I'm not sure that that has any relevance to my last comment, Ray, and in any case, I'd have to disagree. You can sing a song on a single note & it is still a song. Moreover, your "tune" disqualifies drummers, who don't play a tune, as musicians. Music requires rhythm as well, or it becomes a morass of noise. A poem, spoken properly, has rhythm, and therefore has musicality. Is it music? I don't know where I'd draw the line. Shakespeare, on the page, is verse and, again, spoken properly has rhythm & musicality, but I know I wouldn't call that music; it remains a play, a performance.

I do recall visiting a storytelling / music festival at St Donats some years back, somewhere around 2000 (erk!). There was an epic poet from a Central Asian former Soviet republic. He, apparently, could perform for hours from memory. He spoke no English, but chanted (i.e. sung on one note) whatever fragment from his people's epics he had chosen. I didn't understand a word, but it was interesting to watch & listen to as a performance. I've performed the same way myself. I've also seen both Stomp, and the Kodo drummers from Japan - no tunes involved, but the Kodo drummers certainly are musicians, so surely Stomp are not merely "performance artists"?

My OED defines music as "The art or science of combining vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion." The inclusion of harmony seems odd, possibly outdated to me - a lot of modern music is deliberately decidedly unharmonious! Moreover, the definition apparently disqualifies singers and soloists on many instruments - you have to have two notes for harmony to come into play! And again this would appear to exclude drummers as musicians. I can't tell you precisely where I think something starts being music, all I can say is I can't accept a definition that excludes drummers!