Originally Posted by Rexx Shredd

Not that I want to add to this profound rhetorical ambiguous discussion but I think the difference between what is music and what is not should be intent:

Shouldn't "music" be classified as man-made to differentiate itself? This means that a even if a person goes around with his digital audio-sampler of choice and samples found sounds, then throws them together and - although it may sound like cocaophony - it was purposefully put together, therefore music........conversely, I could walk through the woods and hear the coincidental sounds of several unrelated things that may form a "musical" melody based on the Western twelve-step form of music and - although "musical" to my ears because I am used to the Western paradigm of what constitutes it - it is still a natural anomaly with no purposeful intent and, therefore, not music

Originally Posted by Zyrada

My personal definition of music: Sound created and/or perceived as having purpose and some degree of non-utilitarian intent ("non-utilitarian intent" meaning: not created and/or perceived as subservient to another object, function, or activity) within the context of an artistic dialogue (whether or not the music is consciously created and/or perceived as part of any dialogue is irrelevant, since no art exists in a vacuum).