I write:

>>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.

Stirling writes:

>The problem with this definition is that the brain [has wired?] itself to
>perceive music and organize 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.

The brain is wired to perceive music *before* contemplating it? Oh
Stirling, what if I walked in on Cage's 4'33" without a program?

Though my brain might organize sounds before I contemplate them, how
come I have to labor to recognize patterns in some Schoenberg, for
instance? (And all this time my brain was doing it for me and hiding the
pleasure....) If one can't contemplate sound on a conscious level, even
if some manipulation is going on at the unconscious level, then one, (as
composer or listener), can't derive the gratification/anti-gratification
that marks the event as music.

(Ah, yes: A philosophical breakthrough here.  Used in the same spirit
as anti-hero, my coining of the word "anti-gratification" elegantly
accommodates, within the listening experience, music that leaves the
listener disturbed but moved, or unmoved but respectful, *without*
implying lack of worth.  Which brings me to Dave's post.)

Dave writes:

>[Please note that John's definition is just a restating of my
>definition....]

IIRC, your definition states "music is anything someone listens to as
music." Mine: "music is sound contemplated."

Your definition vaguely suggests that music is defined as such based
upon individual approval or recognizance.  My definition avoids any value
judgement.  I could be easily bewildered by Ligeti and say, "that's not
music," but, by your definition, I could be just as easily bewildered or
nonplussed by Bach, and rightly decide that it wasn't music.  Wouldn't
this be a problem?

Your definition works very well for satisfying the "what about the smoke
alarm" camp, for it distinguishes actual music, (even if it includes
incidental sounds), from all the incidental sounds around us.  Beyond that,
I don't know if it works, because it might cause people to identify by
exclusion.  Plus, I think that a definition of music should be
creator-sourced, rather than listener-identified.

So my refined definition of music: An individual's contemplated
administration of sound(s), resulting in the gratification or
anti-gratification of the said individual or a group.

John Smyth