Pablo Massa writes:

>If a bird song is music, then every sound in the universe is music, and
>so...music is nothing.

Or everything.

>If you want a definition of music, you can't include everything on it:
>you must define, i.e. "to fix limits".

My view (the individual decides) does have inherent limits.  I assume
that there's not a person on Earth who considers all sounds from all
sources to constitute music.  If that's the case, then each person has
"limits".  They just aren't group created or controlled limits.  Can you
live with that? And if you can't, just which group are you going to adhere
to? I have my doubts that the "highest court in the land" in a country
will be struggling with this issue any time soon.  My questions are not
specifically for Pablo; they are for any list members who think that a
definition of music is essential and that the definition must not be based
on "the individual rules" concept.  One last question - why should an
individual allow decisions in the world of Art which are made by groupings
of other individuals to take precedence over his/own decisions? We are not
talking about the functioning of a society where there needs to be
agreement in areas such as "what's money".

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]