Yes, that makes a lot more sense in my head (a somewhat vacuous space that tends to echo a great deal deal deal deal).

My field is sociology so I will be of little use. However, I would start with your starting point - music is sound organized by the action or perception of human beings - and introduce some of Foucault's theories of bio-power. Consider also that the music tends to reflect the class structure prevalent at the time and place being considered. Recalling that, until relatively recently, all things Celt were dismissed with a primitivist discourse, it is of little wonder that we do not see more courtly music within this tradition.

When we look to places outside of colonial European influence we see music as the sounds which reflect daily life. In pre-invasion Tibet, all songs were either of a religious nature or reflected a specific task. There were songs for haying, songs for building, songs (and a dance) for tamping the soil-covered roofs. We see the same tendency in pre-colonial African cultures and in Celtic traditions. The Celts have songs for worsting wool, for haying, for worship, for all aspects of life. They also used music as a way of remembering information. In fact, now that I think of it, I have heard of songs in several languages that are specifically for learning and remembering information, from songs for school children to grand bardic tales.

My answer to your question would then be: music is a form of cultural expression that may reflect common activities (do we see this represented in modern 'gangsta rap'?); may reinforce cultural values, norms, mores which would include religion, warnings of what to avoid doing, and songs of praise for what is to be encouraged; may reflect social standing (how many people today consider orchestral music to be 'high class'?); and, in more recent times, music may simply be yet another commodity, just a product for sale.

I don't know if any of that is of use to you but, for what it's worth, I offer.