>It says that
>music is the variable manipulation of sound frequencies as an
>expressive art.

And which fulfills our expectations of "music." This is not a small point.

>With 'all of sound' as potentially
>manipulated, identified as variable or the varied nature of
>sound, historically human beings have grown in the levels of
>variability.

Eh...

>Electronic takes that a step further.

You're claiming that electronic music has superseded all older forms of music, then. Like jazz is the "culmination" of all before it (which I also think is wrong), electronic is, because of the near-infinite range of sounds available, also a culmination.

So how is this different than just "more = better?"

>Deconstruction is the taking
>apart of the elements so as to only use parts in the
>construction of something other. Reconstruction is the taking
>apart of a thing to reshape it into the something other.

I think the relationships between various forms of music are much more complex and nuanced than what you described before, and that reduction to these two categories is probably not that useful a way of thinking about them.

>It's a later point, which isn't necessarily going to be even
>touched on in this series. But yeah pulled out as two phrases
>it seems complicated and I don't know that it's not. Further
>I don't know that it can not be at this juncture. It's a later
>point which the language of variability will help elucidate.

I'd do some reading in general critical theory, and work with that language, especially in aesthetics and genre.