The econ­omy of mu­sic is con­cerned with the eco­nomi­cal ap­pli­ca­tion of the mu­si­cal pa­rame­ters.
Here the fol­low­ing prin­ci­ple ap­plies: what­ever can be ex­pres­sed with a motif, does not re­quire a melody or even a se­quence, and what can be ex­pres­sed with a tone should not be ex­pres­sed with a motif.

The pre­cisely pro­por­tioned ap­pli­ca­tion of the mu­si­cal ele­ments is the de­ci­sive fac­tor for the clar­ity of the mu­si­cal state­ment.

Just as the high­est con­cen­tra­tion of carbon cre­ates the clar­ity of the dia­mond, while the lack of den­sity in carbon causes the opaque blackness of coal, like­wise the high con­cen­tra­tion of the mu­si­cal ele­ments in the form of mu­si­cal sim­plic­ity makes the com­po­si­tion “trans­par­ent”: makes it per­fect mu­sic.

The im­por­tance of pro­por­tioning the pa­rame­ters of space and time has been pre­vi­ously de­scribed, and the same im­por­tance ap­plies to the pro­por­tioning of all the other pa­rame­ters – where “pro­por­tioning” does not mean equal­ity or equali­za­tion, as for ex­ample in twelve-tone-mu­sic.

Just as the head has a di­men­sion of tasks dif­fer­ent from that of the foot, in the same way the motif and the sound be­long to dif­fer­ent di­men­sions, and the se­quence too is of quite a dif­fer­ent or­der of magnitude than the motif.

The ef­fect of pro­por­tioning in such a way, that all com­po­nents are of equal im­por­tance, is dem­on­strated by twelve-tone-mu­sic and its fur­ther de­vel­op­ment, the serial com­pos­ing tech­nique.

And what hap­pens when, for ex­ample, the foot gains a greater im­por­tance in mu­sic than the head, and even be­gins to rule over the head, is dem­on­strated by the en­tire en­ter­tain­ment mu­sic.

The econ­omy of mu­sic not only com­prises the en­tire im­por­tant field of the proper pro­por­tioning of the sound, motif, melody, se­quence, and har­mony, but also the pro­por­tioning of the mo­tifs amongst each other, the tonalities amongst each other, the se­quences amongst each other – and even the tones amongst each other.

In ad­di­tion, the econ­omy of mu­sic also con­cerns the in­vest­ment of en­ergy by the lis­tener dur­ing the hear­ing proc­ess.
If the lis­tener, for ex­ample, has to resist dis­so­nances, the en­tire con­cert for him is un­eco­nom­ical, and men­tally-spiri­tu­ally he has made a “bad deal.” And only if, af­ter lis­ten­ing to mu­sic, he is happy, strength­ened and full of en­ergy, will he have made a “good deal” men­tally-spiri­tu­ally.

Whether the lis­tener “wins” or “loses” while lis­ten­ing to mu­sic, de­pends on the natu­ral or­gani­za­tion of the com­po­si­tional pa­rame­ters in the mu­si­cal work – on the in­te­gra­tion of the com­po­si­tion, and on the per­sua­sive power of the piece of mu­sic: it de­pends on the en­tire econ­omy of mu­sic it­self.