Music as Art and Individual...

I read the article on music and still find it very difficult to agree with one definition or another. Music can take many forms and styles, some not yet discovered. I enjoy the numerous genres of music, so I also agree any kind of definition must focus on common properties to music. I like the term "organized sound," I think it simply emphasizes two major components of most music, however not all.

Some sounds are not organized, or reproduced by another musician, therefore takes away from the "neatness" of this term. I guess in this sense music has a scientific appeal to me. An artist will compose a piece with the hard work, skill, and intention to have themselves or another recreate (replay) that piece of music, just as a scientist would with new experiments. Birds chirping in nature was an example used in class of interpretive music. It has sound, and to the bird it's organized, but to our ears at first listen it may not be anything in particular. Then if one listens more closely may find rhythm, tone, and harmony with other birds; however, these 'nature sounds' may not be music to everyone just like techno and computer sounds are not considered music because the sounds are produced by an unconventional method.

To me, music is much like art objects. We call a composer of paintings and staffs by the common term 'artist,' aside from painter, musician, or sculptor. Aside from my other opinions on defining music, I agree most that perhaps, like art, it should not be defined. Instead, be content that sound is music when we hear it and it provokes the common aesthetic emotion, just like art object to each individual. Whether the song sad or happy, and the painting cheery or woeful, the same connection is made to the piece making it music and art to the person experiencing it.