Ian Crisp wrote: >Music, I have argued here before, is sound (plain speech excluded) with >structure imposed upon it by conscious human design and with the capacity >to act as a medium for the communication of some form of mood or emotion or >mind-state between at least two out of the trinity of composer, performer >and listener. I agree with you that Dave's definition (which, btw, David Reck used in his book Music of the Whole Earth back in the 1970s) will not do. A totally relativistic definition is no definition at all, because it's infinite. I myself proposed a definition just yesterday which is along your lines. The main refinement is that I also exclude sound used as a signal or alarm, which is clearly intentional but has a strictly utilitarian purpose. Also, one would have to have a reasonably liberal definition of "structure" to include much of Cage. I think the idea of willful intent to produce a "composition" that will (potentially) be received by one or more others as purposeful activity (of a non-verbal or non-signal nature) is sufficient to call such a creation "music." Cage's 4'33" IS music, because he invites us to be aware in a special way of the events within the time constraints, a way which ceases at the end of the piece. He's asking us to NOT tune out what we normally tune out during that time. So far I've mostly repeated my other post, but here's a new thought: by my criteria I would have difficulty calling Muzak (TM) (Mus-ACK) "music" since its creators plainly state that it's not to be "listened to," but to act as a mood-enhancer. It's the opposite of Cage--we are SUPPOSED to tune these sounds out. Muzak (TM) is the Anti-Cage! It seems somehow absurd, not to call it music, though. Also, the sound of wind chimes or an Aeolian harp can induce a certain mood of serenity, and they certainly make use of the materials of music, but most people would agree that it isn't music because of the lack of a human agent. So just because someone considers it music doesn't satisfy, as you say. Chris Bonds