For the draconian acousmatic thesis, one would completely ignore the origin of a tone when deciding what is and is not music. This is because the acousmatic thesis is concerned with the thought process one experiences when listening to music, divorcing it entirely from its physical origin. We discussed how this is problematic, as a listener could be deceived, such as the case of an acousmatic listener presented with purely artificial electronic music and led to believe that it was actually composed by a person; the problem arising in an acousmatic listener having no discernible criteria for distinguishing the two.
This led me to agree with Hamilton that there is more to music than purely our thoughts on the tonal construction. The instrumentation, the sight of the performance, simply knowing truthfully what it is we are listening to plays a role. The importance of this role is questionable, but nonetheless, we look for a specific timbre in the music we like, and we feel deceived when we are told it is otherwise. I believe Nietzsche had it right when he began associating performance ("drunken emotion") with other qualifying terms of music as an art. The very human imperfection that is prone in all human performance, that can make different renditions of the same composition different experiences entirely, is at least something we look for in music we appreciate.
Does sound origin play a significant role in music?