Donald Satz wrote:

>Bill Pirkle, still fighting the good fight:
>
>>I agree with this with the exception that we need a generally accepted
>>definition of music.
>
>I don't think we need this at all, and we sure aren't going to get it
>anyways.  I do believe that "we" (the people of the world) have similar
>notions of what is music when we hear it.

Wouldn't that notion then constitute a definition? I still say that the
explicit or implicit invitation from the creator (or enabling agent) to
others to respond by listening intelligently, moving in rhythm, etc.  is
a prerequisite for music.  Certain sounds may have a musical quality but
without this "invitation" it's not music in the sense being discussed
in this thread.  The use of music to enhance or make more special some
other activity is one of its oldest uses.  The earliest music arose from
activities of work, play, and ritual.  It was probably only when music
split off from its parent activities and became a contemplative art of
its own that definition became a problem.  But it didn't remove the idea
of making special (not my phrase, btw).  All "art" falls into the same
category--there is a created element, an element of artifice to it.  A
sunset, or a tree, or a bird song can never be "art" in and of itself.

Chris Bonds