Introductory blog: Emily Knight

As my first blog post officially I thought I should just introduce myself and share my thoughts and ideas on music and even share what kind of music I listen to. I'm 19 and I currently double major in biology and philosophy, I'm a sophomore and I'm a huge rock and roll fan in case you can't tell by looking at me lol. I sometimes wish I would of been born in the 70's so I could be this age back in the 80's and 90's when rock and roll really took off. With that being said my view on what music is takes more of an aesthetic approach, I would normally agree with the acousmatic approach but since it doesn't fully cover jazz music in its definition i'm really just tempting to come up with my own. Basically I view music as a man made thing first off. Music is also a man made word so I think it fits. I honestly don't see why we get so angry when we try to include natural sounds as music. Why not come up with a more fitting term to describe and categorize natures music as we did with man made music. I think the term music is used and abused in modern day English, I view music as a collected of sounds intended for aesthetic enjoyment that is composed and performed to the height of its musical capabilities with the intention of captivating and moving an audience to its sound. If you think of music as being man made its easy to see music as having an intended purpose. People write music with an underlying purpose and that purpose is for others to listen to it and for them to think about what they just heard. Music provokes thought and imagination. It is the metaphor of composition with sounds and melodies. Music can transcend language and convey thoughts and feelings with out ever speaking words. Also why do we value great composers such as Mozart and Bach? Because they used music to show their genius and skill. They mastered their craft and the product of their craft is the best of all others. We awe at their abilities to make us think and feel a certain way when listening to their music. Its as if a writer were to make a compelling metaphor that painted a picture in your mind as you were reading a novel. Also I'm wondering as I type this. What's the difference between labeling musicians composers and artists? Now a day we call someone who engages in musical activity an artist (usually in pop) and a composer usually in classical and a musician for the gray areas in between. Why do we have a need to have three names for distinct genres of music that all really try to do the same basic thing? Why is Beethoven a composer, Louis Armstrong a musician and Michael Jackson an artist? Is there a huge difference? All I can think of to separate the three is their responsibilities held with in their professions. For example, Beethoven is the lead director that commands and orchestra to play his prepared pieces but he himself doesn't need to play along with them. Louis Armstrong may or may not write the pieces for his players but he plays along side them in a more democratic fashion and does not sing. Michael Jackson may not write or play his on songs but he's a fabulous singer and dancer and utilizes technology to enhance his music. So my question also is, If there is such a difference among these musical professionals, does that difference also mean that one may be better than the other? Can Michael Jackson really be placed on the same level as Mozart even though he can't play instruments? What is the difference in sung music and music played with an instrument?