Should we think of music as an object or an act?

In traditional Western thought, the language used to describe music appears to treat it as an "object" that results from the work of composers. Scholars and music-enthusiasts discuss these musical objects (or "works") as if they exist outside of performances of them, like artefacts in a museum. Western notational and analytical practice also encourages this way of thinking as scholars will rarely refer to any specific performance when analysing a piece of music, instead choosing to focus their attention on the score in front of them. Although this might be of some help in our conversations about music in a practical sense, one could argue that we might inadvertently be losing the essence of music - the practice and process of musical performance and reception. Multiple other cultures, especially those with long-standing improvisatory traditions, do not have the object-oriented way of thinking about music used by those in the Western world. Instead, music is considered by them to be an act, an often communal process that exists only in the moment in which it is performed by the musicians. The object-oriented view of music places the composer in a position of authority over the other members of the musical process (the performer and the listener) because they are the creator of the object. Perhaps our musical culture would benefit from a more act-oriented view that identifies greater value in the role of the performer and the listener. This might open up new avenues for composers to think about how they write their music, and for performers to think about their role in the process of music-making.