Do I think that 'integral' folks would be more likely to enjoy my music than non-'integral' folks? Yes.
I think it's a practical way to find artists with whom we relate existentially more than artistically or aesthetically.
The reason I think music is one of the highest art forms is the fact that it can be incorporated in almost every aspect of life...
I suppose that integral art does not even require the artist to be familiar with integral theory. The best definitions of things are the ones that fit the most circumstances of the case trying to be defined without violating the class of the case trying to be defined. So basic...
I find that I live a more spiritually fulfilling life if I am reading books on spiritual topics. This is similar with music... music that interacts with my soul in a way that coexists and becomes intimate with my consciousness at the moment is much more powerful than music which simply presents me with an emotion or with an experience to which my present consciousness does not contribute. To be general, I am not interested in HAPPY music or SAD music or ANGRY music. I want music with which I can be HAPPY, SAD, or ANGRY and with which these feelings move dynamically.
Taking this idea, what is integral music?
It's music with which I can move integrally, which affirms that very broad understanding, which does not necessarily contain all the quandrants, but music which encourages existing with that awareness of those quadrants, which doesn't tie me down. I find that many artists pull me into a certain place and it can be difficult to conceive of other perspectives when listening to them. I think that integral art encourages more levels of awareness inherantly by what it omits, in a tunnel vision sense, not by what it includes. It's just open and ready to be given the context that art always begs to be given.