So to sum up the arguments:
Marty: An instrument is an object that can create original and new music. It is also intended to create music, and not just be a figurepiece.Leo: The moment an object produces a deliberate sound, beat, and/or pattern, it is an instrument. An instrument does not need to be able to produce an original score, it just needs to produce a distinctive sound and/or rhythm that can be manipulated to create something.(I chose these two because they were the most extreme out of everyone who replied here.)
To conclude, I think this quote says alot:
Music is defined in many ways. From "the art of combining tones to form expressive compositions" to "any rhythmic sequence of pleasing sounds." These definitions either restrict or expand what is defined as music and at the same time what can be called a musical instrument.
Since there is no exact definition of what music 'is,' each person has to draw a line somewhere and say that "This is music" or "This is not music," "This is a musical instrument" or "This is not a musical instrument." Because nothing is set in stone, and because every person is different, we will each have our own views as to what is what and what isn't. If something makes sense to one person, it may not make any sense to another. One person may have proof that life after death is real; another person may think that afterlife is preposterous. A 'bailout' makes sense to some people, but other people may fail to see the logic in this action.
We have discussions like this because no one sees the world the same way as the person next to you or across the world. There are billions of people on this planet. If you ask all of them the same question, you will get billions of responses and a different response each time. The point for questions and discussions is to see what other people feel, to see what other people think about the same situation. I think we have accomplished that here plus more.
