague. the concept is used to communicate. now, is there anything besides the concept? most probably, yes. so here is a paradox of unnameable and as such not conceptualizeable. which is - beyond totallity of conceptualizable reach of any structure whatsoever, be it science, magic or meta-theory of everything.

again, it is neccesary that we accumulate knowledge and abstract. is it absolutely exclusive as to our possible relation to th real, that is experienceable? well, i don't know, but as kant would put it - limits of science is not limits of everything.

Wrong. There is a region of the brain that does respond to musical stimulus - research it. Second, yes - things can be sweeter than others. For instance, sugar cane is sweet in taste to almost every person on the planet. The reason: taste buds. These simple biological sensors are found on every species - humans included. These are designed to tell us what is sweet/sour/bitter/tart/etc. Your little example here doesn't show that a person may have abnormal taste buds. Nor does it account for variants within the various buds themselves that have been categorized. Does that mean that the sense of taste is not a natural biological process. Just like sight, taste, touch, and smell - hearing has definite reactors and processes that dictate it. As with sight - the information gathered is processed and categorized by our brain. Both senses look for patterns and plan ahead accordingly. That is the reason why you can listen to music from Ghana and 'know' it is music. Your brain processes the stimuli and interprets it as being a pattern that is processable - nothing more. The only things foreign to your mind are the means at which the music itself is created - again, nothing more. You can, however, state that despite your brain interpreting it as music that the thing you heard was NOT music - only real way to tell if your falsifying your mental response to it is to run scans of your brain while you listen to see if it does - indeed - light up the areas of your brain that music tends to light up.

i really get this strange feeling when being educated about biology and other base scientific matters as if they were somewhat not accessible and required 'knock on head' type of replies. man, now can you please educate me on what is prefrontal cortex and how REM works during sleep?

so, well, you really didn't adress any points i made in my post.

i know some crows are black.

i know.

(headbang)

There is a region of the brain that does respond to musical stimulus - research it.

this statement is enough to see why you don't understand what i was saying in my post. here you have a tautological statemetn with no informational (and explanational) value whatsoever. you say the brain responds to MUSICal stimulus while trying to argue what is musical stimulus. see. logically, you're only saying music is music, i think we all get that from being aqcuainted with principle of excluded third. you don't say why and how come some stimulus might be music while others not, except for ,well, logic of hammer - because it is music. even taking your statement to mean that certain areas respond to some stimuli on purely empirical grounds, there is not enough hardcore evidence that some brain areas being more active during stimulations of different kinds equals to these stimuli being differentiated as music, painting etc.

this statement is enough to see why you don't understand what i was saying in my post. here you have a tautological statemetn with no informational (and explanational) value whatsoever. you say the brain responds to MUSICal stimulus while trying to argue what is musical stimulus. see. logically, you're only saying music is music, i think we all get that from being aqcuainted with principle of excluded third. you don't say why and how come some stimulus might be music while others not, except for ,well, logic of hammer - because it is music. even taking your statement to mean that certain areas respond to some stimuli on purely empirical grounds, there is not enough hardcore evidence that some brain areas being more active during stimulations of different kinds equals to these stimuli being differentiated as music, painting etc.

No, reread the post again and actually apply logic and interpret what I said and what it responds to in your original post. I could give pages and pages of material that backs up what I stated in my post - I didn't do that due to the fact I figured if you 'really' were interested in furthering your knowledge on this front that you would research it yourself. Hence why I said research it. I'm not stating what music is in my statements so far - most i've stated is that cultural nurturing has nothing to do with a workable definition of what music is. That's actually a consensus among researchers - research it, I have.

And yes, actually, there is plenty of empirical evidence to prove beyond a reason of a doubt that areas of the brain respond to musical stimuli. There have even been studies done to showcase the effects of music on other bodily functions (i.e breathing, heart rate, muscle functions, etc.) Surely, you can use the advanced search on Google and search for this stuff via academic circles - yes?

I'm not stating what music is in my statements so far - most i've stated is that cultural nurturing has nothing to do with a workable definition of what music is.

TheAnd yes, actually, there is plenty of empirical evidence to prove beyond a reason of a doubt that areas of the brain respond to musical stimuli. There are have even been studies done to showcase the effects of music on other bodily functions (i.e breathing, heart rate, muscle functions, etc.) Surely, you can use the advanced search on Google and search for this stuff via academic circles - yes?

hey, fella, look, if you can't get past simple logical nonsense you're spitting herem, why would i need to do any research?

so, either you're stating what music is, or you're using concept of music without really stating what it is in sentences like 'brains responds to music'. how would you know if you're not stating what music is?

so, instead of researching and piling up tons of information, one could do try and filter some of it through simple logical steps of inference, exclusion of possible third and so on.

so, yes. music is.

No need to get irate at a thread on a forum - especially when I'm not doing anything to really irritate you at all. All I said, and I continue to say, cultural nurturing has no place in a workable definition of music - as research shows that reaction to musical concepts transcends all cultural grounds. Yes, people in different cultures use different tonal/harmonic/rhythmic (questionable) areas. That doesn't mean that a person living on one of the many islands in the pacific that is isolated from all external cultural influences hears a work of music from another culture as not being music - that's ridiculous to state given the 100 + years of knowledge that has come forward! The foreign music would be alien to his sensibilities but would still be musical to him. So what is music? I don't know honestly - and I'm not going to give a definition of a term that is broad in scope.

i'm not irritated, it takes more than that to get me there.

i think our world (i don't know what to call it, really, since), ok, our culture. ok, modern technological culture. see, culture. so, hm, i don't understand how you can deny culture as a factor and still use argumentations from certain culture - that was alive for around 500-600 years in its mathematico-technologic model?

and, if you read what i said, i didn't even imply any 'culture' as to be true to answering what is music. i rather said, that no culture can possibly make enough strong logical statements that would preemty the power of not agreeing that this or that is music. that is - there is no empirically testable absolute answer to such a question.

I think Pliorius is making an outstanding point on this discussion about culture and music. That people from other cultures recognize -what is music- in another culture doesn't trump the inclusion of culture in the definition of music. If it were the case that there were some biological factors leading to the brain identifying forms of sound as music, then at the highest, most developed level of intellect among all cultures, there would be -nothing- different about music from one of these cultures to the next.

But therein lies the rub. It is apparent to me that these various cultures throughout our history of civilization do not create the same music. There may be characteristics that are similar among these cultures, these things you rely on to -define- music as it relates to how our brains "might" process sound as one thing or the other. Still, cultural conditioning will, as long as this delineation of groups exists, inevitably formulate their own perceptions of what sounds qualify as music to the culture.

Even in your example where Europeans began listening to works of other cultures, they were not considered works of "real music" to the elitists of Western Classicism. It was something else. It was "oriental" or "ethnic" or "world" music, something -different- than their higher art form of music from the tradition. And that wasn't even always the case that these were even called by such inclusive terms, the attempt to "accept" music without actually accepting it -as- music.

These definitions always seem to be different depending on one's values and beliefs about art, all of which stem from cultural conditioning currently. That's not to say this will always be the case. It is for the moment and has been for thousands of years. As long as cultural conditioning exists, culture -will- continue to influence perspectives on values and beliefs, which ultimately includes the art form of music.

I think Pliorius is making an outstanding point on this discussion about culture and music. That people from other cultures recognize -what is music- in another culture doesn't trump the inclusion of culture in the definition of music. If it were the case that there were some biological factors leading to the brain identifying forms of sound as music, then at the highest, most developed level of intellect among all cultures, there would be -nothing- different about music from one of these cultures to the next.

But therein lies the rub. It is apparent to me that these various cultures throughout our history of civilization do not create the same music. There may be characteristics that are similar among these cultures, these things you rely on to -define- music as it relates to how our brains "might" process sound as one thing or the other. Still, cultural conditioning will, as long as this delineation of groups exists, inevitably formulate their own perceptions of what sounds qualify as music to the culture.

Even in your example where Europeans began listening to works of other cultures, they were not considered works of "real music" to the elitists of Western Classicism. It was something else. It was "oriental" or "ethnic" or "world" music, something -different- than their higher art form of music from the tradition. And that wasn't even always the case that these were even called by such inclusive terms, the attempt to "accept" music without actually accepting it -as- music.

These definitions always seem to be different depending on one's values and beliefs about art, all of which stem from cultural conditioning currently. That's not to say this will always be the case. It is for the moment and has been for thousands of years. As long as cultural conditioning exists, culture -will- continue to influence perspectives on values and beliefs, which ultimately includes the art form of music.

Musical Elitism? That's not the truth at all. It's more about 'Cultural Elitism'. Just like the Ancient Egyptians were thousands of years ago, we in the West are very elitist in our view of civilization and 'our' own development. Hence why we look at a culture, such as India, and marvel at it's primitiveness in comparison. It wasn't until Indian music made such a smash into our psyche that we embraced it for it's amazing complexity. I digress though, for a definition of music to be workable - and I will say this again - it needs to transcend this very rudimentary focus on culture. Otherwise, we will still be elitist in that definition. Yes, Shaun, culture has influenced music immensely - and will continue to do so as long as we allow it too. However, despite all of cultures influence... it has nothing to do with the definition of music.

Yes, Shaun, culture has influenced music immensely - and will continue to do so as long as we allow it too. However, despite all of cultures influence... it has nothing to do with the definition of music.

Follow along...

Music -> subjectively defined by people based on perception

Perception -> influenced by the worldview of the individual

Worldview -> learned values and beliefs of the culture in which an individual lives

So, if we accept that music is subject to the perception of the individual and that perception depends on worldview, then it is not possible to create a definition of music that excludes culture as worldviews form from learned values and beliefs of the cultures in which we live.

"Perception" is a lot more than something influenced by any particular worldview. There are many specific things that add up, cognitively, to form something perceived as "music" for any given number of reasons. Some of them being actually quite objective.

But W/E, this topic has run its course.