How about this definition:
Sounds presented in such a way as to provoke emotion in addition to the emotion provoked by whatever lyrical piece said sound may be attached to.
Edit: Just read a bit from the thread that gave birth to this. Oh my gods the irony.
OP is really that convinced that if you don't use "approved" instruments to play music, it's not music?
I do not forget how diverse electronica is, I just don't agree nor promote it's use in music because I wholly believe it has no place in music....
I seldom laugh at posters, but... Oh wo-ho-ho-how.
Just wow.
Oh an synthesizers are not instruments.
Get a load of this guy.
Gods, he's like a goldmine of priceless quotes.
And he's so horribly and consistently rude you can make as much fun of this idiot as you want without feeling bad for it.
I'll be keeping an eye on this thread. I feel it's likely to make my day in a while.
And he's telling people to
grow up because they won't accept the "factual definition" of
music, fucking music, that he found in his textbook.
He's such a picture perfect early university student it hurts.
Hey, dude, let me blow your mind for a moment: Have you ever considered the thought that there exists more than
one music textbook in the world? Have you ever considered that some of these may use definitions of music that aren't exactly the same as the definition in your book?
If you come across such a book, then what do you do?
After all, what it says must be fact because it's a textbook, but that other book is also a textbook so what it says must also be fact. But their definitions don't agree. What do you do now???!!!
OP pretty much considers all of modern jazz "not music". Fucking jazz, man.
