he article focuses on the critique of the definition of art by the American art philosopher Arthur Coleman Danto (1924–2013). This definition could be called the “missing link” in the understanding of art for people who do not understand why modern art is art, or openly criticize and abnegate it on the basis of such incomprehension. In Danto’s theory, one can point to three criteria that any object must meet in order to become an artwork – aboutness, embodiment and inclusion in the artworld, in other words, being in a social and historical relationship with all the art that exists to date.However, since any definition should adequately describe every subject to which it applies, the definition of art must be able to explain all expressions of art. Although Danto’s idea has proven its competence in defining visual art, is it as successful in embracing other forms of art, for example, music? The aim of the current study is to find an answer to this question. To achieve this goal, firstly, Arthur Danto’s theory is outlined, and secondly, it is weighed against music. By problematizing the cornerstone of Danto’s theory or the question of indiscernible counterparts, it is ultimately argued that Arthur Danto’s definition of art does not have a capacity to adequately define music, and a solution to this problem is proposed.