Talk:Definition of music

message: The "Social influence on perception of" music has no place in the "Definitions of music" article. One's varying perception of something does not necessarily change its definition (if I get drunk music doesn't change, I do). Likewise, one's culturally influenced perception of music is more about the culture and the inividual than music. The more proper formation of this topic is "Social construction of" or "Definition as social". Hyacinth 23:24, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: After all, the article title is "Defintions". Hyacinth 23:32, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Social influence on perception of

message: *"The question of what the art form called music actually consists of is something that is still debated today."
I object to statements such as the one above, taken from the current introduction. The POV of this sentence is that music shouldn't still be debated today, or that it is unusual that it still is. Hyacinth 18:30, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Molino's position is structuralist rather than constructionist. He (Molino 1975:37) argued that music is a "total social fact [fait social total] is "an activity that has implications throughout society, in the economic, legal, political, and religious spheres." (Sedgewick 2002: 95) "Diverse strands of social and psychological life are woven together through...'total social facts'. A total social fact is such that it informs and organises seemingly quite distinct practices and institutions." (Edgar 2002:157)" (from total social fact). Hyacinth 08:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Molino

message: You can try to name it, but what's in a name. Defining is fine, just a bit naive. You'll get there in the end, sure you wil...
:Please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 09:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Music" is like a body 

message: *"There is also at least one piece of music, a string quartet, in which the players stop suddenly while the sheet music shows a long rest at the end.  When skillfully performed, the silence at the end is quite obviously part of the music."
I removed the above as it needs both a citation and detail. Hyacinth 11:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation needed

message: I was reading a biography of Brian Wilson (ex-Beach Boys frontman); it said, at one point (approximatively) that as he was struggling to produce pieces of exceptional musical quality (there was a 'competition' between him and the Beatles around that era), he wanted to create the Ultimate sound, an Ultimate kind of music that all who listened to would love. As he got closer and closer to this elusive goal -- this album which would be called 'Smile', the pinnacle of his musical career -- his drug abuse also increased (as he derived inspiration from it), to a point where he was not able to continue his lifestyle and his underlying mental illness became uncontrolable. 
What I wonder is, is it possible to create a sound which all human creatures would appreciate, no matter what their 'tastes' are?  Every style and type of music has its characteristics and emotions associated with it; is it possible to conceive a universal sound which all would love? What part does perception play in the appreciation of music? If this universal sound did exist, and if some people asserted they did not appreciate it, would it be because they refused to hear it as it is and judge it before they heard it?
If a sound is considered to have a 'melancholic' sound -- we all know what is meant by this statement -- can that statement be used 'objectively' to describe the music? Obviously it must be limited in some way by what our perception of the word melancholic is. Reversly, if a piece of music is considered melancholic, can that influence our own definition and perception of the meaning of the word?  --DragonFly31 12:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The perfect sound?

message: The concept that that article doesn't deal with very well is to get the idea out there that the line between "music" and "art that happens to be aural instead of visual" is very blurry and gray. For example, a lot of the noise/drone stuff out there, such as Merzbow, Birchville Cat Motel, and even the Conet project recordings really couldn't be considered "music", at least with a more pedestrian definition. There's no rhythm and harmony, pitch, & timbre are all incidental. However, it's still a "sound that is pleasing". Can sounds be art without being considered music? That's the truly challenging question at the bottom of this. --JD79 14:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Music vs. Aural Art

message: This sentence, "Music is organized in time and consists of pitch, rhythm, harmony, and timbre." (which existed in the article until a moment ago when I altered it) is worth serious argument.  I'd like to open this argument here and suggest that:
*Music is organized in time (good so far)
*and consists of "rhythm" (that would be just fine...the sentence should stop there.)
*"pitch"?  Pitch is merely rhythm.  Any vibration/rhythm with a frequency greater than 35-or-so hertz will be perceives as a constant pitch.  I contend that "pitch" and "rhythm" are nearly synonymous.
*"harmony"?  Again, if consensus can be reached that "pitch" is rhythm (a vibration with a frequency great enough that we perceive a constant tone) then the word "harmony" is just redundant and totally unecessary.
*"timbre"?  This word is not necessary...every sound has unique combination of overtones/textures/frequencies.  Including this word in the sentence above is akin to saying "Cheeseburgers consist of molecules." -- it's true, but it really goes without saying.
===================================
: Music consists of:
*"Rhythm" - obviously.
*"Melody" - a tune that occurs over time - or a main focus in the music. It's probably rhythmic - but that's an aspect now of the melody, which we hear differently to rhythm. It is how the vibrations interact with each other that makes the melody - we are now less interested in any rhythmic aspect than we are with following the rise and fall of pitch as the melody progresses over time.
*"Harmony" - When multiple tuned instruments play against each other and produce a vertical wall of sound with distinct properties. Over time, it exhibits rhythmic properties, but as a vertical snapshot in relation to another vertical snapshot, it's perfectly distinct from rhythm, even though it consists of a number of vibrating waveforms playing off each other and creating new vibrations. We're less interested in the rhythm of each chord than how the tones produced by the vibrations interact with each other.
*"Timbre" - What it sounds like. It's completely necessary to describe music - everyone talks about what the music sounds like in one way or another, e.g. "I like the sound of that guitar". It doesn't go without saying - how can you describe a piece of jazz and compare it to, say, heavy metal without touching briefly on what constitutes the overall timbre? You only have to mention saxophones or distorted guitars, and you're already talking about timbre. Although timbre is created by the specific vibrations or rhythms of the given instrument, that is to get confused about how we are considering the term "rhythm". 
*"Form" - Describes a piece of music. Fundamental - no piece can exist without form, or there would be no piece.
:So let's get it right, indeed - these are the 5 fundamental elements of music. There are no more or less, and even if a piece appears to have a fundamental element missing, we can still identify aspects of it - e.g. the rhythm, timbre, melody and harmony of a piece like 4'33" is all in the passing of time (sound organised in time) - if you concentrate and use your ears, it all unfolds naturally. The piece begins and ends - and has 3 sections. That is its form.
:Consider that in some cultures it is actually acceptable to use the word "tone" when talking about a musical "note". Consider how many other words have mutiple meanings. 
:Consider also, that when listening to a drum rhythm, one could easily percieve a melody - especially with tuned drums. When many play together, they generate a kind of harmony - indeed, we often use the term "in harmony" when there is no music to speak of.
:Rhythm, when discussing music, means the rhythmic *qualities* of the music - generally, but not necessarily - as opposed to the individual sounds. 
:Hence it is not enough to say that it consists of rhythm alone - all the other elements will necessarily exist. MarkCertif1ed 09:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 4'33" proves that music is sound organised in time (the piece has set limits, and sounds happen inside a time period), and consists of rhythm, melody, harmony, (all of this will come out of the various sounds around you, even if it is apparently haphazard - the human brain loves to organise things) and timbre (each sound has a particular quality). 
It also proves beyond everything that *form is fundamental*. Without form, there is no music (4'33" has a beginning, an end, and even 3 movements). MarkCertif1ed 13:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The elements of music (let's get it right) 

message: : Music consists of:
*"Rhythm" - obviously.
*"Melody" - a tune that occurs over time - or a main focus in the music. It's probably rhythmic - but that's an aspect now of the melody, which we hear differently to rhythm. It is how the vibrations interact with each other that makes the melody - we are now less interested in any rhythmic aspect than we are with following the rise and fall of pitch as the melody progresses over time.
*"Harmony" - When multiple tuned instruments play against each other and produce a vertical wall of sound with distinct properties. Over time, it exhibits rhythmic properties, but as a vertical snapshot in relation to another vertical snapshot, it's perfectly distinct from rhythm, even though it consists of a number of vibrating waveforms playing off each other and creating new vibrations. We're less interested in the rhythm of each chord than how the tones produced by the vibrations interact with each other.
*"Timbre" - What it sounds like. It's completely necessary to describe music - everyone talks about what the music sounds like in one way or another, e.g. "I like the sound of that guitar". It doesn't go without saying - how can you describe a piece of jazz and compare it to, say, heavy metal without touching briefly on what constitutes the overall timbre? You only have to mention saxophones or distorted guitars, and you're already talking about timbre. Although timbre is created by the specific vibrations or rhythms of the given instrument, that is to get confused about how we are considering the term "rhythm". 
*"Form" - Describes a piece of music. Fundamental - no piece can exist without form, or there would be no piece.
:So let's get it right, indeed - these are the 5 fundamental elements of music. There are no more or less, and even if a piece appears to have a fundamental element missing, we can still identify aspects of it - e.g. the rhythm, timbre, melody and harmony of a piece like 4'33" is all in the passing of time (sound organised in time) - if you concentrate and use your ears, it all unfolds naturally. The piece begins and ends - and has 3 sections. That is its form.
:Consider that in some cultures it is actually acceptable to use the word "tone" when talking about a musical "note". Consider how many other words have mutiple meanings. 
:Consider also, that when listening to a drum rhythm, one could easily percieve a melody - especially with tuned drums. When many play together, they generate a kind of harmony - indeed, we often use the term "in harmony" when there is no music to speak of.
:Rhythm, when discussing music, means the rhythmic *qualities* of the music - generally, but not necessarily - as opposed to the individual sounds. 
:Hence it is not enough to say that it consists of rhythm alone - all the other elements will necessarily exist. MarkCertif1ed 09:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 4'33" proves that music is sound organised in time (the piece has set limits, and sounds happen inside a time period), and consists of rhythm, melody, harmony, (all of this will come out of the various sounds around you, even if it is apparently haphazard - the human brain loves to organise things) and timbre (each sound has a particular quality). 
It also proves beyond everything that *form is fundamental*. Without form, there is no music (4'33" has a beginning, an end, and even 3 movements). MarkCertif1ed 13:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: =======================

message: I guess the Metal Machine Music album should be mentioned in the article as a prime example of what causes debate over the definition of music. Parts of the current article read like parts of an unsourced personal essay, and may not be NPOV.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 21:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lou Reed - Metal Machine Music 

message: *Music is an art, entertainment, or other human activity which involves organized sound.
*Music is organized in time and consists of rhythm. Organizing musical sound is part of composition and improvisation.
''
I removed the quotes above from the introduction since, as the first sentence describes, the definition is contested. Describing one definition in the introduction as if it were the correct one is POV, see Wikipedia:NPOV. Hyacinth 23:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from introduction

message: I would like to submit as an External Link an article on the meaning of music.  Here's the link: http://www.artsandopinion.com/2005_v4_n6/lewis-19.htm
Thanking you for the consideration,
Artsandopinion (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External link: meaning of music

message: This article seems very skewed towards twentieth century, and more specifically 'avant-garde' thinkers. If anyone can find anything from some time between the middle ages and the twentieth century, that would be good.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.59.163 (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Fair point, although I notice that there is already a certain amount on Ancient Greece, a little bit on Rome and the medieval period, as well as some etymological stuff from non-European societies. I might add to your time-line lacunae the failure to mention some important geographic areas from which there ought to be more substantial data: the Middle East, China, India, Japan, and Indonesia, for a start. Surely the discipline of ethnomusicology could offer something more on pre-literate societies in Africa, Australia, and the Americas, as well.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skew 

message: Numbered full citations in the recently added Lead section have been changed to (author:year) style. While I realize this is a common convention, I suggest numbered citations are helpful and should remain, along with (author:year) style if that is preferred, because they provide "click" access to the reference and "click" return to the reader's place in the article. The (author:year) style does not.Jacques Bailhé (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are suggesting that footnotes should be added to the existing parenthetical citations, I think that would be a violation of WP:CITESTYLE, which specifies that a single, uniform citation style should be used throughout an article. On the other hand, there are also templates that can be used to add "click access" to inline citations. The most commonly used one, Template:Harvard citation, unfortunately would require the wholesale reformatting of the existing reference list, through the use of citation templates that impose a format different from the currently established one. I would therefore suggest that Template:Wikicite might be better in this case. These linking templates are superior to footnotes, especially when short-footnote format is used, because the latter require three-point clicking (through the use of Template:Sfn in the footnote itself, linking to the full reference in the alphabetical list), whereas the linked parenthetical author-date citations are just two-point clicks (directly from the reference in the text to the alphabetical list).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Even more helpful. Thanks.Jacques Bailhé (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: The sentence, "When using a more modern definition, such as: "the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity" (Merriam-webster.com 2015), these issues are no longer apparent," is incorrect and should be deleted. The definition also suits the creation of things like alarms and other signal devices that we don't recognize as music, but mistakenly suggests that it removes the issues of earlier definitions that rely on listing attributes. --Jacques Bailhé 23:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that this entire line of argumentation really does not belong in the lead, it is fruitless to argue that this definition is not watertight. The very point of the discussion is that it is difficult or even impossible to pin down exactly what constitutes music. On the other hand, if the Merriam-Webster wording is meant to be defining something other than music, then it is obviously unsuitable in a discussion of attempts (of whatever level of success) to define what music is.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

text: I am flattered that you think "my" exposition is excellent, but I don't think I have been solely or even primarily responsible for it. I agree with nearly everything you have said here, but while it clarifies the nature of the problem I don't see that it brings us much closer to a solution. "The" definition of music is not only a moving target, but something that varies from individual to individual. It is in this way, especially, that music is not a science but an art, as you rightly observe. You suggest reverting to some earlier version of the lead, but I am at a loss to know which earlier version this should be. Do you have a particular one in mind? The definition you suggest seems to be a new one and, as always on Wikipedia, what matters most is that we have a reliable source. Since we are talking about a lead section that is supposed to summarize the article as a whole, this definition and its source (and any competing definitions with their sources) should be placed in the body of the article. It really is putting the cart before the horse to write the lead first, and then try to make the rest conform to it, though for purposes of discussion it may be useful to set down a hypothesis and then see what evidence can be amassed, either for or against it. Thanks for suggesting the articles on "Music" and "Music history". I don't think I have paid either of them much attention so far.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

text: I think that sounds reasonable. If other editors object, let us hear their proposals for improvement here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect addition to the lead

message: Is there a reason this article does not follow the wikipedia norm of using footnotes for citations, instead opts for, as far as I know, Chicago author-date style?
Sayetti (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Style