I had a smiley face and maybe people thought I was being condescending so I removed it. I just really like this topic lol

Music education is also super behind neuroscience and psychology so there's a lot of growing pains in our discipline, adjusting to these new models of cognition and culture.

It totally is a simplification but its a framework that works. Birds making the sound are still an "artist", or specifically from a cognitive science perspective, an agent that produces or modifies the stimulus.

Those artists using random sounds are still an agent putting intention into a stimulus through its presentation.

There doesn't need to be a separation between "artist" and "audience" either. By observing a stimulus, you yourself modify the perception of the stimulus through a psychological phenomena known as predictive processing.

One of my research areas is in music psychology, just my 2 cents. Definitely an interesting discussion

For sound or "noise" to be "music" you need an artist (intention of stimulus) and an audience (perception of stimulus) which you could argue is a form of organization/pattern/structure

The silence, or the sounds in the silence, was the music :)

That last link is still just an article about a study, where is the actual paper? It doesn't make any mention of music. They only tested 12 people, and they were all men? That's a very small and not diverse sample size. They mention melody in quotes to describe the tonal variance between male and female voices but that is not what melody means. It's hard to say exactly what the author meant when i can't find the actual published paper making me question if it was peer reviewed to begin with.

And to clear up any confusion, music and language have overlapping cognitive resources as music is suggested to be a precursor form of communication for our species.