Definition of Music
In our daily life, we casually listen to music and talk about music with others. At that time, we use the word [music] without thinking deeply and talk about the subject [music]. So I ask, what is [music]? We treat "music" called "jazz" and "gagaku" [music] together as [music]. (Gagaku is traditional Japanese court music.)@But I have the question of whether each [music] is originally quite foreign. And what do we think about the meaning of [music] including heterogeneous jazz and gagaku? I want to reveal this to you from now on. I try to define [music] here. However, when I try to define [music], [music] gets out of the definition I tried. For example I suppose that music is defined as being composed of sounds. You may think that this definition seems to apply to all [music]. However, I can point out music that does not fit this definition. For example, [music], which was positioned as one of the seven departments of the seventh freedom at medieval European universities, has a strong aspect as a model of mathematical harmony and is considered to be totally different from actually emitting sound It was something. Also in classical music in the second half of the 20th century, there is [music] that does not assume the sound of sound. Therefore, I must admit that music does not matter whether there is sound or not. In other words, it does not necessarily mean that it is music, because there is sound. So I began to think that it is logically impossible to define [music]. Therefore, even if I try to define [music], I can only arrange some of the features of [music].
But looking around me, I notice that [music], which should be impossible to define, is flooded. Also, since I can think like [the music] is obviously obvious, I dare to describe this, I will be embarrassed. For we cannot define a strict and logical definition of [music], but we implicitly understand the meaning of [music] as ambiguously. And since we have ambiguous meaning of [music], we use the meaning of [music] conveniently for ourselves. For example, I do not say that the sound of a piano's key caused by a cat walking is music. However, I call music as a pianist playing the piano. That is obvious to me. However, it is difficult for me to clarify the criteria for distinguishing between cats and pianists.
In conclusion, I define [music] as follows. "Music is nothing other than music." This definition is logically the same word repetition. And it looks like a Zen dialogue, you do not know what I want to say. So, I would like to clarify the contents of this definition from now on. At that time, I would like to recommend it while thinking about the structure [music] obviously and generally accepted.
UDThinking the music into three stages
First of all, I will consider what is commonly used [music] in three stages. But I will put up the reason why. That is because I need it to push the way forward. Below, I would like you to read it as such assumption.
@Definition of [music] in the broadest sense
The definition of [music] in the broadest sense means the ability to respond to human universal music, the ability to compose sounds, the ability to feel and encourage various things in music, and the overall activities thereof . This is what all humans have, potentially. This definition is a concept to be a prerequisite for the definition of the later two stages. I will call the definition in the broadest sense as music ability.
General music is music in the same culture-based community. This is a general meaning including the backbone which makes a boundary line that separates whether the sound of one sound is music or noise in the society to which human belongs. For example, when Mr. B listens to Mr. A's performance, if there is no common basis about music between the two, the performance will not be established as music on the spot. The common musical base in this case is the meaning of this general music.
Specific music is an individual song and performance. In reality, songs played by me or you, or performances are applicable.
CMusic ability and General music
An infant that grew in a flock of wolves in France in the 19th century was discovered. This so-called Aveyron's wild child did not show interest in music. Despite having a very good hearing, he does not respond to music. Perhaps he had the ability to feel the music potentially. He could not demonstrate his ability. To react to music is typically B to listen as a song that A sings a song. In this case, A and B share the music base. This is common to people other than A and B. As Aristotle says, humans are social animals. I think that the existence of a society that human beings are indispensable for music to hold as it is. In society, humans think that a newborn baby learns music as well as learn languages by imitation and training. Here you can see that training requires training. Avelon's wild child did not respond to music because it lacked the necessary training. Like this, everyone has music ability. But it is potential, so this must be socialized by training to appear in the table. In this relationship, it is common music that the potential musical ability has become socialized and manifested. And at this time it is a society that manifests itself, and if it limits more, it is a culture that holds in the society.
DGeneral music and
Music is established in society. In fact, music emerges from individuals' works and performances. For example, in music that was established in the modern European bourgeois society, there is a certain pattern in the structure of the scale, how to combine harmonics, making melody, and so on. This pattern is not decided by anyone, people are not conscious of the pattern. By accepting this pattern, people feel that the overlap of certain sounds is harmonized as a chord. Composers do composition according to this pattern. In other words, the pattern appears in one work through the individual act of composition. People in the 19th century heard chords such as Tri-tone and Major 7th as discordance. In contrast, jazz musicians in the 20th century American made a unique sound of jazz by frequently using chords such as tri-tone and major seventh. When listening to Bill Evans' piano performances by the 19th century bourgeois, they feel noise.
However, if only a few people in them feel that this is a new sounding music, pattern innovation will occur from there.
Let's sort out a bit here. The pattern I've been talking about is general music. And each piece is concrete music. In the previous chapter, general music, or pattern, was the manifestation of the ability of human music. But here, this pattern is a latent potential, and what this embodied is concrete music, that is, it is an individual work.
When B listens to the performance of A, if there is no common thing about music (common music) between the two, the performance does not hold as music on the spot. But this general music does not have entities. The entity has individual works and performances to the last. So both general music and concrete music are interdependent. Sometimes, patterns that should not have entities appear to be great pressures for individuals such as composers, as if there are entities. He feels as bondage. However, this is originally the accumulation of individual works and performances. So, at first it is from individual works and performances that this pattern changes or becomes new. Anytime, anywhere, the development of music is a private act.
VDThinking about the way music is based on classical music and jazz
What I've been thinking about is not unique to music, it applies to the whole media of communication. Music is a kind of expression. So the same applies to languages. But originally, music and language are different things. It is impossible to argue that in the same way. For example, let's say the word "dog" with a clear voice of soprano, but it will not change to "dog" whether it is hard to listen without opening the mouth. On the other hand, in the case of music, we can not make these two same. As I said so far, I noticed that there might be some music with this same. But I can not withdraw the word that I can not do. I certainly seem to be considering [music] based on what I am currently listening to. In other words, even if I try to tell [music], I will tell you, primarily with my favorite jazz and classical music in mind. So, here, I will not impossibly try to think about [music] in general, I will think based on jazz and classical music. So, I will think about the general music out of three levels of [music] I thought in the previous place.
@Sound of music and sound of everyday life
In our daily life, we live surrounded by various sounds. I think I will consider this separately from the sound of music. We always listen to the sound of everyday life as to what it was originated from. That sort of thing is roughly visible. So, when we listen to the sounds of our daily lives, it complements what we see. For example, the sound of boiling water in a kettle, dropping coins on the floor, sounds of close friends. For us, the sound of everyday life tells what generates the sound. So, we will not listen to listening to the sounds of daily life.
On the other hand, the sound of music is certainly emitted from things in common with the sound of everyday life. Sound of the piano. Sound of the violin. These sounds are not just supplements to seeing. For example, someone closes their eyes and listens to music. When we listen to the sound of music, from the viewpoint of seeing, we separate it to some extent and listen to listen.
ASound of music makes sounds meaningful
The sound of music is different from the sound of everyday life. However, when the sound of music is separated from the context of the music and taken out alone, it is not the sound of music. On the contrary, the sound of a piano ringing alone is simply a physical sound by itself, but when it is used in a melody or rhythm it becomes a sound of music. The same sound becomes a simple physical sound and also the sound of music depending on the situation given to it. So, what makes the sound of this time the sound of music?
BMusic sound and music
The sound of music itself cannot be established as the sound of music alone. The sound of music is the sound of music only when it is located in music. Then, how about the music against the sound, conversely? Music has sounds, for the first time I can actually listen. Is music organized by individual sounds? I do not think so. Since the sound of music is based on the assumption that there is music, if music assumes a sound, it will be a circular logic, that is, inconsistent. Music is different from building a house by stacking bricks one by one. Music consists of relationships that sound and sound do not depend on individual sounds. In other words, the relation with music is overlapped and it looks like the eye of the net. I will call it the system.
Music and sound are not like things like whole and part. For example, there is [meaning] in the word "music", and for the first time there is [meaning] in letters. Let's explain why [meaning] and parenthesized. Usually, when using the word meaning, it generally refers to the contents of words. Sometimes I do something like "I have no meaning even if I am here." This [meaning] refers to the content that I am here is worth. In other words, it means value, so I think that it is good to replace [meaning] here with value. That's why there is [meaning] as a whole, music that adds [meaning] to the sound of music is a system of values. The sound of music gets its existence value for the first time in the interrelationship between the relationship with music as a whole and other sounds. The sound C cannot be music alone by itself, there are other sounds E and G, and by being related to them, it becomes music. At that time, the sound C is necessary because there is music. That is the existence value of C's sound. This is not only the sound of C, but also the sounds of E and G. The sound of CEG gives mutual value and is sought. Their existence values are born from each other's relationships, born from the eyes of a network of relationships of system.
The existence value of sound is not unique to individual sound. So, the magnitude of the value is relatively determined in the relationship. For example, when we say the sound of the piano is beautiful, we are not saying that the sound of the piano is independent and beautiful. We grasp the whole music and think that the sound of the piano is beautiful as a constituent element of music while balancing other sounds in relation to that music. We only listen to the sound of C and never think it is beautiful. Although we listen to a song, it is a beautiful song, but in particular, I feel that the sequence of CEG is particularly beautiful and its tone can not be said anything. So, because of the inherent nature of one sound, its value is not determined.
CMusic is a system containing conflict
The sound of music is meant by the system of music. Sound is given the value in the system of music, it becomes the sound of music having "meaning" from the physical sound. For example, I buy a book. I found out the value I should buy for that book. Among many other books, I distinguished only that book as a special one from other books. However, the value of this book is not absolute, it is only a relative one found from the viewpoint of me. Even people other than me can not even take that book. In other words, from my point of view, I will distinguish one book from the other from a number of books and give it the value to buy because it is different from the others. The system of value assignment of music also has the same function.
The sound in music is the same as long as it is sound. The value of each sound is not unique to that sound. So, if you take out individual sounds independently, the value is the same. At this time, the value of each sound is different from other sounds, as it has found value by distinguishing one book from the others that it is different from others It is decided. [Meaning] attaching is such a work. The sounds of music are in conflict of conflicting things that they are mutually identical while being distinguished by each other's differences. The system of music always has such conflict inside. To value is to distinguish. Distinction produces a difference between the same. That is conflict. This confrontation creates value.
DWhat is a relationship?
The sound of music is given value in the system of music. I think a little about the mechanism here. The value itself does not have a unique entity. Value is given relatively in relation to the system of music. SO the way of value is determined by what kind of relationship is. When I listen to music, I think a certain sound is beautiful, not by the absolute beauty of the sound itself, but by how I listen. Relationship is, in this case, how I listen.
EVertical relationship and horizontal relationship
There are two types of relationships: vertical relationship and horizontal relationship. I first think about the relationship of outstanding vertical. By the way, I would like to think of language system. Consider, for example, the sentence "John hit Paul." What happened in reality is John's hand raised, John's fist moved in space and reached Paul . In the process, this process means that the action of [hit] that originated from [John] has reached [Paul]. In this language, in the language, [John] [hit] [Paul] will be in turn. But we feel as unnatural in this order as a language. Apart from the reality of the process of [John] [hit] [Paul], the language has its own rules. Words organize words according to the rules and make a relation called sentences. As a result, meaning appears. In this case, the meaning of each word comes from the position in the sentence and the relationship with other words. We understand that we associate the word [hit] with the actual act of [John]. I will call this a vertical relationship. But music and language are different. In the case of music, the rules are not as strict as the language. Music is not just an array of single sounds. In addition to the main melody, if accompaniment is attached, there is a connection of harmony there, and multiple sequences coexist side by side. However, it is the same that vertical relationships appearing in front of the ears of the listener to clearly show the value of the sound and relationships.
When I listen to music, I may anticipate the next sound. I am listening to a certain melody partway, and it seems like this next, I anticipate that this sound seems to come. In many cases, I make mistakes in my prediction. I enjoy this a lot. In the relationship of melody, each sound is valued. While I was listening to the melody, I predicted the earlier sound. At that time, I chose a certain sound with value to go on from a single point of view. But when I actually heard the next sound, I noticed that it was a different sound than expected. The sound that appears before me as music is hiding the flock of sounds that could not be selected behind them. I will call the parallel relationship between the sound that appears and the hidden sound group as a horizontal relationship. Horizontal relationship is not a self-sustaining rule other than music other than music in the system of music like vertical relationship. That is because one sound is chosen because it depends on the viewpoint and image of the choosing person. It is inevitable for the choosing that the sound coming after a certain sound inevitably becomes like this. The constraints of the rules inherent in music itself are sparse.
bjVertical relationship and horizontal relationship
The two relationships are like grammar and dictionary. Both are dependent on each other. We bring some independent words from the dictionary and arrange words according to grammar. This is a mistake. The word originally contained in the dictionary is based on the assumption that meaning is given in the sentence. Moreover, grammar also assumes the existence of a word. When I listen to music, there is something like a pattern by both of them in the head, and according to it, I listen to music. To accumulate our music experience is to accumulate this pattern in various ways. I understand Brahms 'music is that I found this pattern in Brahms' music.
WD"Meaning" when listening to jazz and classical music by dogmas and prejudice
In the previous chapter, with consideration of jazz and classical music in general, I have been thinking about how to express music. And from here, I would like to think about the appearance of music mainly when I listen to individual performances etc. So in the previous chapter we deal with general music in contrast to music abilities, whereas in this chapter we will deal with general music in contrast to concrete music.
@Is music a means of communication of things?
I mentioned in the previous chapter that music is presupposed for the existence of some common rules between composers and performers and listeners. At that time, I have been promoting discussion while comparing it with the structure of music and words. However, I think that listening to music, listening to words and talking are fundamentally different. Music has something similar to words, but I do not circulate like words. A word seems to point to something, whether it is a thing, emotion or concept. From the word "dog" we are reminiscent of living creatures that are seeds of reality neighbor's Pochi or animal illustrations dog. We think they are inseparably convoluted.
Music cannot be this kind of thing. It is not strictly a rule that it refers to something with a certain sound form like a language. However, I anticipate an objection that music is something that cannot be clearly expressed by emotional words, or not. For example, the music expresses certain specialized emotions, such as being filled with deep sorrow or singing joy that makes life vibrate. A minor scale or minor represents something sad. I do not believe that music is a means of communicating the feeling of "sad", a tool of communication, even when listening to such an assertion. If you tell "sad", I do not rely on anything like girly music, and I think that I should say "I am sad" directly. Besides, I believe that the individually segmented emotions such as emotions and feelings that are felt in reality in everyday life are within the world of relationships of words. In other words, there was a feeling of "sad" originally, it was not named "sad" by words. The word "sad" distinguishes feelings or moods that seem to be heterogeneous from a viewpoint of "sad" as a kind of emotion or mood. "Sad" is a few books taken out by my taste as a word from the emotional feeling of a bookstore's bookshelf. So "sad" is a word only and nothing else. For us living in our daily languages, the individual feelings are sorted out in terms of language. So I listen to music and feel some individual feelings is not because the music expresses it, it is a kind of effect / action that works for me, the music is a listener. To feel "sad" emotion in music is an accompanying phenomenon when I listen to music.
The meaning of music is established in the relationship in a closed system of music. So, there is no sound form to point out something out of the music (what is expressed by words). On the contrary, there is a certain sound form, and the one represented by it is born for the first time. So, the music itself is meaningful and it is also an appearance of sound. Music will be established only after these two sides coincide. As the words distinguish the meanings expressed as "sad" from the feelings of feeling with the word "sad", the music creates meaning by segmentation with a certain sound form. But it is not inevitable that I, as a listener, must link the sound form and the segmented mood feelings as inevitable. So, there is no necessity of connecting a sound form and a segment segmentation of it. There is freedom there.
AExpressions and meanings
We thinked in the previous chapter that music is a dual existence having expression and meaning at the same time. If we compare music to a piece of paper, the expression and meaning are its front and back. If I put scissors in this paper table, we cut not only the front side but also the back side. In music, expressions and meanings are interdependent. They are based on the existence of each other. Before, we thought about the difference between the pianist playing the piano and the cat running around the keyboard with or without meaning. It is because pianists and cats are exactly the same in the sounds of the sounds, so that the pianist's performance is regarded as music is because we regard it as meaningful. And to that extent the sound of the piano is the expression of music. So, the existence of meaning is premised on the formation of expression. In addition, since the meaning of music is classified by expression and positioned as a system of music, meaning cannot be established without expression. But in music, expressions dominate the meaning. This is because music appeals to the senses. For example, when a pianist plays one sound form with a piano, if this sound form and its meaning are inseparable and the two are equal, since the meaning of the sound form is one, even if it is played with legato, the same thing must. However, depending on whether the pianist plays with legato or playing with staccat, it becomes completely different in music. And for the time being, expression and meaning are not separated.
Finally, the expression is not just a physical sound, and the meaning is that it does not refer to reality outside the music that exists separately from music. In other words, "expression" is not "equipment" which is the premise of "contents", but it does not end with "contents" that flows into the mold called "equipment".
BForm and real thing
Music that became a coherent part of expression and meaning is like a mesh expanded on a sandy beach. This web makes various patterns on the sandy beach. And this network itself does not exist as an entity. It is human beings that made this net and expanded. We call the weaving of the eyes of this web as a form and decide to deal with the real thing as opposed to the form. The essence of music is in the form. In the previous chapter, I said that because music is appealing to the senses, the expression dominates the meaning. For example, depending on whether you play a certain sound form with legato or play with stacart, its meaning will change. Then, what exactly is the original sound form itself? Will it be a separate one? For example, in variations, we treat the theme that appears by changing the shape one after another as the same even if the shape changes. These two examples seem to be contradictory at first glance. However, this is a discussion of identity.
There are two levels of identity. One is a level of real thing, the other is a level of form. For example. When A said that he used "Hikari" from Tokyo Station at 9 o'clock yesterday, B said, "I used the same train last month", C said "I am on the same train as A "I said. B and C said "the same train" respectively. What they said is different from that context. The "same train" that B says is the identity on the timetable as seen from the point of departure of the train, from departure and arrival stations, etc. On the contrary, "the same train" as C is the identity of the viewpoint of a physical vehicle and the same crew. At this time, the viewpoint of B corresponds to a viewpoint of a form, and the viewpoint of C corresponds to a real viewpoint. What constitutes the train "Hikari" is not the real number such as the number and material of the vehicle, the composition of the crew and the number of passengers, but it is nothing more than the departure time, departure and arrival stations, journey and other conditions. So, all the differences and conflicts that distinguish that "Hikari" from other trains are components of "Hikari".
Expression of music is not real such as the physical resonance of individual sound. If so, there will be no substitute for the sound of music and car horn. The fact that music is a kind of system is also applicable in terms of expression. In the expression of music, the form has an essential constitution, but the real supports it.
And the meaning of music is not a substance, it is a kind of phenomenon cut out by a certain viewpoint and sorted out.
On the other hand, in terms of meaning, in figurative terms, it is everything that can be experienced by human beings outside the music. This means that the subject reality exists before the music and what it is like to exist. The meaning, of course, assume the target to point to. We will try to hear what music represents. Is it reality outside of music that music is about to show? If composers and performers try to convey words such as "thoughts", "messages" or "emotions" (music outside reality) with music, you should use a direct medium of words. The song message "We are the world" is exclusively from words, ie lyrics only. The meaning of this message is the reality of the language in which the words are segmented. Music, like this language, separates the reality of music separately from the language. So, the reality that exists before music is like a sand beach before you can see the mesh of music in the form of music. Suppose there is a cup on the table in front of me. For the first time, I think of this cup as a drinking tool, that is, by giving meaning, for the first time a relationship exists between me as a simple glass lump as a cup. To the extent that I recognize the cup. Here, the real personality which conflicts with the new form has become a problem. Even though expressions and meanings include some reservation, even when it is said that they are essentially shapes, they must be supported by their respective realities whenever music actually occurs. It is the actual ringing that the actual individual performance and the works exist, and that is the real meaning in the relationship of music. If so, is real is things that were segmented or segmented according to the form of expression or meaning, or is it the reality that exists before music? Real thing has an ambiguous personality.
Naturally, if the form and real thing conflict, you will only take on the character of the former. Therefore, let's call the latter left behind as material for the time being.
I have been worried about confusing you, as the discussion so far is too complicated. Let's organize the model and think. In fact, there was a double binary confrontation between form and real thing, and material and material with them. Material of expression is a sound as a simple real thing separate from music, unrelated to shape. On the other hand, the real expression of expression is the sound of music that exists only when there is a form of expression. As well as this, the material of meaning is the reality that exists before music. And, on the other hand, the real meaning of the meaning is that the material has been segmented by the eye of the net shape, that is, it is meaningful. Here, the relationship between the three, material is one that can be caught as chaotic before being segmented by form. It is real that this material is segmented through expression and meaning. What we listen to is that the expression and meaning are in a state of unintentional unity as in the backside of a piece of paper. That is an expression equal to the meaning.
Therefore, real thing is the thing that the listener cut from the material with a certain viewpoint. The viewpoint is what forms the eyes of a net. The system of music can exist for the first time given the meaning by the relationship with you who is the listener. In this sense, music can not exist prior to the relationship that human beings are listening to. Music is only a sound, unless you give meaning by you. The listener gives meaning to this by working on the sound which is the material. You realize the material, it is part of the act of listening to music. Here, when you give meaning to the material, you do not do it arbitrarily. Your actions are also regulated by meaningful music. Your consciousness will also be given a kind of meaning. Shapes not only form interdependence relationships between expressions and meanings in a closed system of music, but also form the relationship that the listener listens to music.
CAbout Freedom of Music
I will think about what I mentioned at the end of @. If you say freedom, you may be received as if you listen to music without permission. Then contradicts what I said at the end of the previous chapter. First of all, I will think about it in two dimensions.
First freedom is freedom of expression. It lies between the expression and the meaning. The fact that the sound form like a melody segmented and formed a meaning means that there is no inevitable connection between the meaning of this meaning and its sound form. In this case there is no logical necessity between expression and meaning. So why does not this contradict the expression and meaning as being coincident? Freedom is not an individual selfish feeling but rather a given necessity as in natural law, for example. The connection between expression and meaning is due to cultures accumulated in human social activities. So, the necessity of the bond between expression and meaning is because it is free.
The second freedom is freedom of value. In V, I talked about the existence value of individual sounds or sound forms of music being determined from the relation with music as a whole and relation with other sounds and sound forms. The value that a certain sound form exists in places other than music is reflected, and the sound form itself has no individual absolute value. It is relative within a single autonomous closed system. So when you use the same sound form in another music piece, the value of that sound form is completely different. Music also depends on the viewpoint of the person involved in it. The system which determines the value itself will eventually depend on the viewpoint. So, there is no inevitable rule like the law of nature regarding the existence value of sound. It is also conceivable that my viewpoint as a listener is regulated by the system of music, and I can also say that I capture the reality of music through music. This is freedom of value.
What was expressed by the relationship between expression and meaning was originally appeared by applying a net of music system. Expression and meaning are in the system of music. So freedom of expression is a consequential product of freedom of value. If the second freedom is arbitrariness of value, it involves both vertical and horizontal relationships as a value-producing relationship.
Freedom is not an individual selfish feeling, it is like a rule in society that we make. However, in a society that created rules, a falling situation arises, which you feel as an absolutely inevitable thing from the beginning. The rule loses the original vividness that was created, transforms it into inertia, and becomes binding for you. In your consciousness, certain sounds and sound forms and specific emotions and images are difficult to share. Originally mutual, expression and meaning become independent as they exist with entities. Moreover, the system of music is not made by the viewpoint, but it is materialized.
This is because things that should be your voluntary activities are supposedly confined to the inevitable world that is not compromised with what was pressed. For example, you consider music as a means of communicating concrete emotions and thoughts of composers and performers. You absolutely want to listen to what is written in the commentary and listen to it as it is.
Even in such a fall situation, the necessity of expression and meaning is within the limit that it is free. In other words, relationships between expression and meaning are inevitably established only in a common culture that has been accumulated on an ongoing basis in the process of individuals forming society. Inevitable in this case, originally, it is just a promise. Otherwise, it is impossible to say that progress in musical expression is such. Such a convention is an accumulation of individual activities. That is why individual behavior is to change conventions. Freedom is not selfish. However, to say so, there should be no need to listen to the music according to the textbook. Anyway, that is what human beings made.
XDDefining music again
Let's go to the conclusion. I will return to the definition of music at the beginning.
Music has the freedom to establish as a form based on the viewpoint. So, if the basic viewpoint is different, the music formed based on it will also be different. This is the same as drawing a web spread over a sandy beach with various shapes.
This difference is the same concept as the difference considered in II. The value of sound of music is also the value of music itself from the viewpoint. Differences are based on identity. Differences need comparison on the same ring. So, it is because various people define [music] variously, on the premise of some common thing there. And I think that this common thing is what is defined as the first place except "anything other than music."
The definition "music is nothing but music" is a seemingly same word repetition. However, the meaning differs between the two "music" in the above definition, just as the meaning varies with the whole asever one sound form is repeated in a music work. So, this is not the same word repetition only as a definition of "music".