To my mind, there's no need for a distinction between potential and
realized communication in music - all that's required is that there be
some connection between the sounds produced and a human consciousness.
A composer may be entirely self-absorbed and never intend his works to be
performed, but as long as he deliberately chooses the notes on the page (or
rather, the sounds they represent) to express his thoughts and emotions,
those sounds will be music in the sense that they have some objective
meaning - that meaning may be obscure and even inscrutible to all but the
composer, but it's nevertheless there to be found.  By contrast, there's
no way of saying objectively that the sounds produced when the wind blows
through leaves or when the audience shuffles during 4'33" have any meaning
beyond what we read into them - they are incidental to other processes.
The wind doesn't blow to produce those sounds, the audience member (unless
he has misunderstood 4'33") doesn't shuffle for the aural effect.

Don is probably right that it's ultimately hair-splitting to argue
precisely what should fit under the rubric of 'music' - whatever we call
4'33" won't change it.  But that doesn't invalidate the wider distinction.
One of the most rewarding aspects of music and art generally is precisely
that it is a human construct - it gives one a glimpse into the thought
processes of another person and thus the opportunity - and I'd say the duty
- to look beyond one's own subjectivity.  Natural sounds, by contrast,
*are* purely subjective - it's all about me and my personal reaction -
there's no dialogue.  Don's definition of music ignores that distinction.

Felix Delbruck
[log in to unmask]