>>20 I didn't read that post carefully enough. Sorry about that.
When I wrote function, it was not meant as genre.
Military music and music used for military purposes has a subtle difference. Yes, there is the music used to rally the troops, but there is also the use of music to break enemy will before interrogating them.
As I wrote before, stress relief is but a minor use of music. Industrialized countries have the "luxury" of it, but they are a small percentage of the whole world. What you say is totally right, but I like thinking broader.
As for medicine, there is music therapy. Not the one where you make people listen to joyful music to cure them of depression (that would be too simple). I am referring here to using music to aid people recovering from a brain trauma and etc.
Yes. I must agree with ads being good examples of music used to manipulated people's opinion.
I respect musicians, but I wouldn't say they have any power at all.
I mean, nowadays, most of them are contracted to companies to dictates their lives and the songs they sing. Their public image is also controlled by their companies. Therefore, it is not really the MUSICIANS who are affecting society through THEIR music (if it even belongs to them).
Sorry if I sounded offensive with the way I formulated my arguments.
"Mood" and "beauty" are significant possible characteristics of music for western civilizations, but not for all civilizations in the world. Not all music has lyrics nor imply a significant message/meaning. There must be more ways for music to affect societies that aren't restricted to those properties.
It really does depend on your definition of music, I guess.