I wanted to post this, which someone contributed to a different discussion a few days ago and which I thought was rather wonderful (it's Henry Cowell talking about Ives):

In certain sorts of compositions Ives makes a distinction between the music, which is the idea, and the sound, which is simply a physical disturbance during a performance. Naturally it is desirable to have the best sound possible, if this is compatible with the music. But the music itself must never be sacrificed.

I like Berio's approach to this: when asked what he understands music to be, he says both this:
"I'm tempted to reply that music is the art of sounds, but then you'll ask me what art is, which would be worse still. I'm afraid I can't give you an answer."

and this:
"music is everything one listens to with the intention of listening to music".

The emphasis here is, again, on the listener - but on a subjective sense, of course: each listener decides for himself.

I'm not sure I understand what Cowell's quote means by the way. I've always thought that the idea only becomes music at the moment it is turned into sound.

Stuart - I particularly like your second Berio quote ("music is everything one listens to with the intention of listening to music"). I think that it neatly allows any listener the right to define music, change their definition of music, rethink it, meditate upon it, all without causing anyone to raise fists or hackles. (Oh dear, the word 'cop-out' has crept into my mind... Away! away!)

"I've always thought that the idea only becomes music at the moment it is turned into sound." Interesting - we were debating that with MLK's piece - I certainly was of the opinion that any composition resulting from the six events would be the music, not the events themselves or the collection of data. But, strangely, when I read Cowell's quote in tin's post first I had a brief glimpse of what was meant. So elusive it's gone again, I'm afraid. The nearest I can get to it is a memory of a composer friend saying to me once that beyond a certain point or pitch (of excitement, of transcendence...) in a piece the notes (and presumably any other sounds) in themselves don't matter, it's the energy level that counts. There are better notes or worse ones but the idea is what counts. Ravel said something similar about composing (I think) the Piano Trio (someone correct me if you have an accurate reference to hand) - "I've written the piece; I just need to find the notes now."

George - "I think that is a more useful way of looking at it than a definition which includes all and any sounds as 'music'." Yes - absolutely (Berio's cop-out, er, I mean, quote as a caveat.)

Mart- "The uncomfortable bit is that I think we're suggesting that in a perceptual sense the opposite is true too." I guess by that you mean 'listeners are composers too' - well, possibly, at times, but not as a general rule. That's going back to some comments on the MLK thread, and the idea of being transformed by an act (or listening experience). I think we're talking about definitions of words here, not music itself - there IS something special about listening actively, but I don't think it is a CREATIVE act in the usual sense of the word. Having a response is not the same as being creative - which is not to say one is more or less valuable than the other.

Oh, and George or tin - can you fill me in on Ramsgate? I remember custard, oh so well...

I really do not wish to sound unhelpful here but, without at all wishing either to cop out or look as thought I am doing so, might I be permitted to observe that I have more than enough trouble actually writing it without complicating my predicament still farther by attempting to "define" it?...

Best,

Alistair

But ros, doesn't that imply that 'a creative act' is necessary for 'music' to exist? Listening, as you say, is potentially 'creative'; depends on your state of mind, and how many pints of Castlemaine 4X consumed.  I rather like Reich's term, 'active listening' which he of course meant to apply specifically to the various possibilities/pathways one might take in listening to minimalist music, but which I think applies equally well to how one listens to just about anything. The number 49 bus included.

I do think listening is a creative act. If you listen to any sound at all "as music" you are effectively creating music.

Also, sounds which are intended as music aren't always heard in that way.

And, as we've seen, the presence of sound isn't completely necessary either, it's more like the experience of a particular articulation of time which we can relate to what we think of as music. I think it's unrealistic to expect there to be a strict dividing line between what's music and what isn't, even for one person, because it varies with time, experience and mood. If I'm trying after a long exhaustign day to get to sleep and someone puts on a CD of Xenakis' La légende d'Eer at high volume I probably won't hear it as music even though it's one of my favourite pieces.

Yes, but - and I'm not trying to be sophistical here - if you weren't hearing it as music, would you be hearing it as Xenakis' La légende d'Eer?

(I've scrubbed out three goes at a sentence explaining why I ask that question, so I'll let you answer it first and then I'll try to explain after I've eaten something.)

"The Intention of Musick is not only to please the Ear, but to express Sentiments, strike the Imagination, affect the Mind, and command the Passions."

[Francesco Geminiani: The Art of Playing on the Violin (London 1761)]