Dave Lampson wrote:

>The one definition I have heard that manages to work in all circumstances
>is a refinement of Don's assertion, that actually has a fair amount of
>practical utility.  The definition I've come to accept is:
>
>Music is anything someone listens to as music.

Well, this is the one Don would agree with.  Since one has now been
proposed, I can only question the 'usefulness' of it.  Some people might
refer to many different shapes of vehicles as cars e.g.  a van.  When you
have a more descriptive, more specific definition, why not use it.  If you
want a more general definition, you have 'automobile'.  In the same way,
it is more 'useful' in my mind to call Cage's organised sounds, music and
a cacophony of washing machines, noise or sound.  I don't see what can
be gained from calling the sound from washing machines music.  I don't
actually think though, that anyone would seriously consider washing machine
noise as music.  Although some people would call Cage's music, noise,
disparagingly I don't think that they would ever call washing machine or
car noise, music.  So, should people be allowed to call Cage's music noise?
Yes, but if those people had to scientifically classify Cage's output, they
would call it music.  If you wanted to scientifically disparage Cage's
music you would call it bad music.  This system makes sense to me.  It
doesn't rely on anyone's likes or dislikes and two people in a conversation
can never be misunderstood.

David Stewart
[log in to unmask]