[redial]

Music is waves and frequency. Music appreciation is what you are describing. And appreciation is very dependant on culture. That is why Bach is not (as) appreciated in certain cultures.

Just like photography. Why is one photograph more meaningful than another? it has nothing to do with photography, per se, it has everything to do with the culture of the person doing the appreciation.

There is a link between the two, between creation and appreciation, and those who understand it generally fare better. But it is not required to be a musician, or a photographer or a poet or anything really.

[pdkl95]

> Music is waves and frequency.

Sound is waves and frequency. Music is a collection of sounds arranged in a specific sequence.

> Music appreciation is what you are describing. And appreciation is very dependant on culture.

Music relies on various "tropes" to construct a narrative. This includes the choice of key/scale (or none at all), ideas about timing and harmony, etc. These "standard parts" of music are usually from the local culture, just like how a play or movie will use standard character archetypes ("tropes") that are culturally derived.

[gugagore]

"music is waves and frequency" in the same way that "spoken language is waves and frequency"---not very usefully. I think bringing in" appreciation" muddies the waters.

[redial]

I was just responding to the parent who claimed that music was not "waves and frequency".

My point is music is (mostly) independent of its appreciation. Machines can, and do, make music based entirely on the theory of music.