Defining music is easy–until you actually try to do it
We’re tackling what seems like a really basic question:
What is music?
Everyone intuitively knows ‘what music’ is, right? Well, as it turns out, it is really hard to pin down one definitive answer. Philosophers and scientists have been racking their brains on this for ages.
Some have tried to boil it down to mere physics: organized sound. Other thinkers have been questioning the whole idea of a definition for music itself.
So, where does that leave us?
The challenges with defining music
We’ll explore the main definitions of music, pinpoint the problems and challenges, and eventually come to a better way to think about this elusive concept.
One paper, “What is Music, Anyway?” by Andrew Bowie, points out something fundamental: We don’t agree on the thing we’re trying to define in the first place.
To illustrate this point, he brings up Wittgenstein’s idea of family resemblance.
Think about all the music across cultures and history. Is there one single element that it all shares?
Probably not.
Instead, he argues that it’s more about overlapping similarities across the concept ‘music’. Like members of a family might share similar features, yet there’s not one single feature everyone has.
If that’s the case, trying to find a rigid definition is probably doomed from the start. The boundaries aren’t fixed; they shift.
Bowie’s conclusion is that every dictionary definition of music is only an historical snapshot.
Consider the ancient Greek concept of mousikē; it included poetry, dance, drama, and even athletics. That’s quite different from the music we know now.
Thinkers like composers Edgard Varèse and Pierre Schaeffer attempted to define music in a more physical manner. They called it “organized sound” or “sound organized in time”.
Yet, the problem with reducing music to its physical properties is that it misses the artist’s intent, cultural meaning, or emotional impact.
Trying to find a rigid definition is probably doomed from the start
Levinson and Kania their definitions
The previous definitions might be relevant in some cases, yet it’s not the all-encompassing definition we’re looking for.
This leads us to more modern attempts, like Jerrold Levinson’s and Andrew Kania’s proposals.
Jerrold Levinson’s definitio is as follows:
Sounds temporally organized by a person for the purpose of enriching or intensifying experience through active engagement (e.g. listening, dancing, performing) with the sounds regarded primarily, or in significant measure, as sounds.
Stephen Davies argues that Levinson’s definition is limited, and too focused on Western concert music.
Music doesn’t always have the purpose of enriching experiences. Think of background music; many will still call muzak music.
“Happy birthday” is music, but its composer likely didn’t intend it to deeply enrich the singer’s experience.
Movie soundtracks, as well, are often intended for unconscious influence and not actively engaged.
And music can be used for many non-aesthetic purposes, too. Like the music on your alarm clock.
Another definition, this time by Andrew Kania is:
Music is (1) any event intentionally produced or organized (2) to be heard, and (3) either (a) to have some basic musical features, such as pitch or rhythm or (b) to be listened for such features.
It’s comprehensive, yet there’s a lot this definition doesn’t include:
- Military marching music is not primarily intended to be listened to.
- Some people read scores silently and consider this a form of music.
- Avant-garde or experimental music might avoid features such as pitch or rhythm. Some music relies on timbre, microtones, or textures.
It’s even hard to define what counts as a ‘basic musical feature’. Our Western view on ‘musical features’ might be completely different from other cultures.
Kania’s attempt seems to be too broad and too narrow, and overly reliant on intention. It also doesn’t account for cultural differences nor is it future-proof.
McKeon Green also has trouble with these interpretations. He argues that what we think music is changes constantly.
He continues arguing that its problematic that institutions, critics, journals, and the industry all decide what gets called music. But those decisions aren’t always based on clear rules.
So these are not fit for defining music properly, either.
What we think music ís, is inconsistent and changes over time.
Given these challenges, if finding one perfect definition is basically impossible, what’s the alternative?
Many definitions—not just one
Adrian Currie and Anton Killen suggests something called conceptual pluralism: the idea that there is no one right answer.
There might be several different, non-competing concepts of music.
The one you use depends on what you’re interested in.
- Music could be defined by the experiences it gives.
- It can be looked at in relation to cultural or social function.
- Music as a cognitive trait (musicality) versus a cultural construct (music).
- Ian Cross offers the concept of music based on musical practices, like scales and timbre.
- It could looked at as an object for appreciation and artistic value.
- Scientific research might even need a more practical definition, like how sounds are organized each millisecond.
All these perspectives on understanding what we call music seem totally valid.
Music can have many definitions, and these don’t have to compete with one another
The question shouldn’t be What is music? It’s What do you mean by ‘music’ in this context?
Ultimately, accepting that there’s no single, all encompassing definition isn’t a lack of interest in finding out—it allows us to appreciate the diverse, ever-evolving landscape of organized sound.
Maybe the reason the music is so fascinating is that it’s hard to pin down exactly what it is.