Bill Pirkle:

>we need a generally accepted definition of music.  Else we are sure to
>argue since I am talking about apples and someone else is talking about
>oranges.  I will restate my latest offering simply to make my next point
>and not in the sense of pushing for its acceptance.
>
>"Music is series of sound effects which are organized by the composer
>so as to control the evocation of emotions or feelings in the mind
>of the listener or to demonstrate a principle(s) of harmony, melody,
>rhythm or form"

Definitions are of the most limited value when the object of the
enterprise is to probe deeply.  This one seems arbitrary and not
particularly convincing, but I am not sure that it is any more or less
convincing than any other, with the exception of Dave Lampson's more
or less anything goes definition.  What can your definition exclude? I
just finished a Concerto for stamped foot and finger-nail scraped along
blackboard.  It certainly is a sound effect and it certainly evokes rather
strong feelings.

Professor Bernard Chasan
Physics Department, Boston University