"We should never confuse music and noise: music is an orderly progression of sounds, noise is a disorderly one."

How would this be translated into a standard argument?

It may or may not be valid.

I'm not sure that you can use logic in that statement.  Logic requires "givens".  Nothing is necessarily a given.  There is no objective stance one can take.  What I consider to be music, another may consider noise (ask my dad when I was growing up).  

Stomp is a perfect example.  They make noise (in an orderly fashion) by banging garbage cans.

Tough one from a common-sense perspective.  Sitar and rap music may sound like noise to me, but to someone else, it would be audio nectar of the gods.

From a purely logical standpoint, I think the statement is rational.  Basically, the argument is that noise is not equal to music.  If one accepts the definition of music as an "orderly progression of sounds," and if noise is not music, then noise is not an orderly progression of sounds.  If it is not orderly, then it must, by definition, be disorderly.  Since noise is in fact sounds, but it is not orderly, it therefore cannot be considered music.  The weakness in the argument is accepting the definition of music.

Does that help?  Give me time for three more beers (about 5 minutes) and I can shovel some more sh...I mean, stuff, that sounds even better.

define order

no he didn't

All propositions are considered true.

So this is what I am going with:
All music is an orderly progression of sounds.
No thing that we should confuse with noise is an orderly progression of sound.
No music is a thing that we should confuse with noise.

thanks for the help.

If you employ logic, facts, truth, and sound reasoning to a debate it is music.  If you're a Defecrat you make noise.

Simple.