John Smyth at [log in to unmask] wrote:

>Let the dude from California try.
>
>How's this for a definition: Music is sound, *contemplated*.
>
>Contemplation doesn't carry with it any implication of value judgement,
>which solves the "Music is what a person decides is music" problem.
>
>Contemplation covers the compositional aspects of music, from the
>imagining, (or hearing), of sounds to the presentation of those imaginings,
>(or hearings), either to self or to others; but *doesn't necessarily imply
>the presence of formal intervention, manipulation, performer, listener, or
>score documentation.* Solves the Cage 4'33"/birdsong in the park dilemma.
>
>Solves the improvisation problem--improvisation is instantaneous
>contemplation of sound.

The problem with this definition is that the brain is wiring itself to
perceive music and organise sound *before* not *after* it is capable of
contemplating anything at all.  We do not contemplate sound to produce
music, but contemplate on the processing of events which we experience
as music.

In short - part of our evolutionary heritage is the ability to process
sounds looking for certain kinds of patterns, and to then develop an entire
array of mechanisms to order them, remember them, organise behavior with
them and so on - while sound waves may be the nominal carrier of music,
they are far from the totality of the processing involved which is musical.
A definition of music as an abstract entity must be able to coordinate and
explain this entire structure, rather than simply describe the phenomenolgy
of the experience.

This pitfall caught those who tried to define language - almost all
defintions began with the assumption that a language was, at root, spoken.
This held until Sign Language was established beyond a shadow of a doubt as
a true natural language indistinguishable in most of its features from any
spoken language - with the exception that it is entirely visual and not
audible.

Stirling Newberry
http://www.mp3.com/ssn
[log in to unmask]