What is music?

To bit a bit more of a precise definition on it, I'll use the words of Vladimir Horowitz: "Music is emotion, controlled emotion."

If I write my music without any emotion in mind, how is music "emotion controlled emotion".

I mean, my goal with my work is to explore sound worlds, not convey emotions. So, by that definition, is my music not music?

Not that it really matters to me if it is or not.

Sometimes I feel like doing this when we start talking about "art."

I guess the point was that you can't control if others react emotionally to your music, regardless if you want that or not it's beyond your control.

If I write my music without any emotion in mind, how is music "emotion controlled emotion".

I mean, my goal with my work is to explore sound worlds, not convey emotions. So, by that definition, is my music not music?

Not that it really matters to me if it is or not.

Hmm, I believe you misunderstood the later part of my post, or just didn't bother to read the whole thing. ;)

I said, music is the expression of the emotions, THOUGHTS, and spiritual dwellings-on of the composer. What you're talking about is your expression of thought.

This is a perfectly valid form of music, but in my opinion, if music is not used to express spiritual or emotional things, it's not going to be very interesting to me. Thought most definitely has it's purpose, but purely logical music almost defeats it's own purpose, in my opinion. I think there are too many composers nowadays so focused on trying to be revolutionary, and trying to do something new, that their music starts being pure intellectual study. Music is meant to be listened to. I don't know about you, but (while I enjoy intelligently written music) I can't stand listening to pure exploration, with no emotional or spiritual purpose.

This is a perfectly valid form of music, but in my opinion, if music is not used to express spiritual or emotional things, it's not going to be very interesting to me.

And the question is, can you tell?

I can throw together some theory exercises and write a sonata out of it that a lot of people would perceive as expressing emotional things, but in reality I'm copy/pasting. Hell a machine can do this no problem! Likewise, what may seem purely intellectual to you could be emotionally charged on the composers' side. It's just finding the right buttons to push to get anyone to find anything "emotional" or not, regardless if I'm just pushing buttons or actually feeling those things.

Music doesn't communicate things as well as some people would like to believe. If your criteria for not liking something is what the composer intended emotionally or whatever then you'll never know for 99.9% of the music you hear. Often even the composers themselves don't know!

There's billions of pieces of music... do we really need another one?

Yes.

And the question is, can you tell?

I can throw together some theory exercises and write a sonata out of it that a lot of people would perceive as expressing emotional things, but in reality I'm copy/pasting. Hell a machine can do this no problem! Likewise, what may seem purely intellectual to you could be emotionally charged on the composers' side. It's just finding the right buttons to push to get anyone to find anything "emotional" or not, regardless if I'm just pushing buttons or actually feeling those things.

I'd just like to add/argue here that "finding the right buttons to push" comes more from cultural expectations than anything else. I think it's really about knowing the culture that listens to the genre of music you're writing and what expectations happen to exist within that culture to actually "push" any buttons with any intent.

Music doesn't communicate things as well as some people would like to believe. If your criteria for not liking something is what the composer intended emotionally or whatever then you'll never know for 99.9% of the music you hear. Often even the composers themselves don't know!

True, but don't you think it's easier to "communicate" something in music when most of the listening audience of a given genre comes with expectations that are either achieved or manipulated? That's more or less how so many of the connoisseurs of classical music are more emotionally invested in the works of Mozart and/or Beethoven, because they are engaged in the cultural and stylistic expectations of the genre... at least that's how I see it.

Ho ho, but a LOT of what is "culturally expected" like what constitutes a "sad song" for example has roots in our cognitive ability to link what we hear with the language centers. There's a lot that is not simply cultural but actually hardwired. When I mean buttons to push, I literally mean buttons as in there are formulas for producing X and Y responses and we have actually measured them to a good degree.

Mind you, it still leaves room for cultural influence, yes, but don't overestimate how big that influence is compared to how your cognitive capabilities work.

...

HOWEVER!

What I just said, due to the way syntax and etc work, also applies to modern music. The reactions may be shared between music that pushes vaguely similar buttons, but the true extent of the aesthetic curve and the effects of it can only be measured and felt when people are AWARE of that syntax and are listening with proper expectations (these do not need to be conscious things either, hence where culture plays a major role.) You can get, therefore, the same "aesthetic pleasure" so to speak from both Mozart and Ligeti, provided you are aware of what the syntax is. This are the fine details underneath the overall triggers that correspond to basic emotions which can be caused by any kind of music, or indeed, sound.

Ho ho, but a LOT of what is "culturally expected" like what constitutes a "sad song" for example has roots in our cognitive ability to link what we hear with the language centers. There's a lot that is not simply cultural but actually hardwired. When I mean buttons to push, I literally mean buttons as in there are formulas for producing X and Y responses and we have actually measured them to a good degree.

Mind you, it still leaves room for cultural influence, yes, but don't overestimate how big that influence is compared to how your cognitive capabilities work.

So, I'm not clear here. Are you saying the greater influence is cognitive response or culture? How do we distinguish the cognitive response from the cultural influence when our cognition develops -within- and is influenced -by- that cultural influence?

HOWEVER!

What I just said, due to the way syntax and etc work, also applies to modern music. The reactions may be shared between music that pushes vaguely similar buttons, but the true extent of the aesthetic curve and the effects of it can only be measured and felt when people are AWARE of that syntax and are listening with proper expectations (these do not need to be conscious things either, hence where culture plays a major role.) You can get, therefore, the same "aesthetic pleasure" so to speak from both Mozart and Ligeti, provided you are aware of what the syntax is. This are the fine details underneath the overall triggers that correspond to basic emotions which can be caused by any kind of music, or indeed, sound.

Doesn't this simply reaffirm the cultural influence? It's entirely possible to be influenced by more than one culture, so to extrapolate cognitive response from this seems to ignore the culture in which cognition develops. I dunno, it seems somewhat paradoxical. I can see the rationalization for extrapolating cognition from culture, but I don't see how it happens that way. If modern music culture is the only musical culture you're exposed to, any pleasure derived from hearing Mozart seems to be either happenstance or somehow connected to the culture of modern music. Otherwise, the expectation doesn't exist. As such, one might enjoy it for haphazard reasons without actually connecting to any of it. Seems to me that culture plays a far more significant role than cognition.

So, I'm not clear here. Are you saying the greater influence is cognitive response or culture? How do we distinguish the cognitive response from the cultural influence when our cognition develops -within- and is influenced -by- that cultural influence?

Both are important, but what I'm saying is that there are cognitive responses that are hardwired. And our cognitive abilities develop regardless of our environment since genetics don't change for every individual depending on their environment neither do genetics change growing up. It's possible that certain races may be more receptive than others to things, but the similarities far outweigh whatever differences there may be. In essence, how the brain works can be looked at without regards to cultural influence since culture itself is a byproduct of brain processes (it's actually the proof that these processes exist!)

Doesn't this simply reaffirm the cultural influence? It's entirely possible to be influenced by more than one culture, so to extrapolate cognitive response from this seems to ignore the culture in which cognition develops. I dunno, it seems somewhat paradoxical. I can see the rationalization for extrapolating cognition from culture, but I don't see how it happens that way. If modern music culture is the only musical culture you're exposed to, any pleasure derived from hearing Mozart seems to be either happenstance or somehow connected to the culture of modern music. Otherwise, the expectation doesn't exist. As such, one might enjoy it for haphazard reasons without actually connecting to any of it. Seems to me that culture plays a far more significant role than cognition.

Again, cognition doesn't "develop", these are things that have evolved along with us for thousands and thousands of years. They don't change from one lifetime to another much less within the span of a single individual. The faculties come, again, before culture and are the cause OF culture to begin with.

If you only listen to Boulez and then listen to Mozart, chances are you'll respond to the greater triggers that are linked to the language centers, but you'll miss the syntax and grammar that allows for the greater appreciation of that language (the aesthetic path, so to speak.) The inverse is also true and also across cultures.

Both are important, but what I'm saying is that there are cognitive responses that are hardwired. And our cognitive abilities develop regardless of our environment since genetics don't change for every individual depending on their environment neither do genetics change growing up. It's possible that certain races may be more receptive than others to things, but the similarities far outweigh whatever differences there may be. In essence, how the brain works can be looked at without regards to cultural influence since culture itself is a byproduct of brain processes (it's actually the proof that these processes exist!)

You're saying that how the brain works is evidence of how culture is a byproduct of cerebral processes? As in, it couldn't be that culture emerges from environmental factors that have nothing directly to do with genetics?

Again, cognition doesn't "develop", these are things that have evolved along with us for thousands and thousands of years. They don't change from one lifetime to another much less within the span of a single individual. The faculties come, again, before culture and are the cause OF culture to begin with.

The emergence of culture is sourced in genetics? I'm not sure I agree with this at all.

If you only listen to Boulez and then listen to Mozart, chances are you'll respond to the greater triggers that are linked to the language centers, but you'll miss the syntax and grammar that allows for the greater appreciation of that language (the aesthetic path, so to speak.) The inverse is also true and also across cultures.

I see your point here and agree. The rest of the genetic discussion is broadly speculative and paradoxical. I happen to think we all possess genetic "potential" to process things in certain ways, and some of that potential is harnessed more than other potential depending on the culture in which you are born into. We're like blank slates that are imprinted upon by our environment, whatever that may be. The reason I agree has more to do with how music might have the effect of "awakening" new potential that might not otherwise emerge in our existing culture.

So, to say that "culture is a byproduct of genetics" seems to draw a pretty huge conclusion without much practical basis. What if culture is a byproduct of some unconscious social value toward any given set of cognitive traits? How do we make such a distinction? Genetics may explain the finer details of how we handle information, but giving it more credit than it's worth is something else entirely.

You're saying that how the brain works is evidence of how culture is a byproduct of cerebral processes? As in, it couldn't be that culture emerges from environmental factors that have nothing directly to do with genetics?

No, that culture is what is observable and hence the "proof" that something is going on on a cognitive level, etc. The other way around.

The emergence of culture is sourced in genetics? I'm not sure I agree with this at all.

Just like the emergence of hammers is sourced in having hands to actually use any kind of tool and intelligence enough to figure out how to make one, the faculties MUST come first. That all has to do with evolutionary path and, yes, genetics. Culture is nothing but a byproduct of our various cognitive capacities and mechanisms, such as symbolic interaction. Animals that do NOT have these capacities don't have what we call "culture," though they may have a primitive form of symbolic interaction or be capable of constructing context around artificial symbols (chimpanzees have been observed to do this, for example.) But that's still a long way to go before they have our highly specialized language centers and so on.

So, to say that "culture is a byproduct of genetics" seems to draw a pretty huge conclusion without much practical basis. What if culture is a byproduct of some unconscious social value toward any given set of cognitive traits? How do we make such a distinction?

It's not a huge conclusion, it's the only reasonable one. As for practical basis, it's actually quite practical indeed. If we know that genetics are responsible for the formation of our brain functions then it's an understatement to say that they're important in studying these brain functions. This all goes back to evolutionary theory as to understanding what was the reason that certain things evolved like they did, among which was our crossover from the language centers into our musical ability. Musical ability also must have an evolutionary source, but we're not exactly sure of what it is yet but there are fairly good hypothesis on the subject. Understanding all this brings us closer to actually seeing what happens on a neurological and cognitive level.

And, even IF we entertain the thought that culture is the byproduct of some social value--that too must have an evolutionary source. Hell, cognitive capacities themselves are result of evolutionary adaptation. Again each time I mention evolution, I'm talking strictly about genetics, as that's how this whole thing works.

We have genes for music, and hence we have music. Key question then is, why is that? And that's where current research is at.

I don't have enough background in genetics to carry this portion of the discussion forward any further. I really have my suspicions about the actual extent of truth that comes from this study when conclusions like, "Just like the emergence of hammers is sourced in having hands to actually use any kind of tool and intelligence enough to figure out how to make one, the faculties MUST come first. That all has to do with evolutionary path and, yes, genetics. Culture is nothing but a byproduct of our various cognitive capacities and mechanisms, such as symbolic interaction." Culture isn't even a "tool" of society like a hammer is a tool. We didn't just up and "create" culture. I also have my suspicions that too much is trying to be explained by genetics, as I've already stated, so I'm rather turned off to continuing this discussion now.

This whole thing of What is Music is explained by anthropology and sociology, not genetics. Music was created as a means of communal experience where a group of people would enjoy a piece of aural art, same as drawing. It is not genetically inborn in anybody that music is. It took man cooperating together to create it. And honestly, if a definition of music was inborn, this whole discussion would have never happened because we all would have known exactly what music was and would never doubted it.

This is one of the few times I find myself in agreement with Tokke. Thanks for chiming in, because I was becoming a little dumbfounded by the direction of this discussion.

Sociology explains a lot more about music as a social phenomenon than genetics, for me at least. Of course, it's not entirely fair to say that genetics has "nothing" to do with it... I'm sure there are some persuasive arguments out there for what role genetics plays in our perception of sound as music. But I just can't go as far to say that genetics is this "source" of the sociological factors we use to explore and understand music, making said sociological factors a "byproduct" of genetics as opposed to independent environmental factors that more heavily influence our perceptions. There's something to be said for genetics, but I have my doubts that we can take it as far as you seem to be taking it, SSC.

Er, whatever guys. I'm just talking almost high-school level stuff here. That genes are the foundation of everything we have is not only not a mystery to anyone but it's the only observation that matches up with reality (everything we see in behavior, anatomy, etc etc etc is a byproduct of our genetic makeup.) Saying music is somehow different than, say, a fingernail in terms of the importance of genetics is rather bizarre. Social constructs only exist because we have in our genes the capacity to even HAVE social constructs, in the end you can trace it all back to evolutionary theory and genetics, which makes sense as it works for every other animal and feature we have observed before.

I don't know why the aversion honestly, you can look all this up yourselves.

But lol none of it explains what music is to individuals, but it can explain what the phenomenon is and how it works. It can lend itself eventually to a good definition that fits reality, provided we understand the thing enough, but everyone is still going to call thing whatever they want for other reasons beyond their biological capacity.

Just saying really, if you want a scientific specification of what "Music" is and how it works, we're getting close.

Music, in scientific terms, is sounds organized by man for a reason. Music, in more personal terms, is a medium that allows the listener to experience something they couldn't otherwise through other means, i.e. the emotion and spirituality of music are what make music worth existing. This is true of all art; it gives us something that we can't get it we didn't have it. To ignore that fundamental truth is naive.

Music, in scientific terms, is sounds organized by man for a reason. Music, in more personal terms, is a medium that allows the listener to experience something they couldn't otherwise through other means, i.e. the emotion and spirituality of music are what make music worth existing. This is true of all art; it gives us something that we can't get it we didn't have it. To ignore that fundamental truth is naive.

But music isn't just sounds, which is the interesting stuff. Music is much more than just the product, it's the whole range of cognitive mechanisms that work together to allow you to do tons of things you take for granted. Like when you "think" about a tune or you hear music in your head, it's simulation of your perception of sound. Should that also count as music?

A scientific spec of what music is would detail brain activity and all sorts of other things, by the way, so I'm not really qualified to give one (at least not from memory.)

However you cut it though, everyone will have their own pet definitions regardless if everyone's brains operate the practically the same way.

Er, whatever guys. I'm just talking almost high-school level stuff here. That genes are the foundation of everything we have is not only not a mystery to anyone but it's the only observation that matches up with reality (everything we see in behavior, anatomy, etc etc etc is a byproduct of our genetic makeup.) Saying music is somehow different than, say, a fingernail in terms of the importance of genetics is rather bizarre. Social constructs only exist because we have in our genes the capacity to even HAVE social constructs, in the end you can trace it all back to evolutionary theory and genetics, which makes sense as it works for every other animal and feature we have observed before.

I don't know why the aversion honestly, you can look all this up yourselves.

It's simply not this cut and dry, though. Any genetic profile, or "potential" if you will, is useless absent a stimulus from the environment. It doesn't suffice to say that music or the social constructs around it exist "because of genetics." This ignores practically -any- environmental force in which any particular human reaction emerges... so to use genetics this way essentially crafts a "scientific" construct based entirely on one's personal interpretation of raw data. To put it another way, the raw data exists but what it means is anyone's guess. I could just as easily claim that, over time, the environment stimulates changes in our genetic code (referred to as genetic "imprinting") and thus, invalidate any claim that genetics is at the root of evolutionary processes in music. It's one of these "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" kind of questions... did the environment imprint changes in genetics or did our genetics lead to our creation of our environment? Either way is plausible, and I just so happen to think it's a little bit of both working at the same time.

Music, in scientific terms, is sounds organized by man for a reason. Music, in more personal terms, is a medium that allows the listener to experience something they couldn't otherwise through other means, i.e. the emotion and spirituality of music are what make music worth existing. This is true of all art; it gives us something that we can't get it we didn't have it. To ignore that fundamental truth is naive.

Music, in scientific terms, could be anything. Music doesn't have to be organized by man to be music, nor does it need a reason. This is why I keep coming back to the arena of sociology to address this, because one of the rather "universal" characteristics of music is that a culture (even consisting of -one- individual) necessarily exists to identify sound as music. But simply due to some correlations among different traditions over time, other characteristics of music tend to make it less necessary for a culture to actually "I.D." some sounds as music. Whatever someone perceives "as music" necessarily has the potential to -be- music regardless of what the music consists of, how they form an awareness or opinion of it, or what genetic factors (if any at all) are involved.

But music isn't just sounds, which is the interesting stuff. Music is much more than just the product, it's the whole range of cognitive mechanisms that work together to allow you to do tons of things you take for granted. Like when you "think" about a tune or you hear music in your head, it's simulation of your perception of sound. Should that also count as music?

Why would we not call a tune or music we hear in our minds "music"? I realize you're responding to Tokke, but was this question rhetorical? Just trying to keep up.

It's simply not this cut and dry, though. Any genetic profile, or "potential" if you will, is useless absent a stimulus from the environment. It doesn't suffice to say that music or the social constructs around it exist "because of genetics." This ignores practically -any- environmental force in which any particular human reaction emerges... so to use genetics this way essentially crafts a "scientific" construct based entirely on one's personal interpretation of raw data. To put it another way, the raw data exists but what it means is anyone's guess. I could just as easily claim that, over time, the environment stimulates changes in our genetic code (referred to as genetic "imprinting") and thus, invalidate any claim that genetics is at the root of evolutionary processes in music. It's one of these "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" kind of questions... did the environment imprint changes in genetics or did our genetics lead to our creation of our environment? Either way is plausible, and I just so happen to think it's a little bit of both working at the same time.

Eh, don't mix things up. You're talking about stimulus which would be OK if we were talking about the origins of traits we evolved as a reaction to variables (environment being one of them.) I'm not sure if you understand just how important genes are and how everything is traceable back to them. It's a very, very, basic concept. Plus I don't see what you're trying to propose instead.

Also, the only way the environment can affect our genes is through a long process of adaptation (survival benefits) to a environment. More importantly, this environment introduces of course other people and hence genes that favored social behavior dealt better and won over those that didn't, and so on. Remember, the environment/other factors must come first if you're going to argue about evolution but this doesn't apply to the present state where we already have the genes.

Likewise we affect the environment we live in, thus what starts out as a survival advantage can have numerous other effects and cause for further adaptations in other things. However notice that these are genetic adaptations influencing further genetic adaptations, whatever changes to the environment being only the mechanisms by which these changes are selected. I already said we don't know yet what exactly was the reason music evolved and there are various hypothesis on the subject, including sexual selection and cognitive misfire of other functions, as well as the Pinker "auditory cheesecake" idea. Here's a good article on it, if outdated in some aspects by newer research:

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Music_Leutwyler_01.html

And here's some further reading regarding current research, though you need to ask nicely for some of the papers:

http://www.stefan-koelsch.de/papers_html.html

Why would we not call a tune or music we hear in our minds "music"? I realize you're responding to Tokke, but was this question rhetorical? Just trying to keep up.

Yeah. It was just to make the point that it isn't just what you hear.

I have a rock next to my bed, and it's music. I don't know anything about "tunes" but I know a lot about geology.

Eh, don't mix things up. You're talking about stimulus which would be OK if we were talking about the origins of traits we evolved as a reaction to variables (environment being one of them.) I'm not sure if you understand just how important genes are and how everything is traceable back to them. It's a very, very, basic concept. Plus I don't see what you're trying to propose instead.

I'm proposing that, "everything is traceable back to [genes]," is a generalization that leads to irrational interpretations. FOR EXAMPLE, let's talk about a human behavior that isn't mechanical and see how it traces back to a gene, like violence or greed. As in, I'm asking for proof that a "violence" gene or a "greed" gene exists, but it's a rhetorical request since such behavior is as complex as one's cognitive processes when considering whether sound is music. So, yes, genetics might account for "some" of this, but the significance of genes in this process seems rather trivial given the much larger context of all the environmental factors influencing how our behavior emerges in a plethora of different ways based on one stimuli.

Also, the only way the environment can affect our genes is through a long process of adaptation (survival benefits) to a environment. More importantly, this environment introduces of course other people and hence genes that favored social behavior dealt better and won over those that didn't, and so on. Remember, the environment/other factors must come first if you're going to argue about evolution but this doesn't apply to the present state where we already have the genes.

I believe the point I'm making with genetic imprinting has more to do with the idea that just because we already have the genes doesn't necessarily mean our behavior is prescriptive to said genetic traits. Just because I could be "genetically wired" to hear tonal harmony as "music" and free-tone harmony as "not music" (hypothetically, of course) doesn't mean that I will absolutely, positively hear all tonal harmony as "music" and all free-tone harmony as "not music." I could be born into a culture that listens exclusively to free-tone harmony and that environment will affect my perceptions of music, regardless of my genetic trait. Of course, I only use this simply as an illustration of my point.

Likewise we affect the environment we live in, thus what starts out as a survival advantage can have numerous other effects and cause for further adaptations in other things. However notice that these are genetic adaptations influencing further genetic adaptations, whatever changes to the environment being only the mechanisms by which these changes are selected. I already said we don't know yet what exactly was the reason music evolved and there are various hypothesis on the subject, including sexual selection and cognitive misfire of other functions, as well as the Pinker "auditory cheesecake" idea. Here's a good article on it, if outdated in some aspects by newer research:

http://cogweb.ucla.e...utwyler_01.html

And here's some further reading regarding current research, though you need to ask nicely for some of the papers:

http://www.stefan-ko...apers_html.html

Awesome. I'll check these out.

Yeah. It was just to make the point that it isn't just what you hear.

That's what I thought.

I have a rock next to my bed, and it's music. I don't know anything about "tunes" but I know a lot about geology.

So, does the rock make a sound while it sits there next to your bed undisturbed? If so, I want one.

mapping, gentlemen, don't forget mapping! genes are scientific term, music is not. to explain music in scientific terms one must complete mapping of these two different terms. as transcribed in Godel's famous theorem - science is mathematics, or it's model is arhithemtical and formal, music is not - to explain music in aritmetico-formal (calculus) system means to map every X and Y of it to values like 1,2,3,4 and so on. and it would be all fine if not, well, incompleteness theorem - there's no proof of complete formal system being consistent derived inside that system, i.e. no scientific operation (if it strictly formal, and we know other type of science) would ever complete the mapping of 'music' onto scientific terms and derive its complete outfit, there will always remain a term that is not provable, nor true nor false, inside the formal system.

so we always need meta-mathematical things like sociology, philosophy or analytic psychology to account for things that fall out of formalisation. and the truth of that acount cannot be scientifically proved or disproved.

so, to say that music is somehow obviously totalised by science of genetic formalism, is to completely ignore the godel's theorem and invalidate logics, that is to say that some phenomena can be totalised by formalising it, is to say that formalism in question admits some inconsistent term and fall into intellectual bad consience. the same goes for environmentalist approach, if it wants to become formalised.

so, be happy, no matter how far we go in scientific research (unless logic changes), there will be always some new real to marvel us with it's infinity.

for science to be consistent it has to pay the price of being incomplete. and that is to be cherished.

so, no! to all you totalisers and ideologists.

Just because I could be "genetically wired" to hear tonal harmony as "music" and free-tone harmony as "not music" (hypothetically, of course) doesn't mean that I will absolutely, positively hear all tonal harmony as "music" and all free-tone harmony as "not music." I could be born into a culture that listens exclusively to free-tone harmony and that environment will affect my perceptions of music, regardless of my genetic trait. Of course, I only use this simply as an illustration of my point.

Actually genetics don't work like that in affecting things that have to do with culture and behavior. You aren't wired to hear X or Y as music or not (though a case can be made towards genetic-predisposed preference to consonance over dissonance according to some of the research) but you ARE wired to perceive things at a basic level the way everyone else does. That is to say, we can all write in English here because we all have the same brain centers that allow us to. Perception of certain things and their effects boil down to the same thing. We can all probably identify a song as "sad" if it contains elements that match our hardwired language settings for how someone who is sad sounds like when they talk. It doesn't mean anything as to the actual opinion of the composer, but this is all from the audience side.

What I was talking about is much more intrinsic than genetics making someone like X over Y, though that also happens plenty in certain things (our preference for sugars rather than, say, sulfur.) When it has to do with multiple functions working together (such as speech and emotions) then things are also more complex and there are more variables. You can pin it on nurture reasons as to why people think X is music and Y isn't, but ultimately what this means is that their brains treat it differently. This is what I was saying with syntax and context. Being exposed to whatever at an early age will make you "sensible" to it, and it will be able to activate things that others won't (regardless if those other things work for other people.)

That's the extent of cultural influence in general, you can be conditioned to listen to things in a certain way, but certain attributes are very much hardwired. These attributes are also coupled with context and syntax, so hence you can get something that within context has X meaning but musically it means Y (a sad-sounding song that represents happyness, for instance.) We can toy around with symbols and meanings thanks to our language capacities and that makes measuring exactly to which extent the hardwired functions matter more difficult. However they do matter plenty and it affects what people produce (how many songs which are labeled by many as "sad" fit the "sad" archetype in speech or behavior?) Since we can observe this, it'd be hard to make a case for it being a coincidence, much less with how consistent this keeps coming up across multiple cultures (plus the studies done support this.)

And the point of saying they are hardwired is simply that there's no way culture can influence them since it would be like saying culture can influence the number of fingers people are born with or if you would grow a tail or not. The perceived flexibility in music definitions and musical variety is due to the fact that while some things are fixed, others are not. Similar to how languages have things in common, but they're vastly different one from the other (portuguese vs korean, or whatever.)

An example would be, say, if someone started screaming angrily at you in a language you didn't understand, say over the phone where you didn't see them. Would you be able to tell they were angry even if you didn't understand the language? Of course you would, as your brain can read other things like the tone of voice, the speed of speech, etc. When we listen to music, we make use of that exact same ability to "read" emotions in music, regardless if we don't understand the particular musical language used.

So I hope that clears it up better.

Actually genetics don't work like that in affecting things that have to do with culture and behavior. You aren't wired to hear X or Y as music or not (though a case can be made towards genetic-predisposed preference to consonance over dissonance according to some of the research) but you ARE wired to perceive things at a basic level the way everyone else does. That is to say, we can all write in English here because we all have the same brain centers that allow us to. Perception of certain things and their effects boil down to the same thing. We can all probably identify a song as "sad" if it contains elements that match our hardwired language settings for how someone who is sad sounds like when they talk. It doesn't mean anything as to the actual opinion of the composer, but this is all from the audience side.

What I was talking about is much more intrinsic than genetics making someone like X over Y, though that also happens plenty in certain things (our preference for sugars rather than, say, sulfur.) When it has to do with multiple functions working together (such as speech and emotions) then things are also more complex and there are more variables. You can pin it on nurture reasons as to why people think X is music and Y isn't, but ultimately what this means is that their brains treat it differently. This is what I was saying with syntax and context. Being exposed to whatever at an early age will make you "sensible" to it, and it will be able to activate things that others won't (regardless if those other things work for other people.)

That's the extent of cultural influence in general, you can be conditioned to listen to things in a certain way, but certain attributes are very much hardwired. These attributes are also coupled with context and syntax, so hence you can get something that within context has X meaning but musically it means Y (a sad-sounding song that represents happyness, for instance.) We can toy around with symbols and meanings thanks to our language capacities and that makes measuring exactly to which extent the hardwired functions matter more difficult. However they do matter plenty and it affects what people produce (how many songs which are labeled by many as "sad" fit the "sad" archetype in speech or behavior?) Since we can observe this, it'd be hard to make a case for it being a coincidence, much less with how consistent this keeps coming up across multiple cultures (plus the studies done support this.)

And the point of saying they are hardwired is simply that there's no way culture can influence them since it would be like saying culture can influence the number of fingers people are born with or if you would grow a tail or not. The perceived flexibility in music definitions and musical variety is due to the fact that while some things are fixed, others are not. Similar to how languages have things in common, but they're vastly different one from the other (portuguese vs korean, or whatever.)

An example would be, say, if someone started screaming angrily at you in a language you didn't understand, say over the phone where you didn't see them. Would you be able to tell they were angry even if you didn't understand the language? Of course you would, as your brain can read other things like the tone of voice, the speed of speech, etc. When we listen to music, we make use of that exact same ability to "read" emotions in music, regardless if we don't understand the particular musical language used.

So I hope that clears it up better.

Eloquently stated. This clears up a great deal of the discussion, so thanks.