Muzak!

I wanted to blog on this topic ever since it was brought up in class. The topic of Muszak. According to Davies, Muszak is when we decouple the work of an artist from the masterpiece (in this case when we decouple the composer from the musical piece. Davies says, "Music composed originally to be contemplated or to invigorate religious ritual is used now a days as ambient background for other activities or is appropriated for functions other than intended ones, as when it is used for TV commercials." I must say that I disagree with him. I think music is music not this muzak he talks about. So what if music is used as background noise to fill an awkward silence or used to make a commercial or movie more interesting. It still has the elements of music and it still fulfills the parameters of what we call organized sound.

Why differentiate and say just because we may not associate music with its composer it is not music at the moment to us. What if we like a song, but don't know who the composer is and therefore just like the song for its elements? Music is music and it helps fill in the blanks of life. I don't understand why Davies differentiates calling the coupling of a composer with its work music and the decoupling muszak. Imagine if there was no music on TV, because I doubt that with every commercial that one person is going to know each composer that goes with the song playing. I use music to kill time and exercise without really thinking about who the composer is and the purpose the song was made. Does this mean that when I am doing this it is muszak to me? I don't understand what Davies is trying to get at. I understand the point he is trying to make, but not by what grounds he could make this statement. My question is, Can a song be music to one person and "muszak" to another given one person has advanced musical expertise in coupling composers with songs and the other does not.