There were many different definitions of music depending on the author’s perception or appreciation of the music. The music of one man is the sound of another man. And it defines accordingly.
They say Nevin is music and Bach is noise. Mozart is declared noise and Stravinsky, music. Another reverses the definition.
Whose ear – yours or mine?
In other words, it is an art, not a natural phenomenon; it is a question of tones and presupposes thoughts; that is, polite intellectual action and discrimination.
While this definition may be satisfying for you and me, there are those whose musical performance is so different from ours that only a definition that suits their style would fit them.
It is said that music should be impersonal, abstract. Another school explains that it should always tell a story. Another section of the music audience says that music should go far beyond the dictionary definition cited above; that it is not only the art of music should represent all life, whether the ear likes it or not.
In other words, if the subject represented is a subject of pain, horror or misfortune, then the music must be of struggle, cacophony, discord that totally denies the idea of beauty or “honor the ear”. From all this, long ago, the question arose whether the function of music is only beautiful or whether its mission, like painting, is to portray life as a whole – good and bad. , Joy and sadness, happiness and terror.
Being there and music
This is a question that no part of the world can satisfy with the rest. As music has reached an advanced stage of development, it has been a bone of contention between musicologists and composers, and will no doubt continue to do so for decades and perhaps centuries.
So, not to discuss it, the easiest way is to accept such a generalized definition as the one suggested above and classify music as “thoughts expressed by sound”, from which almost no school or musical composition can make an exception.