In article <30i1q8$nl@search01.news.aol.com>, ticklebee@aol.com
(Ticklebee) writes:

>I offered seven bases for the distinction between musical sound and noise,
>all of which were culled from various sources.  (I'm still looking for
>more.  And not just made up ones.  Anyone can do that ad infinitum.  I'm
>interested in musical examples, such as performances, compositions,
>theory, or audience reactions that reveal a basis for distinguishing
>between noise and musical sound not already mentioned.  Is that too much
>to ask of the Net?)

How about these definitions of music:

1. Music is organized sound.

This definition was offered by Varese, but I confess, I thought of it
long before I had ever heard of Varese.  When I stumbled across Varese's
definition one day, was pleased to discover that someone intelligent was
thinking on my wavelength. :)
                
The problem with this definition, by the way, is that many highly organized
sounds are not ordinarily considered music.  It may be reasonable to say that
all music is organized sound, but it certainly *isn't* reasonable to say the
all organized sound is music. (See below for more one this topic.)

Here is a definition given by Jean Wronsky and Camille Durutte in a
treatise on harmony near the end of the 1900s.  They classify music as an
"Art-Science" (meaning presumably that it contains characteristics of
both art and science in fairly equal proportion) and define it this way:

2. the corporealization of the intelligence that is in sounds.

No comment from me on *that* one.

My own (current) definition:

3. Music is sound that is heard *as* sound.

At first glance, this looks like just so much obfuscation, but really, I
think it's a pretty good definition.  There are plenty of organized
sounds around.  A cannon firing, a person talking, a siren whining--all
these are highly organized sounds, and yet none of them is ordinarily
considered to be music. I specifically say these are not "*ordinarily*
considered to be music," because under certain conditions each of these
*is* considered to be music!  (Respectively, in the 1812 Overture, in
Stockhausen's *Gesang der Juenglinge*, and in Varese's *Ionization*,
just to give one specific example for each sound.)

What differentiates between the time the cannon firing is just noise,
and the time it is music?  The only difference is that in the one case,
the cannon is fired to hurl a projectile through the air, the sound it makes
being irrelevant and in fact bothersome; and in the other case, the cannon is
fired specifically to *listen* to the sound it makes.

Similarly for speech: Ordinarily, we listen to speech not for its value
as sound, but purely for the information it conveys.  Whenever we are put
in a situation where our attention is focused on the actual *sound* of
the speech, speech becomes music.  The difference isn't in the sounds
themselves--the very same words may in one case be mere speech, and in
another case, music.  No, the difference isn't in the sounds, but in
the *direction of our attention*--whether to the meaning of the sounds
(speech) or to the sounds themselves (music). This is why some poetry is
called musical--because there is something in the sound of the words
themselves, quite apart from thir meaning, that is beautiful and draws
our attention.           

By this definition, some things that are ordinarily considered to be
music are classified as noise.  For instance, background music, when not
listened to actively (and of course it is not *meant* to be listened to
actively or it wouldn't be called background music!) is no more music
than is the annoying background hum of a fan.  That it correctly
identifies this sort of "music" as noise, I consider to be a strength of
my definition, not a weakness.

Another advantage of this definition is that it points out that the real
source of music is not in the physical phenomena--in the sound or noise
itself--but in the human mind.  It is *how we hear* the sound that
determines whether it is music.  Certain phenomena--what we call
"tones", for instance--may be more attractive to the mind; the mind may
be more likely to notice them as sound, and so they may be more likely
to be considered music.  Nevertheless, it is the perception of the
phenomenon and not the phenomenon itself that determines the
classification as music or not music.

Mentally conceived sound is certainly considered to be music under this
definition, as long as it is the sound itself that is mentally
reconstructed, and not merely some symbols for the sound.  For instance,
if I think, "I, IV, V, I," this is not music.  However, if I mentally
recall the *sound* of a I IV V I progression, this is music.  If I
think, "This is a recording of Rubinstein playing the G minor Ballade,"
this is not music, but if I mentally reconstruct the *sound* of
Rubinstein playing the G minor Ballade, this is music.  Or, for that
matter, if I think of the *sound* of myself saying "This is a recording
of Rubinstein playing the G minor Ballade," subordinating the meaning of
this sentence to its sound, then this is music--maybe not *good* music,
mind you, but music.

Sorry, I didn't mean to get so carried away on this topic, but you 
asked . . .

And as long as I've gone on so long, I might point out that this
definition of music makes sense of Cage's 4'33".  Cage's point in this
piece (if I may be so bold as to put words into his mouth) is precisely
the same point I make in my definition.  The shuffling of feet, rustling
of programs, whirring of air ducts, and other extraneous noises that
exist in every concert hall are not normally considered to be music. 
However, if we direct our attention to these sounds, hearing them as
*sounds* rather than as distractions, we discover that they are, indeed,
music and that (dare I say it?) there might even be something quite
beautiful about them.

My own first exposure to 4'33" (and other similar pieces) was a musical
and artistic occasion of the first order--an ear-opening experience.  I
have since been much more aware of the beauty in the sounds around
me--sounds that I was not previously even aware of.  I dare say that it
changed my worldview significantly.

What more could one ask of any artistic experience?

Brent Hugh
bhugh@cstp.umkc.edu
University of Missouri-Kansas City
Conservatory of Music