I don't know what you're whining about. I addressed the point of notes agreeing with one another in my post.

I simply think your attempts to phrase your personal opinions as objective statements of fact are misguided and silly. There are no objective ways to classify certain types of sound "music" and some as "noise." All of your quoted dictionary definitions incorporate subjectivity. Whether a harmony and melody agree is subjective. No music theorist on Earth would say that you can decide objectively whether they do or not.

So, sure...your opinion is that they do not and that Radiohead isn't music. That's not a fact, though.

I'm not sure what you want in terms of explanation for why people who like Radiohead find the music lovely. Subjective experiences can't be described in a way that will make someone who doesn't share the same perspective understand it, generally.

Why? I'm genuinely curious why you think there needs to be, I'm not trying to be argumentative.

As for Radiohead, I will give some thought to it to see if I have anything I can think of that may be of use to someone who doesn't like their work but wants to understand it.

I'm trying to wrap my mind around how Radiohead could not be music. Their songs have melody, harmony and rhythm, I think even using a conservative definition of music, they easily fit the bill.

Music and noise are separated by one simple thing: intent. It's the same thing that separates a grocery list from a poem or a mound of clay from a sculpture.

I think that's exactly it. Great way of putting it!

I'm guessing you heard Kid A or Amnesiac which are more experimental sounding. Both those albums still fit the conservative definition of music (rhythm, harmony, melody) that I mentioned earlier though.

Nope, that's pretty much the opposite of what I'm saying. If you are organizing sound with the intent of making music then, as far as I'm concerned, you're making music. That doesn't necessarily mean it's music I personally like, it just means it's music.

Hardly, it's the intent of the composer that matters, not external recognition.

It would indeed be a poem if you intended it, but it would most likely be utter ****. Art can be terrible as well as beautiful, and that is why the definitions that say music must be agreeable are really stretching it, by venturing into realms of pure subjectivity.

First things first; I hate Radiohead. That said, as unpleasant as I may find their brand of noise/pop/rock/whatever, I would still call it music. Forget what the dictionary says; as some people pointed out, defining music as "pleasant" makes the entire exercise subjective.

Some people say that rap music is an oxymoron. Fifty years ago, those same people would have probably been the ones saying that Elvis Presley wasn't making "music" (or 100 years ago, that Stravinsky wasn't making music...et. cetera). It's the same with Radiohead. You may not like it, but part of the appeal of great music is that it challenges. Not all challenging music is great, but it is a fundamental aspect of music that it doesn't rest comfortably with the status quo.

...and hypothetically, say it's not music? Say it is merely "art" (choose your label). Does that change its value? White Light/White Heat is a great album, whether you call it "music" or "noise."

i think noise and music can co-exist...
just look at any shoe-gazer music!

....and i dont get that first bit about radiohead being noise...seems a bit silly...the new albums intensely tuneful