A couple suggestions

[select_this]

May I ask which sound you are streaming that isn't music that you find too confusing to label as music?

Long ambient background sound loops wouldn't be classified as music, but most likely would be streamed. Not sure how common these are but I've used them extensively in the past.

[Hapax]

Long ambient background sound loops wouldn't be classified as music

Some may consider them to the music of nature (or of whatever the ambience might be) 
The part you quoted was less about things that aren't music and more about things that are too confusing.

[select_this]

Some may consider them to the music of nature.

We're programmers, we shouldn't be that poetic!

I still find it odd that the class is named for a specific use case (music) rather than what it actually is (audio stream). I don't really feel all that strongly either way, but it seems at odds with the rest of the library.

[GraphicsWhale]

I don't think this conversation will ever lead anywhere productive at this point. Can't tell if we're either not understanding each other or we just have different opinions, but I'm lost. But I will say this:

I really don't care that much about the naming of the class Sound. It's mostly Music. According to Google (because we all know Google is the one and only true God, the kingdom of the internet, that we'd all be lost without), the definition of music (there's two definitions, but this is the one referring to the audio music) is:

vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion.

I consider this definition an accurate representation of what most people think of when they hear the word "music". With that said, the reason why I point that out is because music has a pretty concrete meaning of a certain type of sound.

Music in SFML, on the other hand, is simply anything that streams directly from the file.

There's a lot more to streaming audio directly from a file than music. Therefore, I think it's in the best interest to have it changed to a more "useful" name.

[Hapax]

Music in SFML, on the other hand, is simply anything that streams directly from the file.

You can make other wrappers that use an sf::SoundStream for your purposes.

There's a lot more to streaming audio directly from a file than music. Therefore, I think it's in the best interest to have it changed to a more "useful" name.

I find only five letters to be extremely useful.

I still find it odd that the class is named for a specific use case [...] rather than what it actually is

Not that odd, really.
sf::Texture is named for its specific use case (and its location) when it's really just an image.
sf::Sprite is named for its specific use case when it's really just a rectangle, or a vertex array.

We're programmers, we shouldn't be that poetic!

There's poetry in everything, including programs! 

[select_this]

sf::Texture is named for its specific use case (and its location) when it's really just an image.
sf::Sprite is named for its specific use case when it's really just a rectangle, or a vertex array.

I'm not sure these examples correlate with mine. Both of these terms are industry standard for a particular concept, if you will, whereas 'Music' just implies that the class is to be used with one specific type / style of audio (texture doesn't imply certain types of images, for example - or perhaps it does and I just interpret that word differently to everyone else ).

I should add that I think that very few people have ever been all that fussed by this (at least none that I'm aware of, besides this topic). It's perhaps an oddity at worst, and certainly not a dealbreaker by any means.

[Jonny]

I don't think this conversation will ever lead anywhere productive at this point. Can't tell if we're either not understanding each other or we just have different opinions

Differing opinions, definitely. I don't really see how it's anything other than that?

Also, if we're going to start whipping out dictionary definitions in a feeble attempt at proving our opinions are correct, I advocate that these names shall be changed:

sf::Texture is NOT
"the feel, appearance, or consistency of a surface or a substance."

sf::Lock is NOT
"a mechanism for keeping a door, window, lid, or container fastened, typically operated by a key."

Amongst others. Also, ConvexShape isn't always convex. Also Microsoft is neither micro, nor soft. Wait... My chrome I'm using isn't chrome?!?!

A name is a name, just that. I actually agree that sound/music aren't really the best names for these things, but I haven't seen a single suggestion here (or anywhere else) which is any better. In particular your buffered/unbuffered suggestions are just as misleading as Hapax pointed out ( I won't comment on the barrage of pedantry which followed...)

Also, RE the various comments about documentation. If programming was so easy that someone could just pick it up without reading up, We'd all have a lot more industry competition. If you jump into something without knowing what you're doing then you should fully expect to have issues (not saying this is a bad way to do things, in fact, I frequently jump into things without even attempting to learn them, but then I only hold myself responsible when things go wrong)

[GraphicsWhale]

sf::Texture is NOT
"the feel, appearance, or consistency of a surface or a substance."

sf::Texture is named for its specific use case (and its location) when it's really just an image.

An SFML texture corresponds with an OpenGL texture, so it's not out of place. As for why they're called textures in the first place, I don't know.

sf::Sprite is named for its specific use case when it's really just a rectangle, or a vertex array.

A "sprite" is something that exists in lots of libraries/engines. It's a standard name.

sf::Lock is NOT
"a mechanism for keeping a door, window, lid, or container fastened, typically operated by a key."

Request it to be changed to sf::MutexLock, then.

[Satus]

As somebody new to SFML, the difference between Sound and Music was perfectly clear for me even without documentation.
By the way: QSound, QSoundEffect
Just sayin'

[jamesL]

..................

can't take a joke or understand sarcasm

[GraphicsWhale]

As somebody new to SFML, the difference between Sound and Music was perfectly clear for me even without documentation.

Average rate that people immediately know the difference: 100%
Sample size: 1

By the way: QSound, QSoundEffect

Can you explain your point, instead of giving me links to qt documentation? I can't tell what kind of message you're trying to convey here.

[GraphicsWhale]

..................

can't take a joke or understand sarcasm

I... I legitimately have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

[Jesper Juhl]

What about the people who think they're too good for documentation? Even if they don't want to learn, it's not always a bad idea to give some sort of hint of the differences in the name.

I agree that names should try to indicate what classes/functions represent. Sure.
I'm not so sure that changing these names buys us much when it comes to clarity.
But what I really want to comment on is your statement above about people who can't be bothered to read docs. Well, in my opinion, such people are just beyond reach/hope and not worth spending time on or worry about.
If you can't be bothered to read the documentation you'll have problems with any library - regardless of naming. And in any case, you probably should not be programming professionally.
Using this as an argument really doesn't convince me in any way. It's just saying that SFML should cater to idiots and I don't agree with that.

[GraphicsWhale]

What about the people who think they're too good for documentation? Even if they don't want to learn, it's not always a bad idea to give some sort of hint of the differences in the name.

I agree that names should try to indicate what classes/functions represent. Sure.
I'm not so sure that changing these names buys us much when it comes to clarity.
But what I really want to comment on is your statement above about people who can't be bothered to read docs. Well, in my opinion, such people are just beyond reach/hope and not worth spending time on or worry about.
If you can't be bothered to read the documentation you'll have problems with any library - regardless of naming. And in any case, you probably should not be programming professionally.
Using this as an argument really doesn't convince me in any way. It's just saying that SFML should cater to idiots and I don't agree with that.

Hey, if it's good enough for an idiot, it's probably excellent for anyone who actually knows what they're doing.

Also, I wouldn't consider most of the usage of SFML to fall under the category of "programming professionally". These "easy" wrappers for window management (and other utilities) might be capable of being used professionally, but most of the time they're used for making bad pong clones. SFML especially (since these types of people also seem to flock to C++).

Not trying to insult SFML, or say that this is true to anyone on the forum, but there's a lot of beginners who like to use this library.

EDIT: Just for clarification, I am not saying I want SFML to cater to idiots. I honestly couldn't care less about making life easier for those who refuse to read the docs. However, I also don't want the names to be misleading (which is what I believe the class Music does).

[Hapax]

In hope that this is still a discussion and not an argument...

An SFML texture corresponds with an OpenGL texture, so it's not out of place.

I have no problem with it being called Texture but since you think things should be named more specifically for their usage, this should at least be sf::OpenGlTexture, right?

As for why they're called textures in the first place, I don't know.

I do 
They're mapped to polygons to represent a surface.

sf::Sprite is named for its specific use case when it's really just a rectangle, or a vertex array.

A "sprite" is something that exists in lots of libraries/engines. It's a standard name.

I have no problem with sprite. I think you again misunderstood what I was saying.

Microsoft is neither micro, nor soft.

It's micro-computer software...

barrage of pedantry

you probably should not be programming professionally.

Don't worry; I won't 

If you can't be bothered to read the documentation you'll have problems with any library - regardless of naming.

Exactly.

Both of these terms are industry standard for a particular concept, if you will, whereas 'Music' just implies that the class is to be used with one specific type / style of audio (texture doesn't imply certain types of images, for example - or perhaps it does and I just interpret that word differently to everyone else ).

I think they're very similar. Texture implies that it's to be used with one specific type of image, for example.

most of the time they're used for making bad pong clones.

Thanks