# Should music try to reach great depths or simply entertain?



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

I think art music strives to reach new depths while at the same time ridding itself of any entertaining aspects that music could have. Commercialism in art music is seen as a detrimental force. To a large extent, I agree. I think composers should remain true to their own artistic convictions, and if that means writing dissonant and complex music then they should have the opportunity to "get it out there".

On the flip side, I'm sure there are very few people in this world who don't like some form of music that entertains. This could be popular classical (a category that demands debate itself!), jazz, close-harmony singing, pop, rock, etc.

The situation we have is that art and commercial music are travelling in parallel lines, but travelling miles away from each other. My question to you is this: "Should art music be able to entertain and should commercial music try to reach new depths, or should the two musics just stay separate as they do now?"


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Both! Although that's a likely answer.

Only the masters are able to combine depth with diversion in the same work.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Only the masters are able to combine depth with diversion in the same work.


Well said. Regardless of the genre.


----------



## haydnfan (Apr 13, 2011)

Edward Elgar said:


> Commercialism in art music is seen as a detrimental force.


Many composers of the 20th century felt the same way, hence the trend towards more private compositions. BUT... if art music wasn't diverting, we wouldn't be here. I think that art music is entertaining... on its own terms. Similarly music written commercially to be entertaining can also be artistic and deep.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

haydnfan said:


> Many composers of the 20th century felt the same way, hence the trend towards more private compositions. BUT... if art music wasn't diverting, we wouldn't be here. I think that art music is entertaining... on its own terms. Similarly music written commercially to be entertaining can also be artistic and deep.


Right, I agree, and would like to add that art music should be entertaining (on its own terms) primarily to the composer--not necessarily to the audience. That should come fairly naturally if "composers remain true to their own artistic convictions," in the words of the OP. It's even very likely that the audience and the composer would have two completely different ideas about entertainment, and/or would derive entertainment from music in two completely different ways (i.e. the composer is entertained by creating the work, while the audience expects to be entertained by listening to it).


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

whatever they compose if people like it than it is entertaining. i don't think that degrades the composer.

i think the music should entertain because reaching new heights can also be entertaining.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

There are many attributes that a _good_ piece of music ought to have, and originality _and_ entertainment come at the top of the list. If composers have 'artistic convictions' that lead them to write pieces that are unentertaining, then they writer something sub-standard. Perhaps it just depends on what you mean by 'entertaining'.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I remember in college my 2D design instructor talked of designs as being either pleasing or interesting, as if those were mutually exclusive. I think he really meant they could be comfortable or uncomfortable, in other words familiar or unfamiliar. Even those attributes are not mutually exclusive. You can cook up a great musical (or visual art) stew by seasoning the familiar with the unfamiliar, the deep with the entertaining, and vice versa.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Polednice said:


> There are many attributes that a _good_ piece of music ought to have, and originality _and_ entertainment come at the top of the list. If composers have 'artistic convictions' that lead them to write pieces that are unentertaining, then they writer something sub-standard. Perhaps it just depends on what you mean by 'entertaining'.


Well, I think that point of view depends on whether or not you believe that the worth of a piece of art depends on what others think of it, and there are good arguments for both sides there. For example, an artist's "artistic convictions" are likely to produce art that's at least entertaining for the artist to create. But must it also be entertaining for the audience in order to be considered good art?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Both! Although that's a likely answer.
> 
> Only the masters are able to combine depth with diversion in the same work.


I also agree with this. The greatest works not only offer emotions that are black and white, but many shades of grey.

We also have to remember things like genre. Of course Mozart's divertimenti or serenades are not going to plumb the depths as much as say his masses...


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Kopachris said:


> Well, I think that point of view depends on whether or not you believe that the worth of a piece of art depends on what others think of it, and there are good arguments for both sides there. For example, an artist's "artistic convictions" are likely to produce art that's at least entertaining for the artist to create. But must it also be entertaining for the audience in order to be considered good art?


I believe art absolutely has to be entertaining to the audience for it to be considered great art. If great art must only appeal to the artist, then there are thousands of masterpieces created every year by children in grade school. There must be recognition by a large number of people interested in a work for that work to be even up for consideration as great art. That large number of people constitute the audience. An artist's convictions might help the artist create a work that she finds appealing, interesting, or valuable, but if no audience agrees, then the work is not worth much as far as society is concerned.



Kopachris said:


> Right, I agree, and would like to add that art music should be entertaining (on its own terms) primarily to the composer--not necessarily to the audience. That should come fairly naturally if "composers remain true to their own artistic convictions," in the words of the OP. It's even very likely that the audience and the composer would have two completely different ideas about entertainment, and/or would derive entertainment from music in two completely different ways (i.e. the composer is entertained by creating the work, while the audience expects to be entertained by listening to it).


Artists should probably not create for the sole purpose of appealing to an audience (unless they need the money), but society will judge the work "not worthy" if there is no audience that finds the work appealing.

The OP asked if composers should aim for great art or to entertain. I think they ought to aim for great art, but the judge of their success will be the acceptance of an audience. As others have pointed out, the great artists manage to create works that appeal to both their artistic sensibilities and to their audience's tastes.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Well, in many ways, I think complex and deep pieces of music ARE entertaining. I am much more entertained when I have to listen to a piece over and over before I "get it" than when I understand the piece right away. To me understanding a deep and complex work is like overcoming an obstacle that you feel great about overcoming when you reach the other side.


----------



## hemidemisemiquaver (Apr 22, 2011)

Kopachris said:


> Right, I agree, and would like to add that art music should be entertaining (on its own terms) primarily to the composer--not necessarily to the audience. That should come fairly naturally if "composers remain true to their own artistic convictions," in the words of the OP. It's even very likely that the audience and the composer would have two completely different ideas about entertainment, and/or would derive entertainment from music in two completely different ways (i.e. the composer is entertained by creating the work, while the audience expects to be entertained by listening to it).


Well, If someone doesn't feel like doing something worthy, it's impossible to expect any sort of appreciation at all from audience. But if they really enjoy what they do instead of pretending their wastepaper-scores are not garbage, grateful listeners will mushroom out. It may not happen in a moment, but still is not a reason to give up. From my experience, sometimes your activity of choice may be not as entertaining as always, but that's OK once again - to create something one needs to mix up hard work and inspiration in right proportion.

Everything that is (subjectively) good sure enough entertains that very subject. And if somebody's favorite composers cast a gloom over them - my condolences.


----------

