So, if I've got this right, the main issue comes down to the answers to two questions:
Can (an effective level of) music be heard above the noise of (a given) battle?
And if it can...
Does the ability Enchanting Music work upon those who are already engaged in battle?
It seems to me that there has been a bit of conflating of those two questions.
The second question is really a bigger question:
Can Enchanting Music affect anyone who is not already a rapt and undistracted audience?
I'd think the answer has to be "yes, it can." Otherwise the use of the ability at banquets, fairs or other common events would be impossible.
Which would be silly.
There could and should, however, be bonuses to the Stamina resistance roll of each target depending on the level of emotional engagement with something else. I suggest +1-+3
Saying that Enchanting music cannot affect people who are already feeling strong emotions or mental states (such as terror or murderous rage) is likewise just silly, and goes against the entire purpose of the ability.
Saying that it cannot affect people who are engaged in another activity because they're not concentrating on the music is likewise just silly. That would suggest that people at a fair who are shopping, or at a feast who are eating, are likewise immune to the effects.
Again, silly.
The only way that makes sense is to use Enchanting Music is to use it the same way as every other ability in the ArM5 system.
Describe the effect. The effect is always possible, but is subject to the sliding scale of ease-factors.
If Enchanting Music was going to be the one and only exception to this universal system, somebody would have said so.
If you are actively engaged in combat, singing for enchanting music should be hard. On the other hand, if the singer is behind the battle lines. Ducked down behind cover and the only thing the singer is doing is singing. It isn't going to be nearly as hard. If the singer starts singing loudly the moment the enemy is sighted so that they hear the music before the actual exchange of weapons begins, it is all that much more effective.
By the way, archery fire is not very noisy even with 10-20 bows going.
That link does make it clear that when you have a couple dozen horses, 50-100 men and 20-25 archers, it can get noisy. Even the archer fire wasn't that loud though. In a big battle, you would have to start at the very edge with the 4-5 people at the edge and then slowly work your way in. Not really practical. A village in a large clearing with barriacades it around expecting attack by 11 mercenaries and planning to effect those mercenaries as they charge in (goal is to passify the 10 not possessed by the demon and the three warriors getting the demon possessed one).
I think this subtle point underlies a big part of this discussion: to cast a Range:Eye spell, how long must eye contact be held? I don't think the RAW is clear on this point; I think, for example, that it's consistent with the interpretation "even the merest instant of eye contact is enough". Personally I disagree with that: I think the casting of a Range:Eye spell takes sustained eye contact, certainly more than a second (but not more than a round, i.e., six seconds). So under my interpretation, casting a Range:Eye spell at my combat opponent is indeed all but impossible. IMS magi can't just cast a Range:Eye spell at a speaker from the audience, for example - they'd have to do something noticeable to get the speaker to look at them for some seconds (not impossible by any means, just not going to happen without some action on their part).
All this just developed into a grog/companion adventure for my incoming saga 
Cheers,
Xavi
This I read, but I do not think it is true IRL. When I duel with someone I only look at his/her eyes; new people telegraph where they will hit, more experienced people will look at your telegraphing, if you do not fixate your eyes onto theirs, you will find it hard not to look where you intend to strike.
Looking at someone's eyes is not the same as making eye contact.
Yeah, but it was way cool fx.
Hrmmm - perhaps that was not the clearest example, exactly because of that noise. My point was less the noise than the physical chaos and psychological environment, and what individual combatants were focused on - which would not have been one person singing.
Let's try this one - it's only 57 seconds long, and only involving 2 combatants in the silence of the woods, but (aside from one "blade lick", just for mandatory BBEG gloating and creepiness) I see very few moments when either combatant could have stopped to "hear the music". The keyword here is "focus", and the intensity of the combat itself, which is all the distraction one needs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhlfRdgaO1g
So you believe that it is just a spell with Range:Music - which puts you in the D&D "Bardic Music" category. And in the minority here. (Neither of which surprises me.) Knock yourself out for your saga, but that's not relevant to how we're discussing things.
Sorry, I have long ago stopped reading most any of your posts. This was an exception because you were quoted by someone else - and I'm already regretting it. As I said above, for me the clip had less to do with the noise than the overall chaos and focus of combatants, and largely regarding "eye contact", which was the context of the post - something it's important to consider when communicating.
As RoS states above, I never got the impression that "catching someone's eye" was the same as "eye contact". I've always had the impression that EC had to be maintained more or less for the duration of casting - a moment is not "momentary", a round or so - otherwise one could not be sure they had it at the exact instant of casting. And, no - it never specifies that - but for me there is no other explanation of why it prohibits Eye contact in combat, and (again, for me) there is a diff between connecting with a glance and "eye contact".
But we reinforce the tangent. Out.
Well, yes, there were a couple tangents that took off in other directions (ahem), but those two questions are tied together at some point. It was unclear which the OP was inquiring about - it merely said "used in combat", and so any and all considerations were relevant.
However, the first question does not revolve around "noise", or not noise alone. As (I hope) I demonstrated more aptly with the above clip, combat is about "focus". The din of battle would reduce the intensity of any new outside stimulus, but - as anyone who has watched two high-schoolers fight while a teacher shouts at them to stop - it's not always about "hearing", nor even (at first) about being grabbed by your collar and shaken.
Well, slow down. What would be "silly" would be to suggest that eating, shopping and conversing are as distracting and engrossing as fighting for one's life.
There is a focus described by people who are in mortal combat, that their senses all "narrow", sometimes quite literally, and they become aware of little else. They lose peripheral vision, they lose the sound of any onlookers - it's a survival thing.
Of course, those people often die when a second combatant walks up behind them and taps them lightly on the head with an axe - so there are variations on personal reaction and perception, clearly.
Which gets us back to your suggestion...
This seems perfectly reasonable, and is actually supported by the rules - which require that "people can understand" what is sung. So how does a SG determine this? With that second roll - the first for EM (to see if the effect would be adequate), and the second for the target(s) (whether each hears it or not) based on the environment.
As has been pointed out (almost?) unanimously, a slow, personal, banter-filled formal duel (see Princess Bride) is a far cry from a grand melee - and yet both are "battles". Are we talking of a dozen armoured grogs, three flambeaux and a dragon, or just a half dozen stave-wielding villages vs a mentalist? When in doubt (and you don't want to just make a SG decision), roll the dice.
The issue of focus in regards to magic is interesting:
So you would contend that a spell with voice range requires that the person actively listen to be affected and that all you need to do is having someone focused on something and they can't be hit by pilum of fire or any of many other voice based spells.
The bear charging at you to eat you is focused on its hunger that soothe the beast can't calm it to send it away?
Do you have to pay attention to magic that transmits through sound (enchanting music, voice ranged spells) before they can affect a person. One of the greatest strengths of enchanting music is that you don't realize that the magic is being heard in background and affecting you.
I can agree din might be somewhat of issue but I am not convinced on that. Focus or lack of focus though is not acceptable otherwise it is way to easy to avoid.
Whoa - we can stop right there.
For one, Range:Voice does not require hearing, much less "listening" - it works just fine on the deaf and on inanimate objects.
But more to the point, I believe I made it clear above that I do not see Enchanting Music as a "spell" with Range:Music. It's a supernatural ability, with an effect based on the power of the music/song itself. And as such, it requires more than just "hearing".
If EM were spell-like it would simply say as much in the description, similar to the "Magical Feat" gained via Mythic Blood - but it doesn't. It has a diff set of guidelines (if, perhaps, less than perfectly specific.)
Sorry, i wasnt clear enough, i didnt say it isnt, i meant that the specifics of the music doesnt have to have any relation to what the effect is. Exactly because the music IS magical.
Mmm, basically, if you play an upbeat tune with just normal music you might get listeners to be slightly more energetic or active, but with Ench.Mu. you can play an upbeat tune that makes the listeners tired and drowsy, or anything you wish.
As RAW says, "...the magical effect is independent of this, unless you botch..."(ref rolling for quality of music/performance).
Maintaining eyecontact for the greater part of a round? That´s not so much eyecontact as it´s staring at someone!
If asked to define, ill say something like ~maintaining eyecontact beyond a glance, long enough that both sides clearly aknowledge or notice it. A momentary glance certainly isnt enough, but you shouldnt need a staring contest for the Range to be valid.
Exactly! Fencing? Your description sounds more like that than something H2H martial arts at least?
Considering the attackers are charging into villagers, I don't think this is mortal combat but rather a raid.
Both "You can calm the grieving with tunes alone" and "General effects work on animals" disagree with your "people can understand".
I reiterate that there's a difference between hearing and listening: you don't have to be aware to hear, but it's hard to understand unless you listen.
Incorrect. People need to understand what is sung IF and ONLY if it includes specific suggestions. Otherwise they only need to hear it. As, and ill quote RAW again shall i? "...the magical effect is independent of this, unless you botch..."
Yes very cool Hollywood style sfx...
And from where exactly did you get the notion that people need to focus on listening?
And as usual you jump to wrong conclusions.
First, i dont consider it a "Range", second, i dont see anyone agreeing with you.
Who said it was?
Not really.
You sharpen your senses whenever in a situation where you might get an adrenaline rush, it´s part of the same bodily response package reacting to danger, excitement, fear etc. You focus your senses, you do NOT block out the rest of the world unless you´re an absolute noob or an idiot.
Anyone involved in remotely serious extent of martial arts practise or competition will tell you this or something similar.
Yes i noticed you made yourself look silly a few times because of it already. The really silly part is that you skip my posts mostly due to an argument where i was simply relying on RAW.
I was responding to Henricus. If quoted, it would look like this:
Looking at someone's eyes is not the same as making eye contact.
[/quote]
As RoS states above, I never got the impression that "catching someone's eye" was the same as "eye contact".
[/quote]
Who said it was?
[/quote]
Cuchulainshound,
Yeah, what I was pointing out is that it is silly to draw a hard line, rather than have a sliding scale of ease factors, especially if that hard line is based on the notion that 'if they're not actively listening, it can't work.'
That hard line would not just exclude reasonable targets, like injured Berserkers in the middle of a massive battle, surrounded by screams and steel, but also fairgoers buying turnips. Not because they're 'comparable' by scale, but because they share an arbitrary definition that's blind to scale.
That blindness to scale is what doesn't work for ArM5.
But if you concur that the sliding-scale of ease factors is the way to go, then there's really not much to argue about. The problem has come up in a saga some of us are in, where there's a bit of a brawl going on and a companion wants to use EM to calm things down. Not my companion, but still. The SG wants to simply bar the player from even trying, on the basis that EM can only work if the people are actively listening.
The other player and I are saying that it only has to be 'heard' as a melody to take effect, whatever the surrounding circumstances. This means that a sliding scale of ease factors are appropriate.
The character may burn a Confidence point, and for all I know has good enough stats to calm a mild brawl. Or maybe not. But its a good thing to get straight.
For a bar-fight, I'd argue the Ease Factor is 12-15 in Com + Music (heard over loud noises, must be forceful and clear of voice.), with the targets getting + 2 on Stamina resistance.
If the character has Communication 3 and Music 6, marking her as a truly great vocalist, one of the better in any given country, she might well make the roll.
For a comparable mental image reflecting the scores involved, imagine you're in a barfight and all of a sudden Celine Dion busts in and starts belting out that goddam song from Titanic. You telling me that would go unnoticed by you?
Unless the attackers are literally slaughtering the helpless, or they are truly "over confident", any time you face a defender it's potentially dangerous, ergo "mortal".
That's for "general effects" - it's critical to understand the words if the singer/caster is seeking something more specific.
NO! You're WRONG! There is ALWAYS something more to argue about! 
Yeah, unless it's something critical to the plot (and even then), that's pretty weak. There may not be much of a chance, but there's always a chance.
No, but I'd die pretending I didn't notice. 
"Oh well, I don't feel like fighting anymore" sounds pretty general effect to me. Specific effects are more akin to assigning targets for the emotion/feeling: "give your target:gold to the target:singer."
Have I to remind that Enchanting Music ONLY affect emotions. Not actions?
Fear, shame, courage, happyness, wrath, sloth, resolution., all 7 deadly sins... all are emotions or can be heavily influenced by your emotional state . It can be quite powerful. A fearsome or ashamed dude does not fight as resolutely as one that thinks he is doing it to protect women and children and has the courage to back this up resolutely and a wrathful noble is much more likely to cause conflict with his neighbours than a happy one
Cheers,
Xavi